View Full Version : another horrible high school shooting in Ohio
flowerseverywhere
2-28-12, 8:37am
Words cannot express how awful it is to have another tragic shooting in a high school. My heart goes out to all of those affected.
I don't understand why this keeps happening.
Very tragic. Bless the families.
Originally posted by Flowerseverywhere.
I don't understand why this keeps happening.Maybe the NRA will weigh-in on the matter, providing the public (and those who lost loved ones) with an explanation, while at the same time, reiterating the importance of ones right to bare arms (and carry).
IMO, as long as the current US policy is allowed to stand, where people (anyone) can possess firearms and in turn, take those firearms with them anywhere, i.e., to schools, universities, public swimming pools, theatres, hospitals, public events, restaurants, bowling alleys, you name it, in other words anywhere/everywhere, the people of the United States will continue to bare witness to such ill-reminders of a failed system.
When government and organizations choose to run a country with the mindset of a continuation of the wild, wild west, then this is ultimately the end result. (This is what happens). HELLO!!! WAKEY- WAKEY! (Anyone home in the White House)?
But what amazes me the most regarding the gun-policy in the US, is that originally, at least according to how I understand it, the law to "bare arms", was upheld to provide homeowners with the means to rightfully protect their property, yet somehow, along the way, the law was extended forth (and beyond) to allow regular, ordinary, everyday people (citizens) to possess (and carry) willy-nilly fashion (outside of their homes), and from a sane standpoint, that is absurd.
Very tragic. Bless the families.
Maybe the NRA will weigh-in on the matter, providing the public (and those who lost loved ones) with an explanation, while at the same time, reiterating the importance of ones right to bare arms (and carry).
IMO, as long as the current US policy is allowed to stand, where people (anyone) can possess firearms and in turn, take those firearms with them anywhere, i.e., to schools, universities, public swimming pools, theatres, hospitals, public events, restaurants, bowling alleys, you name it, in other words anywhere/everywhere, the people of the United States will continue to bare witness to such ill-reminders of a failed system.
When government and organizations choose to run a country with the mindset of a continuation of the wild, wild west, then this is ultimately the end result. (This is what happens). HELLO!!! WAKEY- WAKEY! (Anyone home in the White House)?
But what amazes me the most regarding the gun-policy in the US, is that originally, at least according to how I understand it, the law to "bare arms", was upheld to provide homeowners with the means to rightfully protect their property, yet somehow, along the way, the law was extended forth (and beyond) to allow regular, ordinary, everyday people (citizens) to possess (and carry) willy-nilly fashion, and from a sane standpoint, absurd.
Except that none of those assumptions are true. There are strict limitations on who may possess and carry firearms, as well as strict limitations on where they may be legally carried.
In the incident cited, the juvenile involved had no legal right to possess the weapon, anywhere at any time, especially at his school as it is illegal for anyone other than law enforcement personnel to carry a weapon on school property.
The system is not failed per se, but admittedly flawed, IMHO, as it allows, in many states, everyday people the ability to protect themselves from this sort of wanton destruction just about everywhere except the location of this tragic violence.
At this point in the story, I'm guessing prescription psychoactive drugs. Every third kid seems to be on one or another.
I agree whole-heartedly Mrs. M., but you know what the gun owners here are going to say................
In this country, the rights of the individual are more important than the rights of the whole................which will lead to nothing good.
And the right to bare arms was written back when there wasn't much of a system of law to protect people.
I see this country as "individual rights gone awry". Like a cancer that the body is supporting and giving rights to. That body won't last long.
Originally posted by Alan.
There are strict limitations on who may possess and carry firearms, as well as strict limitations on where they may be legally carried. This is where I get lost, so many restrictions involved, but it is my understanding that any gun-owner can freely toss a pistol or rifle into their car, and head out for the day to do whatever. If that be the case, then IMO the law is too lax.
JaneV2.0. As an outsider, what I am seeing is a lack of responsible example. When a law affords everyday average citizens the right to drive around in their vehicles with loaded firearms in their possession, that to me does not reflect a healthy and stable example.
Originally posted by CathyA.
I see this country as "individual rights gone awry".I wholeheartedly agree.
Originally posted by CathyA.
the right to bare arms was written back when there wasn't much of a system of law to protect people.This makes solid sense to me. An old, outdated law, in desperate need of a complete overhaul and revamping.
flowerseverywhere
2-28-12, 12:34pm
does anyone know where he got the gun?
There are millions of people around the world who own guns for protection, hunting or sport. They do not shoot and kill innocent people. Most people don't get in a car and drive drunk yet there are DWI deaths every year (probably every day.)
personally I am neutral on the right to bear arms. I don't care to own one but I live in a big hunting area and I don't care if someone else has guns as long as they are properly locked up from children and used with responsibility.
I was trying to find statistics on what the death by gun use rate is in the US and other countries, or even causes of death in the US but could not find a reliable source. Are guns that are used to shoot other people illegal or legal? The nearby city that has some shootings are not done by people who have gun licenses and training, but street thugs from everything I have read. This shooting does not seem to be that type of shooting though.
International rankings:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate
The thought-provoking documentary Bowling for Columbine discusses this at length, pointing out that other countries with liberal gun ownership laws (Canada, Switzerland) don't have the firearms-related carnage we do. American exceptionalism.
Canada, the "second largest nation in the world" ranks "7" on the list of top 10 safest places to live. (The US didn't make the list). So much for allowing every Tom, Dick, and Harry, the right to own and possess.
This is where I get lost, so many restrictions involved, but it is my understanding that any gun-owner can freely toss a pistol or rifle into their car, and head out for the day to do whatever. If that be the case, then IMO the law is too lax.
No, Mrs. M, many gun owners just can't freely throw a gun into their car. Depends on their state laws.
I live in IL, the only state left in the US that doesn't allow some sort of concealed carry. I have to have a FOID (firearms owner ID card) to buy ammo, let alone a long gun OR a handgun (which I am soon going to do, after I take an NRA Basic Pistol class - I've already had one on one training by an instructor). And to get that FOID card, the state police had to do a background check on me. Per IL law, any firearm being transported via vehicle has to be unloaded, in a case, and inaccessible to the driver of the vehicle, which means in the trunk.
I'm going about gun ownership the responsible way. I'll be taking additional classes once I have my handgun.
The 49 other states that allow concealed carry have varied laws on where you can carry. In addition to gov't offices, schools, public libraries, daycare centers are often on the lists for places you're forbidden to cc, although some states have a provision that allow someone picking up a child to cc. Houses of worship, retail stores, workplaces are possibly places you're allowed to carry, depending on the state laws regarding signs, etc.
The gun control laws, including the one that Rahm Emmanuel is trying to get passed in IL (a statewide gun registry), do little to stop people bent on illegal activity, especially those involved in gangs and drug-related activity, from getting guns. They simply restrict law-abiding citizens from getting and carrying handguns to protect themselves.
Canada is in the process of dismantling its own long gun registry.
The IL State Police have a section on their website about women dealing with attackers. One of the methods? Make yourself vomit on your attacker. Puhlease.
And yes, I am an NRA member. If IL gets concealed carry while I still live here, you can be sure I will be applying for it. And carrying concealed once I receive the permit.
Thank you for the information, Tradd.
Originally posted by Tradd.
If IL gets concealed carry while I still live here, you can be sure I will be applying for it. And carrying concealed once I receive the permit.I don't blame you, you reside in a very troubled country.
Mrs. M -
I believe you are uninformed about the state of US firearms laws, and the facts concerning firearms ownership in the USA.
- There are tens of thousands of firearms laws on the books here in the USA.
- Among them are laws requiring background checks and waiting periods for firearms purchases, laws prohibiting murder, prohibiting randomly discharging firearms in public places, using firearms in crimes, carrying firearms into certain places, restrictions on the access of minors and criminals to firearms, and so on.
- There are ~300 million firearms in civilian hands in the USA, and roughly half the households in the USA own firearms. The vast majority of those firearms are not involved in any criminal activity.
- There are a very large number of instances in the USA of law-abiding gun owners using their firearms in self-defense.
- Most states in the USA allow concealed carrying of weapons in public places by law-abiding citizens. A fair number of those states place training and background check requirements and issue licenses or permits to those who qualify. Some states have no restrictions at all.
- States that have adopted laws allowing concealed carry have not seen an increase in violence by the law-abiding gun owner.
- My state, which has one of the most liberal set of laws on concealed carrying, and does not have training requirements, only a criminal background check, and which has had concealed carry for many decades, has not had the streets running red with the blood of innocents.
The fact is, the normal American gun owner is a law-abiding citizen, and seems quite capable of safely owning and operating firearms.
The actions of a very few criminals or demented individuals should not be used as a justification to restrict the liberties of the citizenry. You might as well argue we should all go barefoot because criminals use shoes.
And finally, I find your portrayal of US gun owners, and our culture, quite offensive.
flowerseverywhere
2-28-12, 2:44pm
Canada, the "second largest nation in the world" ranks "7" on the list of top 10 safest places to live. (The US didn't make the list). So much for allowing every Tom, Dick, and Harry, the right to own and possess.
I have been all over this country and have never seen anyone use a firearm in any threatening way. Your picture of life in the US reminds me of a young man I met while in China. He jokingly was telling a story one night about how his grandmother wanted to come to America because it was so exciting. Her picture of the US was one of gun fights on every corner, cars screaming down the streets with people shooting out the windows, and everyone living on Wisteria lane to boot. It is nothing like that here. The very large majority of people never touch a gun in their day to day lives, never see a gun in their day to day lives and have never seen one used or threatened to be used against another human being. A few use guns regularly for target practice or in law enforcement for instance. In fact I don't know one person who has witnessed a shooting or threatened shooting ever.
Canada, the "second largest nation in the world" ranks "7" on the list of top 10 safest places to live. (The US didn't make the list). So much for allowing every Tom, Dick, and Harry, the right to own and possess.
"Canada's population density, at 3.3 inhabitants per square kilometre (8.5 /sq mi), is among the lowest in the world" While Canada may be one of the largest countries in the world size-wise, it has one of the lowest populations in the world. Canada population is approx 33.5 million cmpared to USA population of 313.5 million. Big difference when citing statistics about # of firearms deaths/year. Areas with high population densities would invariably have higher crime rates - as well as higher death rates from all sources including by firearms. And Americans aren't allowed to carry firearms willy-nilly. Each state has different laws from each other. In Calif, unless you have a VERY difficult to get conceal permit, you can not have a loaded firearm other than in your home or at a range. If you are transporting a firearm it has to be unloaded and in a locked case - with the ammo being somewhere seperate. You also can't be within 100 yards or more of any school even with an unloaded firearm. I lived in Canada as a kid and pretty much every person I knew had a firearm (at least a long gun) - usually many of them - and would carry them about at a higher rate than most americans did. My Dad would take us kids shooting in the woods and we'd all carry our own weapons. I've transported my long guns accross canada but not small firearms (illegal to own in Canada I believe). The boy in this shooting stole the weapon from his uncle, who had it stored in his home.
from the Canadian RMP:
Firearm Deaths In Canada
From 1970 to 1996, approximately 37,399 individuals died or were killed as a result of gun shot wounds. This accounts for an average of 1,385 deaths per year over 27 years.
Between 1970 and 1996, 14% of all firearm-related deaths involved homicides.
Between 1987 and 1996, there were approximately 183 firearm homicides per year.
From 1987 to 1996, four percent of firearm-related deaths involve accidents. Every year, a small proportion of firearms deaths (2%) can be attributed to legal intervention (e.g., police shooting of an offender) or undetermined firearm deaths.
Approximately 32% of all homicides involved firearms over the last ten years (1988-1996). Twenty-nine percent involved stabbing, 20% beating, 11% strangulation and the remaining 7% involved other methods (e.g., fire, poisoning).
Between 1987 and 1996, 79% of all firearm-related deaths were suicides. During this period, approximately 28% of all suicides involved firearms, or an average of 1,030 firearm suicides per year.
Between 1989 and 1996, the average annual rate of firearm deaths in all of Canada is 4.5 per 100,000. The Northwest Territories (18.5 per 100,000) reported the highest rate while the Yukon (11.8 per 100,000) and New Brunswick (7.2 per 100,000) reported the second and third highest rate of firearm deaths overall, respectively.
Of course this figure is MUCH higher for the USA but that may mainly be due to it's much higher population rather than it's access to firearms.
"annual rate of firearm deaths in all of Canada is 4.5 per 100,000 - with homicides being 0.76/100K pop." "annual rate of firearm deaths in all of the United States is 10 per 100,000" - with homicides being 4.14/100K pop." This was the average over several years beginning in 2000 and show that, yes, we Americans do have a much greater homicide rate but not that much of a different death rate by firearm. So why is that? Are we more disgruntled compared to Canadians? Is it because of overcrowding and lack of wide open spaces? Is it that we don't have universal healthcare? I'll go with that one :-)!
loosechickens
2-28-12, 2:50pm
Why do YOU think, Tradd, bae, Alan, etc., that the U.S. has such a large number of violent gun incidents? Heck, just the other day I read about some guy going to the bathroom in a stall in a WalMart, whose handgun discharged while he was pulling his pants down or up, and nearly killed some guy at a nearby urinal as the bullet richocheted around the bathroom. I was sitting at a convenience store in the parking lot, and some guy in a pickup came into the parking lot quite quickly, came to an abrupt stop in a parking spot, opened his door and a handgun fell out from under his seat onto the ground.
This country is AWASH in guns, and also awash in yahoos who don't know, don't care and haven't got the brains to use them safely. Not to mention all the folks walking around afraid of their shadows, but feeling "protected" by having guns, who would be unsafe in any emergency requiring their use. Maybe you guys are perfectly safe with your weapons, but believe me, I've seen plenty who are not.
I don't know what the answers are. I'm not anti-gun in general, and my father, ex-husband and son were and are hunters, and I've lived in rural areas where most families' winter meat was venison, but it's getting ridiculous. Thousands of people are killed in this country every year, by accident, in domestic violence, road rage and other emotional situation, and the ready access to guns exacerbates this. Sure you can beat someone to death, or knife them, but pointing a gun is a lot easier and a lot of people seem more than able to kill folks these day with them.
Why is our country so violent? Why are so many incidents happening involving guns? If the problem is that guns don't kill people, people kill people, then maybe we need to think that perhaps the American psyche is too unstable to handle such deadly force.
Maybe it's like the suburbanites in FL riding around in four wheel drive behemoths, when the area hasn't seen snow in anyone's lifetime. The U.S. is no longer a frontier nation, but we retain that frontier mentality, complete with blazing sixguns and now, automatic weapons.
I'm more afraid of the yahoos scared out of their wits of the fear of criminals, and bristling with weaponry to protect themselves than I am from the criminals themselves anymore. Truly.
I can only imagine that Canadians DO look down here and think we're nuts. I would too, from their perspective.
Why do YOU think, Tradd, bae, Alan, etc., that the U.S. has such a large number of violent gun incidents? ..........
Why is our country so violent? Why are so many incidents happening involving guns? If the problem is that guns don't kill people, people kill people, then maybe we need to think that perhaps the American psyche is too unstable to handle such deadly force.
Personally, I think it's because we don't want social issues to inhabit our public space. We don't want to deal with the breakdown of some segments of our society through the loosening of moral standards for fear of being seen as failing to embrace diversity and other such foolishness.
When we establish and embrace social programs designed to maintain a caste system, including a permanent underclass of "victims", we shouldn't be surprised when the "victims" rebel and establish patterns of violence within their caste. I believe that accounts for the vast majority of violence in the United States.
I think that the US is such a large and complex place that there aren't simple explanations or solutions.
I'll totally disagree with Alan here but do feel that much of the gun violence has to do with racial and economic disparity amongst inner-city dwellers - many who are black, hispanic and poor with no hope for a better future in part DUE to our lack of social intervention. There is also Mexican, Central and South American criminal activity overflow due to the drug trade. Something Canada and other countries with low populations (and relatively few impoverished areas) that border stable areas don't have to contend with. The contraband trade - be it drugs, weapons, humans, etc... - creates a huge criminal network that thrives - and expands - in border countries. It also creates a huge drug problem that creates it's own set of gun violence amongst people. And if you look at any "homicide by firearm" death rates for those countries, they are amongst the highest in the world.
I'm inclined to agree with bae.
Here's an interesting map that suggests you're more likely to die by firearm if you live in a blue state. Hmmm.
http://www.statehealthfacts.org/comparemaptable.jsp?ind=113&cat=2
As far as "caste systems" go, the ever-widening gap between rich and poor is not helping. And I doubt poor people will feel less victimized if we let them starve to death or go without medical care. Sometimes, people really are victims. But you have a point Alan, in that where incomes and standard of living are more evenly distributed--as in the social democratic countries of Europe, you have much less violence. When people feel they are respected members of a cooperative society, they tend to act the part. If punitive Neo-Puritan methods--like long prison terms for drug possession--worked, we would have seen their fruits long ago.
You could make the argument that we were a violent nation from our very start. Why, just yesterday I was reading:
http://www.history.org/foundation/jo...g03/branks.cfm
The English-American colonies were autocratic and theocratic, with a patriarchal system of justice: magistrates and religious leaders, sometimes one and the same, made the laws, and the burden of obeying them fell on the less exalted—the tradesmen, soldiers, farmers, servants, slaves, and the young. That burden could be weighty.
... They were, with some justice, described by the colonists in a letter to the crown in 1624 as "Tyrannycall Lawes written in blood." They said:
The cause of the vniust and vndeserved death of sundry . . . by starveinge, hangeinge, burneinhge, breakinge upon the wheele and shootinge to deathe, some (more than halfe famished) runninge to the Indians to gett reliefe beinge againe retorned were burnt to deth. Some for stealinge to satisfie thir hunger were hanged, and one chained to a tree till he starved to death; others attemptinge to run awaye in a barge and a shallop (all the Boates that were then in the Collonye) and therin to adventure their lives for their native countrye, beinge discovered and prevented, were shott to death, hanged and broken upon the wheele, besides continuall whippings, extraordinary punishments, workinge as slaves in irons for terme of yeares (and that for petty offenses) weare dayly executed.
Ah, the good old days...
I think bae is right in that there are many reasons for the problems we have in the US. Being neighbors the comparison with Canada is interesting. A few generalizations come to mind after looking at this map (http://www.city-data.com/forum/general-u-s/1085852-state-state-map-murder-rates-updated.html) (also added below, but I couldn't get it resized larger).
Canada's border with the US is certainly different than the US/Mexico border in terms of who, what and how much comes across. Homicide rates in the US tend to increase as you move south. There are probably myriad reasons for that, but the one conclusion that's hard to escape is that influence from or interaction with Mexico has something to do with it because Canada obviously doesn't share that border. Interestingly enough, of the 10 US states that share a land border with Canada, 5 of them actually have a lower homicide rate than Canada itself and 3 others are only marginally higher. Of the 4 states that share a border with Mexico all of them have a significantly lower homicide rate than Mexico itself. I would hazard a guess that the percentage of citizens who are gun owners in Mexico is lower than in the US or in Canada.
Incidents of violence increase in urban areas which makes sense simply because more people have more contact with each other so more opportunity for conflict. The US has far more urban areas than Canada. This map (http://www.roebuckclasses.com/maps/placemap/namerica/namericapop.JPG) shows higher population areas and those generally match up with the higher homicide rates. Canada may simply benefit because there aren't as many people that want to live there.
The homicide rate escalates in hot weather no matter where you are and the US unquestionably has more of that than Canada does. As mentioned above, the farther south you go on the map the more the homicide rate increases and we all know its warmer down south.
It's just not as simple as saying the US has more guns and not enough laws because there are a lot of factors that less guns and more laws would not change.
718
But what amazes me the most regarding the gun-policy in the US, is that originally, at least according to how I understand it, the law to "bare arms", was upheld to d.
Bear arms, as in to carry, not to go sleeveless
I haven't strictly kept track, but it seems most of the gun-involved crimes I've heard about were committed by people who weren't supposed to have that gun in the first place.
I haven't strictly kept track, but it seems most of the gun-involved crimes I've heard about were committed by people who weren't supposed to have that gun in the first place.
You may remember the old bumper sticker that said, "If you outlaw guns only outlaws will have guns". That's where it comes from.
I didn't involve myself in this conversation to insult American people, nor slam the country as a whole, however, from a Canadian standpoint, there is something (seriously wrong) where people feel THE NEED to add to their daily dress, a firearm. It does not IMO reflect stability, nor does it reflect sanity.
Firearms are deadly weapons, and it's incredibly discerning to know that society has become so callous regarding human life, that firearms have become everyone's walking companion and buddy. "Packing", does not portray, "I'm going target shooting", and IMO that is callow and vile.
iris lily
2-29-12, 10:39am
You may remember the old bumper sticker that said, "If you outlaw guns only outlaws will have guns". That's where it comes from.
"Everyone" doesn't carry here, you know. I don't. I live in a zip code that has one of the highest murder rates in the country and I don't carry. I'm not the typical murder victim, black male under 30 years old.
I"m always amused to find out who does carry in my family. My brother carries a gun which is funny since he lives in a practically crimeless, dull, suburb. I guess there is a tradeoff for living in a place with no architecture and no interesting restaurants: low crime. OTOH he has, in the past, done side jobs of delivering sherrif's notices and the like, and he has worked in emergecny response with the cops and firemen for years, so his cronies are very familiar with firearms.
In DH's family several of his siblings carry firearms and again, they are in low crime areas. But chit happens out in the country, that's for sure.
I can't even carry my phone with me, so I don't want the burden of something more complicated.
This conversation always ends up pretty much the same..........the gun owners disagree with those who feel that gun laws should be much stricter. I guess east is east and west is west. But you can't deny that too many people are killed by guns that are easy to come by. In the big city near where I live, people are killed almost every day by guns..........not by knives or ball bats or fists, but by guns. Even children are killed fairly often by them. I stand behind Mrs. M. in saying that something is terribly wrong with this society.
ApatheticNoMore
2-29-12, 12:24pm
I'm rather neutral on guns also. I think ownership in the home is perfectly fine (I wish the left would stop wasting it's time on this culture war issue, and talk about a strong suit like economics instead). Carrying I think is a little more complex, I don't think California has the most permissive laws there, and believe me very far from everyone is carrying guns (in fact you don't see it at all, is it even legal? maybe not). But people are certainly allowed to own guns in their homes. There has been some violence around here, about once a month in the area I work. It's simply not enough to worry me greatly (I'm more likely to die on my commute by a drunk driver or something). And if so I don't want General Motors coming out saying how we need to own cars [/snark]
Actually I have come to the conclusion that something IS deeply wrong with American (maybe even western or at least Anglosphere!) society also, but not because a random nut shoots up a school. I kind of figure there always will be a few crazies out there. Maybe this itself is a symptom of societal breakdown, but I always figure some very very small percentage of the population will be many screws short of a toolbox AND violent to boot. What convinces me to the core that something is wrong with society is our public policy (no not the public policy forum, that place isn't THAT bad :), but actual U.S. politics).
The U.S. is in my opinion becoming fascists and so I try to analzye why. I look at how we treat those in society noone much likes like prisoners and I see a little clue (and I'm not even saying don't lock them up, I'm saying look at cruel prison conditions). I look at how we treat and our attitude toward foreigners (not to mention the deep social wrongness represented in our foreign policy) and I see a little clue (and again I'm not saying so throw the borders wide open or something, though I would like the wars and torture to end, I'm saying LOOK at the *ATTITUDES*).
None of this necessarily has anything to do with why a guy shoots up a schoolyard (although it can't help). But I think it DOES have to do with much larger issues.
Mighty Frugal
2-29-12, 12:36pm
As a Canadian I agree with Mrs. M with questioning why anyone would consider carrying a gun (eek) daily. Are these guns loaded? If not, do you carry the bullets separately? Where do men carry them-back pocket? I would be very afraid it would go off and hurt/kill someone accidentally (hell, I check my stove a dozen times before I leave my house-don't think I have the nerve to carry a GUN!!)
And why carry the gun? Is it for self protection? That one in a million (?) chance that some deranged lunatic will try to strangle you?
It would make me very nervous to know that people out in public are packing heat. Sure, I'm certain some here are (illegally). But I'd hazard a guess that more Americans carry guns than Cdns
Thanks for the pics Gregg-very interesting! I've heard crime goes up for each degree raised in temps
I didn't involve myself in this conversation to insult American people, "... but you're all insane, unstable, callow, callous, and vile." (I summarize :-)).
Mrs-M - I have carried a firearm almost every day for 20+ years, as well as several other tools useful for defense of self and others, as well as a really good first aid kit.
I have done so precisely *because* I respect human life and am not indifferent to the fates of others and myself.
As a Canadian I agree with Mrs. M with questioning why anyone would consider carrying a gun (eek) daily. Are these guns loaded? If not, do you carry the bullets separately? Where do men carry them-back pocket?
I generally carry my handguns in a quality holster, loaded, with a round in the chamber. The location of the holster varies depending on the clothing I am wearing.
I would be very afraid it would go off and hurt/kill someone accidentally (hell, I check my stove a dozen times before I leave my house-don't think I have the nerve to carry a GUN!!)
Quality modern firearms generally don't go off unless you operate the trigger. So if you learn basic safety and operating skills, and carry your firearm in a quality holster that protects the trigger, you aren't going to have your firearm discharging of its own volition.
As a Canadian I agree with Mrs. M with questioning why anyone would consider carrying a gun (eek) daily. Are these guns loaded? If not, do you carry the bullets separately? Where do men carry them-back pocket? I would be very afraid it would go off and hurt/kill someone accidentally (hell, I check my stove a dozen times before I leave my house-don't think I have the nerve to carry a GUN!!)
And why carry the gun? Is it for self protection? That one in a million (?) chance that some deranged lunatic will try to strangle you?
It would make me very nervous to know that people out in public are packing heat. Sure, I'm certain some here are (illegally). But I'd hazard a guess that more Americans carry guns than Cdns
MF, I'm not attempting to be snarky, but what's the point of carrying a gun in self-defense if it's not loaded? Of course, guns carried for self-defense are loaded.
As for your question about being afraid it would go off, if a handgun is in a holster, the entire trigger area will be covered. If a finger isn't on the trigger, the gun's not going to just fire. It's stressed that if you're going to pocket carry, the gun STILL needs to be in a holster for safety reasons. There are actually smaller holsters specifically for pocket carry. There are ways for guns to be carried INSIDE your pants' waistband. With a shirt over them, you can hardly tell. There's even a newer bra holster for women. ;-) And purses with built-in holsters. On body carry is preferred, though. No chance of it being in a purse and possibly getting stolen.
And yes, you carry a gun for self-proection. Deranged lunatic strangle you? How about being carjacked, robbed, someone deciding to start trouble.
I'm a short woman, 5'5". I've been at the gas station in broad daylight, pumping gas, not making eye contact with anyone, when a guy has decided to start making comments and acting threatening toward me. You can be sure I got the heck out of there quickly. I live in a pretty safe suburb of Chicago, but these sort of incidents are becoming increasingly common. An increasing number of women friends and acquaintances say these kinds of incidents are happening to them. It's not "hey, baby" comments in a teasing voice. It's guys making comments in very threatening tones of voice.
Then there's the ex-boyfriend (very short term) who stalks me at public church events in our area. That really sent up red flags.
It doesn't help that 20 years ago when I was a newspaper reporter, I covered police. That's made me much more aware in the years since of the sorts of things that can go on.
You might have seen in the news reports about many more women buying handguns now than ever before. Well, why do you think that is? I've traded experiences, both in person, as well as online, with multiple women across the US, and many of us don't feel safe anymore. It's not paranoia. Enough of us have had some sort of experience that shakes us up, or a relative/friend has had an experience, that makes us think we better take responsibility for our own defense.
A website for women and guns I highly recommend is http://www.corneredcat.com. The book of the same title talks a lot about the issues surrounding women and guns, including the social issues of carrying.
And contrary to the common perception in the media, those who carry aren't yahoos who have no training. In some states, in addition to the required classroom time, you have to prove you're proficient with your handgun and can safely handle it.
I've been carrying a loaded handgun daily for over 30 years now - both professionally and personally - plan to carry another 30 years. For safety reasons, pure and simple.
I have a permit to carry, but very rarely do. When I do it has alot more to do with bears than perps, but I completely understand and appreciate the reasons law abiding citizens give for carrying a gun with them. For my own sake I've analyzed my surroundings, determined the risk of harm is quite low and take measures to keep it that way so I do not feel the need to "pack" on a regular basis. I think I'm representative of about 99% of gun owners. At least that describes the gun owners I know.
Almost anything can become a deadly weapon. A claw hammer, broken beer bottle, a pillow, your car... There aren't many things that can't be used to inflict harm if used irresponsibly or with malice. A gun is no different and to concentrate your efforts on one specific tool is to take your eye off the ball. If guns simply did not exist, had never even been invented, but everything else in our society was the same I can not see that the rate of violent behavior would be much different. Violence is a symptom of something that is wrong in our society, not the disease itself. Rampant drug use (which just so happens to be closely linked to violence on many levels) is also a symptom. Some folks, including me, feel that Hollywood is only a different version of escapism, a different drug. The list can go on all day, but until we start to have frank discussions about how and why we are failing large segments of our society and then begin to implement real changes the problems will not go away no matter how many tools are banned.
ApatheticNoMore
2-29-12, 2:36pm
For my own sake I've analyzed my surroundings, determined the risk of harm is quite low and take measures to keep it that way so I do not feel the need to "pack" on a regular basis
yea really, the risk of a car accident on the other hand .... I mean is rational risk assesment even going on when we either think the liklihood of violent crazies is great and therefore think this means we must pack a gun or when we think the risk of violent crazies is so great that this means that all guns must be banned. I mean really I don't think there are that many violent people around period. Now if a person lives in an area where there's nothing but gang battles every night then yea they are probably right to be a bit afraid, but that is not most people's situation.
Perhaps I have a high need to feel the world is safe, but I basically do. Now is a warzone like Afghanistan or something safe? No, but I don't live there. I'm really not the type of person who feels non-safe anywhere. When I get bad vibes I do get the heck out of a place. If I was to fear danger I just know in the core of my being (and statistics will back it) that danger lies in the people you know best not random strangers (not that I tend to surround myself by violent people or anything, but of course I grew up with a certain amount of scary, nothing like gun violence or anything though).
so I do not feel the need to "pack" on a regular basis.
Ditto for me. I'm gun-less at the moment (in the public library after a morning run where I was also gun-less) and often am. But there is a gun in my truck. I generally have it more for a breakdown emergency (or for when the asteroid hits and the zombies run amok) rather then carry it around with me. However, I do take it with me when I hike or mountain bike, often alone. I also enter my house with it in case someone is inside and I keep it (and another "house gun" - a .357 Magnum revolver and a loaded .12 gauge shotgun) at the ready when I'm home. I do have a concealed permit and sometimes do carry but, more often then not, don't as I'm generally in shorts and don't like to carry a purse. But it's usually near by if I need it.
loosechickens
2-29-12, 2:51pm
The thing is, we have become a very frightened society. And the degree of fright is not really linked to actual statistics about violent crime, etc., just as "stranger danger" fears about our children have escalated by a great deal, despite actual statistics about dangers to children, including that the danger is FAR more often centered within the child's own family or other adults trusted and known by the family, rather than a stranger. Yet parents live in fear of allowing their children outside to play, feeling as though someone is getting ready to snatch them at any moment.
It may be the media focus on crimes "if it bleeds, it leads", it may be because politically, many have a lot to gain by stoking fears, it may be that because of national focus, one child kidnapping seems as though it happened right in your own neighborhood, or one violent crime (there again, most violent crime actually happens between people who know each other, not strangers), and husbands and boyfriends are far more of a danger to women than actual strangers snatching them on a nice, suburban street. Literally thousands of women are killed every year by boyfriends and husbands.
We probably need to address our fears, the rationality of our fears, and why we are so fearful and begin to deal with societal things that stoke those fears, than just have everybody arm themselves. Some of the most fearful people I know are the ones that are the best armed. And despite their belief that their guns "protect" them, the level of fear doesn't seem to be alleviated by their possession. Our perceptions of danger and the actual realities of danger are so far apart in this country as to be almost laughable.
I don't know the answer.....I think the proliferation of guns and people feeling the need to carry weapons has much more to do with that generalized societal fear and anxiety, than guns. Guns and being armed are just ways people deal with that anxiety, and often, not all that well, since they STILL seem in many cases to be filled with fear, at least among the ones I know in real life. I have no way of knowing what motivates others, as I can only truly observe the ones I know personally.
We had a friend, an ex-police officer, who actually taught self defense and safety classes to RVers at conventions, etc. This guy carried a weapon at all times, his RV was bristling with weaponry, but he was so scared that he wouldn't boondock out in the desert unless he was in a group, and then he would make us all arrange our RVs in a circle, like a wagon train ready to stand off the Indians. The sad thing was, you know how he died? Out for an evening walk, with his wife, in an RV park......keeled over in his early sixties by a massive coronary, "protected" from all the dangerous people he feared, yet not safe at all.
I prefer to work on reducing fear and anxiety, learning to assess real risk, as opposed to perceived risk, and behave accordingly. That seems to work far better in producing a true feeling of security. That, an recognizing that sh*t does happen sometimes, but usually not the sh*t you expected, but something that blindsided you when you least expected.
The same way in that when a child is molested, 90% or more of the time, it's not going to be by a stranger in a rest room, or a guy snatching the kid from his yard, or a store, but by a trusted family member, friend, babysitter, pastor or teacher. The kind of person you would willingly entrust your child to, as so many did with priests, youth leaders, uncles and cousins..........
We had a friend, an ex-police officer, who actually taught self defense and safety classes to RVers at conventions, etc. This guy carried a weapon at all times, his RV was bristling with weaponry, but he was so scared that he wouldn't boondock out in the desert unless he was in a group, and then he would make us all arrange our RVs in a circle, like a wagon train ready to stand off the Indians.
I'm just the opposite. I feel that the ability to carry a firearm actually frees me from the need to be with other people for protection. I feel free to hike, bike, travel, or live alone because I have LESS fear and greater self protection. With a firearm I would boondock out in the desert completely alone miles from anyone in my tent, but without a firearm I would feel extremely vulnerable and probably wouldn't do it.
I have fire insurance. I'm not living in fear of fire, but I do live in a forest, my house is made out of wood, and the state government a couple of years ago picked my area as the highest wildfire danger area in the state - so I carry insurance, and take prudent steps to maintain a defensible space around my property, and to make my home fire-resistant.
I have auto insurance, though I rarely have any sort of accident, nor even a speeding ticket. I have taken the trouble to attend multiple performance driving schools, and have substantial track time, and drive vehicles that are reasonably good at avoiding or surviving accidents. I don't live in fear of auto accidents though, I simply prepare as best I can to avoid them, and insure myself in case circumstances exceed my preparations.
I carry a firearm, and other weapons, and medical gear, and spend a fair bit of time training in their use. But I don't live in fear of someone attacking me, or being eaten by bears when I am in the Northwest Territory, I am simply prudently preparing in case problems arise. I have had to defend myself multiple times, however, and would likely not be here today to type this if I hadn't. I have had restraining orders out against multiple individuals who presented credible threats to my life or my family's, and some of those orders were not worth the paper they were printed on. I have a firearm on my person this very moment, but it is not reflective of fear, just preparation.
I don't live with violent, abusive people, or generally go to places where violent people congregate. I do not fear those who I know well - individuals are not statistics. However, my family's activities sometimes make us the target of troublesome folks, and law enforcement response time here is 30 minutes or more on a good day....
ApatheticNoMore
2-29-12, 3:25pm
Well I wouldn't boondock out in the dessert, and I stopped some hiking alone because my mom kept worrying (though in reality the scariest thing I've come across is a snake - and there are certain places where if you stay out late enough at night there are cayotes - I just don't stay out there that late). But basically I've never felt afraid of anything alone. I'm not sure stranger danger is the reason not to go out in nature alone ... I think it's more encourtering a situation like that movie where the guy had to cut off his arm :P If he had had a friend to go for help ...
Originally posted by Bae.
I summarizeYou mean you surmise.
You are allowing yourself to get all bunged-up with the realities of all the side-taking going on here, and in turn, you are reading more into posts than is there.
I stand firm and strong in my belief related to overly-free US gun laws providing common citizens with the right to possess outside the home. I will not apologize for anything I have said up to and including this point, nor am I going to attempt to mitigate my values related to the issue.
Packing, in a First World country, is completely and totally out of step with the times. The suggestive intent of, the action of, and, the nature of, leaving ones private residence or domain, armed, IMO, procures violence. It consummates aggressive behaviour, and it is this action, the action of arming oneself (outside of the home) that I find callow and vile, not the people of America, Bae.
Well I wouldn't boondock out in the dessert, and I stopped some hiking alone because my mom kept worrying (though in reality the scariest thing I've come across is a snake - and there are certain places where if you stay out late enough at night there are cayotes - I just don't stay out there that late). But basically I've never felt afraid of anything alone. I'm not sure stranger danger is the reason not to go out in nature alone ... I think it's more encourtering a situation like that movie where the guy had to cut off his arm :P If he had had a friend to go for help ...
Well for me it's like Bae said - having that "insurance" - whether ever needed or not - allows me to feel protected "just in case". It's like wearing my seat belt when I drive. I've never been in an accident, probably never will be, but I still wear it. And wearing it gives me a greater sense of ease and comfort knowing that in the unlikely event that I do get in an accident, I will have at least some protection. This gives me greater freedom to go about my life with less fear - with feeling more secure - whenever I drive. If I didn't have the seatbelt I would still drive - just as I would still go out hiking alone if I didn't have a gun - but i would feel much more vulnerable and it would be much more worrisome to me to do those things (drive or hike) without some protection.
Originally posted by ApatheticNoMore.
Maybe this itself is a symptom of societal breakdownI couldn't agree more.
You mean you surmise.
Nope. The words were in your post, and you have restated the sentiment in your response.
TTFN.
[QUOTE=Mrs-M;69914]
The suggestive intent of, the action of, and, the nature of, leaving ones private residence or domain, armed, IMO, procures violence. It consummates aggressive behaviour, and it is this action, the action of arming oneself (outside of the home) that I find callow and vile, [QUOTE]
But why is it OK to have a gun in the home but not outside the home? If a gun in the home is for protection, why can't the same be true having a gun outside the home? My body and life are more valuable than my home or possessons - and that can be taken from me outside the home just as readily (probably more readily) as inside it. I guess what I don't understand is if one feels that owning a gun is fear driven or "procures violence, aggressive behavior, and is callow and vile", why those same attributes can't be said of an armed homeowners - when both are protection-driven IMHO?
Originally posted by Spartana.
But why is it OK to have a gun in the home but not outside the home?Because we are no longer living in the 1800's?
Say, does the US Government have any remote/future plans on introducing a law allowing citizens to navigate freeways, streets, highways, and thoroughfares, driving tanks? I doubt it. How about occupying air-space in a personal aircraft equipped with high-tech weaponry? I double doubt that. Yet it's OK to "pack" at ones leisure? What an outdated, antiquated constitution. It's so prehistoric and archaic it's almost laughable.
I am not fearful. I'm also not violent, aggressive, callow or vile. Nor is anyone else I know who legally carries a weapon outside their home.
For my entire adulthood, I've been responsible for the safety and security of others. That responsibility shapes you in subtle ways which others may not understand or appreciate without an understanding of a servant's heart. I don't think it's much of a stretch to attest that everyone is safer in my presence than in my absence, which is not a boast, but simply a fact borne out by 40 years of service to my family, my employers and the public at large.
Make of that what you will, but odds are you'll be wrong.
ApatheticNoMore
2-29-12, 4:21pm
I think at bottom some people feel more safe with guns around and some less. And I do fall into the less camp. I can't say I would feel safer if everyone in the supermarket was packing. Really I'd feel less so. I can't even say I'd feel safer with a gun in the house, probably less so (and heaven forbid there was a gun in my parents house - I already got stitches as a kid as is). Of course even then noone is going to worry what other people have in their own homes unless they plan on becoming a home robber or something ... (and I still do think that as a national political issue it's culture war-ish).
It already is legal, in fact, to own and drive armored vehicles here in the USA, though there are some restrictions on the sorts of treads you can use and the required safety equipment, mostly to prevent road damage. Several of my neighbors have barns full of armored vehicles, and I've been looking for a nice Saracen myself for years. You can also, with proper federal and state paperwork, which is very little bother if you are a law abiding citizen of good character, have the weaponry operational.
Same for military-grade aircraft. The local airfield on my island has about a dozen WWII combat aircraft, and several jets.
Oddly, none of these have been used in crimes of violence here. Must be because we are so close to the calming influence of Canada.
dado potato
2-29-12, 4:22pm
News has it that the shooter's grandfather thinks the weapon was a "missing" gun, which Gramps had stored in his barn.
Someday soon, I hope all gun owners realize that when they are not using firearms, they go in a locked gunsafe.
Because we are no longer living in the 1800's?
I understand your point Mrs. M., but I'm afraid I'm not quite following your logic. Regarding life in the US in the 1800's vs. today it seems there are far greater chances to find yourself in a dangerous situation now than there ever were 150 years ago. True that natural threats (bears, rattlesnakes, etc.) have diminished depending on exactly where you are and hunting as a way of life now exists for only a very small group of people so guns are mostly not a requirement to interact with nature these days. However, the possibility of encountering threats from other humans has increased exponentially. In 1850 the population of the US was 23 million. Today it is well over 300 million. Simple math, without ANY consideration of societal issues, means you are 13 times more likely to run into trouble now than you were then.
Originally posted by Alan.
I am not fearful. I'm also not violent, aggressive, callow or vile.But the action of packing IMO is unsophisticated and loathsome.
Alan. I accept the idea behind affording a person who is accredited (legally) to oversee the personal protection of those around them or the protection of the general public, with certification to carry, however, I cannot say the same for the general public.
For many of us, I think gun ownership is a non-issue. I don't feel more or less safe knowing that some of my fellow citizens are armed. Up to this point, even while working a variety of shifts requiring driving or waiting for buses late at night, even while being stalked by a loosely-wrapped ex, all the while navigating my world alone, I've never felt a need to strap on a sidearm. What others do legally is their business.
Another point which I think is completely valid is that most people who carry a weapon do so with the hope that it will act as a deterrent, not in the hope they will have a chance to use it. There is no doubt in my mind that Spartana, bae, Alan and most others like them are quite skilled in the use of their sidearms, but also judicious in the deployment. I would also guess that most would be thugs can quickly recognize the difference between trained and deliberate movement and a novice fumbling with a weapon. It is entirely likely that presenting their guns in a way that shows they know how to use them would diffuse most situations without the need to fire a shot.
ApatheticNoMore. We (as a family) used to enjoy visiting Spokane Washington, once or twice a year, however, with all incidences of road-rage shootings, drive-by shootings, and people getting popped-off randomly (here and there) at ever increasing rate, we have no interest or desire to visit the States again. But what a shame, because whenever we visited the US, we always had such a great time, and the people were always so giving and friendly to us. Treated us like gold. In fact my husband and I used to arrive back home again and say to one another, "they are the nicest people in the world". But now, nah, we don't much feel like risking getting into a stop-sign/stop-light altercation with some delinquent, and then (because we aren't US citizens) the delinquent decides to target us with his gun. No thanks.
Originally posted by Bae.
It already is legal, in fact, to own and drive armored vehicles here in the USA, though there are some restrictions on the sorts of treads you can use and the required safety equipment, mostly to prevent road damage. Several of my neighbors have barns full of armored vehicles, and I've been looking for a nice Saracen myself for years. You can also, with proper federal and state paperwork, which is very little bother if you are a law abiding citizen of good character, have the weaponry operational.
Same for military-grade aircraft. The local airfield on my island has about a dozen WWII combat aircraft, and several jets.
Oddly, none of these have been used in crimes of violence here. Must be because we are so close to the calming influence of Canada. Well, I guess you guys are pretty much there, a point at which those who oppose the "right to bear arms constitution" can further watch the US sink into a lawless, turbulent land.
Gregg. I love your sense of vision! Too bad there's never a good gun-toting citizen around when shootings happen in the US.
ApatheticNoMore
2-29-12, 5:26pm
I don't actually think crime is up though. I think it's still down, lowest in decades really. In fact I remember some criminologists saying how shocked they were that crime is down in the midst of a recession (according to their theories crime is supposed to increase in bad economic times and these times aren't good - though there is some unemployment insurance etc. - and well a massive percentage of the population is behind bars). But bottom line, I don't think things are getting worse (although I know nothing about the crime rate in Spokane).
Originally posted by Gregg.
I understand your point Mrs. M., but I'm afraid I'm not quite following your logic. Regarding life in the US in the 1800's vs. today it seems there are far greater chances to find yourself in a dangerous situation now than there ever were 150 years ago. True that natural threats (bears, rattlesnakes, etc.) have diminished depending on exactly where you are and hunting as a way of life now exists for only a very small group of people so guns are mostly not a requirement to interact with nature these days. However, the possibility of encountering threats from other humans has increased exponentially. In 1850 the population of the US was 23 million. Today it is well over 300 million. Simple math, without ANY consideration of societal issues, means you are 13 times more likely to run into trouble now than you were then.Alas, your entry epitomizes exactly why things are the way they are in your country, and why things will more than likely never change or get better, because as far as everything I'm seeing and hearing, everyone is evil in your society.
flowerseverywhere
2-29-12, 5:33pm
Alas, your entry epitomizes exactly why things are the way they are in your country, and why things will more than likely never change or get better, because as far as everything I'm seeing and hearing, everyone is evil in your society.
I'm not evil. I don't have the impression many people are evil here that post on these boards. Maybe a few are opinionated or crabby at times, but evil, no.
In Canada in 1962 there were 44,026 (http://www.statcan.gc.ca/access_acces/archive.action?l=eng&loc=Z1_14-eng.csv) crimes of violence. In 2006 the rate of violent crimes was 951 per 100,000 (http://www4.hrsdc.gc.ca/.3ndic.1t.4r@-eng.jsp?iid=57) people. The Canadian population on census day of 2006 was 31,612,897 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada_2006_Census) which indicates there were 300,639 crimes of violence in Canada that year. That is a 682% increase in violent crime in Canada in only 44 years. It appears the Great White North is not immune.
ApatheticNoMore
2-29-12, 5:57pm
because as far as everything I'm seeing and hearing, everyone is evil in your society.
Ok :). I actually suspect there is a certain amount of sickness in the culture. But *everyone* evil? No, can't say I'm with that. I know too many people trying very hard to have a positive impact. What evil that does is exist is mostly ... banal. :\
IshbelRobertson
2-29-12, 5:59pm
I live in the UK. We have stringent gun laws, and I am thankful for that. Even our police are not routinely permitted to carry weapons.
I grew up in a military family, and we lived abroad in areas of local conflict. My Dad (an officer in the UK armed forces) had guns in the house. I HATED them.
Whilst we still have gun crimes here, the guns and the users are mostly criminals.
Flowerseverywhere. In no way was my entry representative of including you or any other good people into the evil crowd. The jest of my reply was to underscore Gregg's entry, the manner in which he mentioned increased population, relative of today's times, as compared to the 1800's, and rather than point out the milestones and advances we've made as first nation countries in learning how to better coexist, Gregg, instead, chose to impress the fact that with greater population comes a greater need to protect.
Applying a conjecture as Gregg so did to reflect the increased need to protect oneself, first, ahead of all other attributed factors related to population growth, speaks to me loud and clear why things have gone so awry in the US related to people and guns.
R.E. civilian ownership and operation of armor and aircraft:
Well, I guess you guys are pretty much there, a point at which those who oppose the "right to bear arms constitution" can further watch the US sink into a lawless, turbulent land.
This has been the state of the law since the founding of the Republic, Mrs-M. Modified somewhat to require tax stamps for such things in 1934, and with a little additional fine-tuning along the way. There haven't been any significant number of instances in which legitimately owned civilian heavy weapons have been misused by individuals for ages here.
Your comments are uninformed, contrary to fact, and clearly deliberately bigoted.
Applying a conjecture as Gregg so did to reflect the increased need to protect oneself, first, ahead of all other attributed factors related to population growth, speaks to me loud and clear why things have gone so awry in the US related to people and guns.
"All other attributed factors related to population growth" is a strawman and I thought the statistics proved my proposition quite nicely, but there is a way to remove population growth to see how much other factors might be influencing the statistics. The facts are:
From 1962 to 2006 the number of violent crimes in the US increased by 279% (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States). During the same time period the population of the US increased by 160% (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States).
From 1962 to 2006 the number of violent crimes in Canada increased by 682% (see link above). During the same time period the population of Canada increased by 173% (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_of_Canada_by_year).
If population were the only factor we would expect violent crime in the US to have risen by 160%, but it went up 279%. We would expect violent crime in Canada to have risen by 173%, but it went up 682%. As you quite correctly indicated Mrs. M, there HAS to be another factor(s) at play in the US, and I would add in Canada as well.
With the relatively similar rates of population growth experienced in each country we can legitimately look beyond that to reveal what influence "all other attributed factors" had on violent crime statistics. What is revealed is that the per capita rate of violent crime increased approx. 2 1/2 times faster in Canada than in the US from 1962 to 2006. It appears there are problems looming north of the 49th parallel that will not be cured by looking down a nose at the gun totin' neighbors to the south.
Mighty Frugal
2-29-12, 9:34pm
So, for the women who carry a gun, what do you do if you happen to pass a shop, see something on sale and go on in to try it on. Do you take off your holster and just leave it on the little wooden chair in the dressing room? Do you ask your boyfriend to 'hold your gun' like you would your purse?
Being from a country that doesn't do this, you must understand how perfectly mind boggling it is that regular every day people are carrying a GUN:0!
May as well be a hand grenade....or a gill-less/air breathing piranha....
Just so bizarre! The only women I ever knew who packed heat were 'Charlie's Angels' :)
FREEZE
Also, for the women (or men) have you ever drawn your weapon? Do you warn the person 'I've got a gun..go away' or do you draw it and say 'FREEZE' or 'back off or I will shoot you' If so, what do people around you do? I think I'd duck for cover
Spartana, when you enter your home do you have the gun out of your holster ready to shoot any intruder who had the great misfortune of thinking your house was an easy hit?
....Also, for the women (or men) have you ever drawn your weapon? Do you warn the person 'I've got a gun..go away' or do you draw it and say 'FREEZE' or 'back off or I will shoot you' If so, what do people around you do? I think I'd duck for cover....
I get the impression many people don't understand the rules.
1. A weapon is never drawn without the intention of using deadly force.
2. The use of deadly force is only initiated to prevent death or serious injury to yourself or others.
3. People who do not follow the rules are criminals and thugs. They are the reason we have concealed carry laws in a majority of our states.
iris lily
2-29-12, 10:54pm
Oddly, none of these have been used in crimes of violence here. Must be because we are so close to the calming influence of Canada.
OMG that was funny.
It's been a very informative and lively discussion, one that I have enjoyed immensely. Thank you all for contributing towards a healthy debate.
Originally posted by IshbelRobertson.
We have stringent gun laws, and I am thankful for that. Even our police are not routinely permitted to carry weapons.One of the many selling points for me Re: the UK. How lucky you are.
Wow, the amount of emotion expressed! As a Canadian, I must weigh in.
Owning a gun is a choice, pure and simple. In the US, from its beginnings, as I understand it, the power of the individual was unique and its strength and its wonderful freedom to think and and act outside the traditional in government, research, etc., leading to discoveries and developments from which the world has benefitted.
Gun ownership, as I understand it, is part of that individualism. Responsible ownership includes knowing when where and how to use and store these guns.
In Canada, there was a gun registry instituted by the government of the time after a terrible wholesale slaughter of female students as a university by a madman. This new gun registry made criminals (meaning court, legal costs, penal time and criminal record) of every legal gun owner unless they registered every one of their guns by a certain date. Banned weapons had required a special registration for years so were not part of this new registry. It was the shotgun, the .22 etc that now required registration.
To purchase a gun, PRIOR to the new registry, one needed an Firearms Acquisition Certificate for which there were substantial criteria including a police check, and a record of purchase was maintained at the supplying store so all the info was readily available to police for and about legal gun owners. There were substantial training and licence requirements to meet as well.
The new registry was hacked and records downloaded so that now criminals knew which house contained which guns, records were not updated to reflect any change in ownership or non-ownership, over 2 Billion dollars were spent for this ridiculous registry that helped no one. If the police stopped a car for a missing headlight, they would send in the drivers licence number for a check and the gun registry would be checked at the same time. Local police stated that the registry was of no benefit for their purposes and finally this registry is being dismantled, I hope.
I am on that registry, a law-abiding, non-violent owner of legally obtained weapons for hunting, self-defense that are stored in a safe manner as required by law and standards supported by the Ontario Anglers and Hunters Association. I know how to use the guns we own and do so responsibly. It is perfectly legitimate to expect that responsible use and knowledge of use/storage is a requirement of ownership and steps can be taken to ensure this.
Criminals can and do obtain banned weapons and they are the weapons of choice in Canadian crime. Why do they use them? That is a socialogical, psychological and economic issue for which neither you (general) nor I have simple solutions. They are already banned!
To suggest that I or any other legal owner is somehow responsible for this criminal activitiy makes absolutely no sense. As one policeman mentioned, it is the same as suggesting that all the owners of scissors were responsible for an attack on a person by an individual with scissors. Scissors used aggressively can kill. Do we ban or register all the scissors in the country and make criminals of everyone who doesn't register?
Just because one chooses to not own a gun does not make that person knowledgeable about or in a position to judge the reasons for others' owning and using guns.
The US will work out its own challenges as it has many times before with the wisdom and input of its citizens who are every bit an informed as anyone else in the world. So will Canada.
Criminals can and do obtain banned weapons and they are the weapons of choice in Canadian crime. Why do they use them? That is a socialogical, psychological and economic issue for which neither you (general) nor I have simple solutions. They are already banned!
Nicely done razz. In a nutshell the experience with the failed Canadian gun registry is the only possible result of such a program, at least outside a totalitarian state.
Spartana, when you enter your home do you have the gun out of your holster ready to shoot any intruder who had the great misfortune of thinking your house was an easy hit?
Well after kicking in the door Charlies Angel style, I generally start spraying the room with machine gun fire before entering, after which being environmentally conscience, I pick up my used shell casings to recycle :-)!
What I meant was that I don't leave that gun in the car over night. I have a small backpack that I put it in and that's how I transport it - generally don't wear it on me unless I'm off in a remote place like hiking. BUT I do have another handgun that is loaded and concealled just inside my front entranc, so if things look out of order when I enter - like the dog isn't around - then I can grab that before I enter the home if I feel the need to. If the gun was gone and the dog wasn't around then I would probably choose not to enter the house even though I would still have my other gun on me. I generally live alone, often in fairly high crime areas, so I like the added protection.
Love to you all from evil, vile, unstable, insane, callous, and just plain silly Spartana :-)! Who will be leaving tommorrow to go out into the Great White North alone for a week and plans to be "packing" heat the whole time :-)!
Someone sent me this:
HOW TO INSTALL A HOME SECURITY SYSTEM1. Go to a secondhand store and buy a pair of size 14--16 men's work boots.
2. Place them on your front porch, along with a copy of Guns & Ammo Magazine.
3. Put four giant dog dishes next to the boots and magazines.
4. Leave a note on your door that reads:
Bubba:
Bertha, Duke, Slim, & I went for more ammo and beer. Be back in about an hour.
Don't mess with the pit bulls. They got the mailman this morning and messed him up bad.
I don't think Killer took part, but it was hard to tell from all the blood.
Anyway, I locked all four of 'em in the house.
Better wait outside. Be right back.
"Cooter"
I didn't involve myself in this conversation to insult American people, nor slam the country as a whole, however, from a Canadian standpoint, there is something (seriously wrong) where people feel THE NEED to add to their daily dress, a firearm. It does not IMO reflect stability, nor does it reflect sanity.
Firearms are deadly weapons, and it's incredibly discerning to know that society has become so callous regarding human life, that firearms have become everyone's walking companion and buddy. "Packing", does not portray, "I'm going target shooting", and IMO that is callow and vile.
"Everyone's companion"?? I don't know anyone who carries a gun. At all. This isn't an old Gunsmoke episode, the modern USA. Some kind of stereotyping here i think.
Alas, your entry epitomizes exactly why things are the way they are in your country, and why things will more than likely never change or get better, because as far as everything I'm seeing and hearing, everyone is evil in your society.
"Everyone is evil in your society??" Not even a 'present company excepted' for those you are actually talking to? Are you trying to be insulting or what?
Moderators?
Because we are no longer living in the 1800's?
Exactly! So if you no longer have mauranding Indians and crazy wilderness men running rampant up there in Canada, why would you need a gun in the home? You made the comment in your thread that it was OK to have a gun in the home but not outside the home, but why? If you feel safe and feel that it's crazy to need protection when in the outside, then I would think you would feel much safer and less inclined to need protection while in your home. What would you need protection from in your home? Why even own a gun to keep in your home if you are safe enough? I completely understand people's fear about firearms being carried by other's out in public and can understand why they would not want that even if gun laws required a rhigh level of training and full background checks (which most states do require to even own a handgun in the home). i just don't understand the logic behind the idea that "it's OK to have a firearm for protection in the home but not outside the home" when, IMHO and my personal experience, there is a greater risk of something happening to me or my loved ones outside the home.
reader99, for the record we were able to establish that the violent crime rate in Canada is escalating much faster than it is in the US. The causes behind violent behavior apply to both countries. Violence, drugs, overwrought media coverage of tragedies, antisocial behavior, etc. are present without respect to any lines on a map.
reader99, for the record we were able to establish that the violent crime rate in Canada is escalating much faster than it is in the US. The causes behind violent behavior apply to both countries. Violence, drugs, overwrought media coverage of tragedies, antisocial behavior, etc. are present without respect to any lines on a map.
Seems that just makes the poster's remarks just as insulting, and now shown to be as baseless as I originally thought. No doubt fueled by the overwrought coverage.
Can moderators close the thread?
Is there a mechanism on this site for arranging not to see an individual's posts? Talk about rude and ill-considered!
Seems that just makes the poster's remarks just as insulting, and now shown to be as baseless as I originally thought. No doubt fueled by the overwrought coverage.
Can moderators close the thread?
Is there a mechanism on this site for arranging not to see an individual's posts?
No don't close it - nothing bothers me more than censoring! I for one welcome Mrs. M comments even though I disagree with them and felt that they could have been made with more tact. But she obvioulsly feels strongly about it and should have the right to voice her opinion. She has always been a very kind and gentle person and I think her anger comes from the horror, pain and injustice oshe feels when seeing the death of young people in this way. If you find posts offensive, you can just choose to not read them. I for one like to hear all views and wouldn't want to have them censored in any way.
HOW TO INSTALL A HOME SECURITY SYSTEM1. Go to a secondhand store and buy a pair of size 14--16 men's work boots.
2. Place them on your front porch, along with a copy of Guns & Ammo Magazine.
3. Put four giant dog dishes next to the boots and magazines.
4. Leave a note on your door that reads:
Bubba:
Bertha, Duke, Slim, & I went for more ammo and beer. Be back in about an hour.
Don't mess with the pit bulls. They got the mailman this morning and messed him up bad.
I don't think Killer took part, but it was hard to tell from all the blood.
Anyway, I locked all four of 'em in the house.
Better wait outside. Be right back.
"Cooter"
Or you could just put this in the yard...
722
No don't close it - nothing bothers me more than censoring! ..........If you find posts offensive, you can just choose to not read them. I for one like to hear all views and wouldn't want to have them censored in any way.
Agreed. That sort of thing was common on the old site, some years ago, and led to a level of highly subjective subject matter censorship which some of us found painful. I wouldn't want to encourage going back to those times.
Can moderators close the thread?
No don't close it - nothing bothers me more than censoring!
Anti-censorship is also the goal of the mod staff. Its often the case that the issues that bring out the most emotion are also the ones that most desperately need to be addressed. Violence in our societies continues to be a problem and one way or another effects all of us. We won't be able to address it unless we have some frank, and at times possibly uncomfortable, conversations regarding what the causes are. This thread has taken a tragedy (the Ohio High School shooting) and at very least given us the opportunity to express what each of us thinks went wrong. Its a start. The Simple Public Policy forum is available for anyone who would like to discuss this and other, more politically influenced issues more in depth than is typical in the Open forum. That said, as long as the discussion here is back on higher ground this is a potentially valuable discussion that should remain open.
Miss Cellane
3-1-12, 3:20pm
"Everyone is evil in your society??" Not even a 'present company excepted' for those you are actually talking to? Are you trying to be insulting or what?
Moderators?
I took Mrs. M's comment to mean not that she thinks all Americans are evil, but that most Americans must think that all other Americans are evil, based on the replies here that state the need to be able to protect oneself from one's fellow citizens at all times.
Mighty Frugal
3-1-12, 3:24pm
Spartana..I want you on my team:~)
I shall be combing my hair a la Charlie's Angel whilst you burst through spraying bullets!
http://www.wnd.com/2001/03/8340/ Apparently folks in the UK manage just fine with the traditional blunt instrument:
Twenty-six percent of English citizens — roughly one-quarter of the population — have been victimized by violent crime. Australia led the list with more than 30 percent of its population victimized.
The United States didn’t even make the “top 10″ list of industrialized nations whose citizens were victimized by crime.
Jack Straw, the British home secretary, admitted that “levels of victimization are higher than in most comparable countries for most categories of crime.”
Highlights of the study indicated that:
The percentage of the population that suffered “contact crime” in England and Wales was 3.6 percent, compared with 1.9 percent in the United States and 0.4 percent in Japan.
http://www.wnd.com/2001/03/8340/ Apparently folks in the UK manage just fine with the traditional blunt instrument:
Twenty-six percent of English citizens — roughly one-quarter of the population — have been victimized by violent crime. Australia led the list with more than 30 percent of its population victimized.
The United States didn’t even make the “top 10″ list of industrialized nations whose citizens were victimized by crime.
Jack Straw, the British home secretary, admitted that “levels of victimization are higher than in most comparable countries for most categories of crime.”
Highlights of the study indicated that:
The percentage of the population that suffered “contact crime” in England and Wales was 3.6 percent, compared with 1.9 percent in the United States and 0.4 percent in Japan.
This is why they don't let them have guns. :D
As far as those Aussies, well, ya know who they sent over to colonize the place. Today's crime stats can hardly be surprising. 'nuff said.
Hve we insulted enough people yet? ;)
It appears the propensity to do violence or the chances of becoming a victim of it is not limited to barbaric cultures like the USA. And go figure, they don't have as many guns in those more highly evolved societies so they just beat the **** out of each other with whatever small kitchen appliance is available. Maybe the time has come to treat this as a problem shared by human beings living in a society and end the strawman arguments regarding what tool they use to kill each other.
It appears the propensity to do violence or the chances of becoming a victim of it is not limited to barbaric cultures like the USA. And go figure, they don't have as many guns in those more highly evolved societies so they just beat the **** out of each other with whatever small kitchen appliance is available. Maybe the time has come to treat this as a problem shared by human beings living in a society and end the strawman arguments regarding what tool they use to kill each other.
Yes.
No don't close it - nothing bothers me more than censoring! I for one welcome Mrs. M comments even though I disagree with them and felt that they could have been made with more tact. But she obvioulsly feels strongly about it and should have the right to voice her opinion. She has always been a very kind and gentle person and I think her anger comes from the horror, pain and injustice oshe feels when seeing the death of young people in this way. If you find posts offensive, you can just choose to not read them. I for one like to hear all views and wouldn't want to have them censored in any way.
What surprises me is that getting upset about something that happened should be a reason to go off on people who were not implicated in the original incident and do not deserve to be insulted. It doesn't seem to me that attacking one's friends because something upset you is much of an example of *sane* or *balanced* behavior.
IshbelRobertson
3-1-12, 5:14pm
It's a number of years since Jack Straw held a government minister position here.
I think that whilst there are many opinions here, those of our members from the USA WANT guns (in the main!) whilst those of us outwith your borders... don't!
Some people like guns, some hate them, some fear them, some don't. There is no right or wrong and it is (or should be) perfectly acceptable for everyone's feelings to be different. And yes Ishbel, I am one of those who does want to have them around. I personally appreciate the craftsmanship that has gone into the favorite guns I own. They were built by people who have/had exceptional skill working with wood and metal. If the marriage of materials were up to the same standard, but in a different form, I have little doubt that many people who have no use for guns would be able to appreciate them as art. I simply do so in their current form. The fact that they have functionality in addition to beauty only adds to the value for me in much the same way many people appreciate a fine watch or a well made antique sideboard. However, as much as I appreciate the craftsmanship required to build any of those, when you boil it down none of them are anything more than inanimate objects (aka: stuff) and so not really deserving of any outpouring of emotion, positive or negative.
Originally posted by Miss Cellane.
I took Mrs. M's comment to mean not that she thinks all Americans are evil, but that most Americans must think that all other Americans are evil, based on the replies here that state the need to be able to protect oneself from one's fellow citizens at all times.You are absolutely right, that is precisely what I meant.
P.S. Coming from you, Miss Cellane, I'm not at all surprised you were able to pluck my comment from my entry with utmost ease and correctness, and clearly determine the direction I was going and with what intent in me stating what I did. (Nothing like having a Professional Editor in our midst)! So grateful I am. Thank you.
I rather suspect that the average American, or even the average American gun owner, does not think that all other Americans are evil. To maintain such indicates such a twisted view of our culture that there is clearly a lack of grounding in reality, and perhaps too much watching of the news and Hollywood "reality" shows.
For instance, Mrs-M mentioned her fear of going to Spokane. Spokane (just the city proper, it's a lower rate (417) if you use the county) has a violent crime rate of 608 incidents per 100k residents. Vancouver BC has a rate of 1666 per 100k residents (Statistics Canada 2010). Vancouver has ~2.5x the violent crime of Spokane, and Spokane rates pretty darned *high* for crime here in Washington, and the US. For reference, my own county has a rate of 52 per 100k residents.
Me, I'm wondering if I should go to Vancouver, it apparently is the gun crime capital of Canada, and just a few days after I went to a nice opera up there the other day, there were riots in the streets after the Stanley Cup finals, right where I'd been staying.
Originally posted by Reader99.
Can moderators close the thread?Seems you have allowed the thread topic to get the better of you. What I like to do when I get frustrated over things, is I step away from them for a stretch, then when I feel that I'm ready to return to it/them, I return with a fresh sense of newness behind me, and carry on where I left off.
.
Me, I'm wondering if I should go to Vancouver, it apparently is the gun crime capital of Canada, and just a few days after I went to a nice opera up there the other day, there were riots in the streets after the Stanley Cup finals, right where I'd been staying.
Come on Bae, you are talking about losing the hockey game. That is serious stuff, ya know! ;-)
Come on Bae, you are talking about losing the hockey game. That is serious stuff, ya know! ;-)
Maybe the Canadians should look into banning hockey. Or registering hockey fans.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c1/Riot_in_Vancouver.jpg/800px-Riot_in_Vancouver.jpg
http://8.mshcdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/3vmyfifrontpic.jpg
http://www.vancouversun.com/opinion/letters/Chickens+city/2781953/Kash+Heed+Began+career+with+Vancouver+Police+Depar tment/2784628/4957033.bin?size=620x400s
http://jamesmaclennan.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/14.jpg
http://jamesmaclennan.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/026.jpg
http://jamesmaclennan.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/018.jpg
http://jamesmaclennan.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/012.jpg
Bae. Let me open things up with this. As I understand it, You, Alan, and Spartana, all have extensive, formal, advanced training behind you Re: firearms, and all of you (at some point in time) have taken on duties to protect. For people like yourselves, I am 100% on-board with allowing such individuals as yourselves the right to carry, but your unique and identified credentials do not extend to the rest of the general public who are purchasing and carrying, and that IMO is where the law befriends wrong.
My next point is the most solid point that discerns me the most, and that point is, the suggestive nature of encouraging firearm use by average citizens. In my eyes, it exemplifies a disregard for human life. How so you may be thinking, well, IMV, it's almost as if there's a nonchalant attitude towards packing, like as if it means nothing, sort of like, "yeah, I'm going to get me a pistol and pack it around in my purse". IMO that speaks contempt, because it doesn't reflect positive, as in target practice, etc, it reflects protection, i.e. taking another human life, and from a lot of what I'm reading, this sort of underlying attitude seems to run rampant among gun-owners in general. (I may be wrong).
Now, as Iris Lily so mentioned, she lives in a dangerous area where crime is high, so in Iris Lily's case, I can (to a degree) accept someone wanting to carry for personal protection, but as for others who are removed or isolated from such environmental vulnerability, it shouldn't be allowed.
Tell you a little story. My husband was going to work one morning, and on his way he encountered a 4-way stop. DH waited his turn, then proceeded through the intersection, but part way through the intersection, DH said another driver decided that it was "his turn to go", and the guy cut off my husband and gestured him. Disgusted, DH threw one of his hands up in the air (inside the car), and carried on his way, but the man in the other vehicle took exception to DH's motions, and decided he was going to take it farther, so he spun his car around and tailed DH to the service station.
Well, no sooner DH had the car parked, the man came up behind him (boxing DH in), then proceeded to exit his car and storm over to DH. My guess is in the States, if my husband had a gun on him, he'd just dust the other guy. Bang! There. Problem solved. Am I right? I mention this, because that seems to be the speed of many of the stories coming our way as of late.
Conclusion to my story. (Gun-less conclusion). DH got out of the car slowly, and when the other guy took a look at what he was dealing with, he backed off and quit squawking (real quick like). Good thing DH is a gentleman, passive, and non-confrontational.
Enough for now. How about we touch on Spokane WA, in another post.
Mrs-M - the fact is, the evidence from the state of Washington, and from other similar states that have no formal education and training requirements shows us that the average law-abiding American is perfectly capable of carrying a concealed weapon and prudently using it. The rate of mis-use is so low it is almost unmeasureable.
And as others have pointed out, many states have considerable training and performance requirements for law abiding citizens to carry weapons. Their requirements don't seem to influence the misuse rate one way or the other.
Also, I think you are projecting incorrect thoughts and motivations into the minds of those who lawfully chose to carry weapons.
Bae. Let me open things up with this. As I understand it, You, Alan, and Spartana, all have extensive, formal, advanced training behind you Re: firearms, and all of you (at some point in time) have taken on duties to protect. For people like yourselves, I am 100% on-board with allowing such individuals as yourselves the right to carry, but your unique and identified credentials do not extend to the rest of the general public who are purchasing and carrying, and that IMO is where the law befriends wrong...
Sorry, at this point I call bull s.h.i.t.
This discussion always ends in the same way: bae, Alan, Spartana= smart reasonable people who are completely responsible with their firearms.
The rest of America with their guns= violent idiots.
That's not rational or reasonable and it exhibits a false superiority that isn't based in fact. Whether it is you, Mrs. M, or any numbers of posters here, it's always the same conclusion and it is tiresome.
... My guess is in the States, if my husband had a gun on him, he'd just dust the other guy. Bang! There. Problem solved. Am I right?
Your guess is a conjecture based on prejudices you've revealed in this thread several times, so no, you are not right.
Spartana..I want you on my team:~)
I shall be combing my hair a la Charlie's Angel whilst you burst through spraying bullets!
I get to be Farrah - I've got that 1980's hair! But I always wonder where they put their guns when in those little bikini's? :devil:
I understand your frustration, Iris, but where I was trying to go with my opening, is I was attempting to confirm that some people (people who are leading active protection-based positions/titles in society that require them to protect/oversee the safety of things, people, buildings, property, etc), are legal accredited officers, and IMV, carrying privileges should be afforded to individuals with such credentials. As far as the rest of America goes, not allowed. Unless you are a Police Officer, Security Officer, or Guard of some type, carrying privileges should be outlawed.
What I don't like, is knowing people are purchasing and carrying, strictly, with a predetermined attitude of using their weapons in self-defense type circumstances, and to me that in itself is a time-bomb. That sort of mentality does not exude stability, nor do I see it as relaying positive. Examining the logistics of it from the outside- looking in, it has all the precipitous propensity for trouble IMO.
Regardless of whether or not the rate of misuse or abuse is low (relative to law-abiding citizens owning/carrying), I see it as an extension of the wild, wild west, where society is largely made up of gunslingers. Myself, If I were a US citizen, I would avoid attending functions/get-togethers (like the Black Plague) if I knew guests were packing. And as far as me feeling safe/safer in a restaurant where say 30- 40 people (out of 100) were packing, not the slightest. The opposite.
It appears the propensity to do violence or the chances of becoming a victim of it is not limited to barbaric cultures like the USA. And go figure, they don't have as many guns in those more highly evolved societies so they just beat the **** out of each other with whatever small kitchen appliance is available. Maybe the time has come to treat this as a problem shared by human beings living in a society and end the strawman arguments regarding what tool they use to kill each other.
And this is would probably be the same for revenge type cases like the boy who did the school shootings. He was bullied and made an outcast by his classmates. He had no family structure - apparently being raise by the grandparents for some reason - and seemed like a lost kid in many ways. Probably hurt, angry and shamed. Had he not had access to a handgun he would probably have found another way. A shotgun? MUCH more effective then a small 22 pistol at causing harm. A .22. - as well as most handguns - are an extremely poor choice of weapon to harm even one person, let alone more. And shotguns are everywhere - something probably many people in Canada have for hunting and personal protection. Heck he could even have used a vehicle. A 4000 lb SUV or truck will do far more damage to a greater number of people then a small handgun - which are very inaccurate even for experienced people.
What I think is funny is that a gun, like a vehicle, is nothing more than a lifeless dormant hunk of metal that can cause no harm. Yet when someone gets shot - either intentionally or by accident - we ALWATS blame the gun, not the shooter - "we need to ban guns!", "we need stricter gun laws" "guns are bad" - etc... rather then dealing with the issues that the shooter had. Where as when someone causes a car accident that may kill a large number of people, we never blame the car - we always blame the driver. "they were drunk". "They were elderly", "they were teenagers speeding", "they were texting", "They were distraught and suicidal", "they were distraught and homicidal", etc... It seems no one calls for a ban on cars. And of course the reason is that it isn't the cars fault - it's just a hunk of metal. Same with the gun. We should hold the shooter accountable not their use of a gun. More people thru out the world are killed from auto accidents then anything else. And often enmass. It happens everyday. The old guy who mowed down dozens of people at the Farmers Market - killing 10. the housewife who, while texting, ran down and killed several school children waiting at the bus stop, the teen who killed 6 of his friends and an entire family of 5 because he was driving too fast. The soccier mom who backed over her kids while they played in the driveway. And these are just instances that happened around my little corner of the world not too long ago. And of course the endless drunks who kill many many people on the road each year. It's never "lets ban cars" or "cars are bad". We hold the person accountable for the deed. And rightly so. We each drive and believe that 99% of the people driving along side us in their 4000 lbs of deadly metal at 65 mph are responsible, law abiding people who aren't drunk, on drugs, texting, suicidial or homicidial so we go about our daily driving trusting in our fellow man. Sometimes our trust is broken when someone kills people in a car accident either intentionally or thru their negligence - but most times our trust isn't broken. The same trust of your fellow driver should be given to your fellow gunowner IMHO.
As far as the rest of America goes, not allowed. Unless you are a Police Officer, Security Officer, or Guard of some type, carrying privileges should be outlawed.
The people of all but a handful of American states disagree with you.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a8/Rtc.gif
The constitutions of most states in the USA disagree with you.
The constitution of the United States itself disagree with you.
The Supreme Court of the United States disagrees with you.
And of course, I disagree with you. I am just a normal law-abiding citizen, not a police officer, not a "guard". Just a soccer-dad. You have no moral authority to disarm me.
99% of people do not purchase vehicles with intentions on using them as weapons, however, I'll bet my bottom dollar that the same percentages cannot be applied to those purchasing guns.
99% of people do not purchase vehicles with intentions on using them as weapons, however, I'll bet my bottom dollar that the same percentages cannot be applied to those purchasing guns.
So what?
Is there something wrong with weapons?
Weapons are just tools. They are morally neutral objects, having no volition. Sometimes weapons are quite useful. Sometimes not. Sometimes they are used morally. Sometimes not.
The overwhelming percentage of weapons in the USA are used in a moral fashion. The statistics are more-than-conclusive.
Let your community be small, with only a few people;
Keep tools in abundance, but do not depend upon them;
Appreciate your life and be content with your home;
Sail boats and ride horses, but don't go too far;
Keep weapons and armour, but do not employ them;
Let everyone read and write,
Eat well and make beautiful things.
Live peacefully and delight in your own society;
Dwell within ****-crow of your neighbours,
But maintain your independence from them.
Mighty Frugal
3-1-12, 9:04pm
I get to be Farrah - I've got that 1980's hair! But I always wonder where they put their guns when in those little bikini's? :devil:
I'm Kelly or I'm not playing! Oh, and when they were wearing their bikinis they stuffed their guns in their big hair, of course!!:~)
Originally posted by Bae.
You have no moral authority to disarm me.When I returned to this thread earlier today, I returned to (more or less) touch on a few last minute things before walking away, as for the remainder of the discussion, both sides are at a stalemate regarding the issue, and I'm good with that. I see no sense going over the same old, same old, again and again, round and round. As I mentioned earlier, I have really enjoyed the discussion/debate, and thank everyone who took the time to visit and get involved in.
Lastly, it has been a good learning process for me, opening up my mind to many issues I was not aware of prior to the start of this topic, and that, I always enjoy. Education is bliss. All the best everybody.
I'm Kelly or I'm not playing! Oh, and when they were wearing their bikinis they stuffed their guns in their big hair, of course!!:~)
Of course :doh:!! Now I have a new place to conceal my many handguns :-)! See Mrs. M - those old fashioned bee-hive up dos you like really are just weapons caches :laff:!
Of course!! Now I have a new place to conceal my many handguns :-)! See Mrs. M - those old fashioned bee-hive up dos you like really are just weapons caches :-)!
I have a friend, a well known martial artist from Thailand, and she made these wooden objects up for my teenage daughter while we were training:
https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/--chj8mTIBLk/THlOPwWb3CI/AAAAAAAABQQ/u08uhZeqU3M/s442/IMG_7951.jpg
(The other items are training sparring knives for my daughter and I to work with.)
The pointy hard wood talons are conveniently used as hair pins, but have another use or two for my daughter, if push comes to shove. And she's practiced using them. She can carry them anywhere.
A point that hasn't come up much so far about weapons - they provide some compensation for disparity of force.
I spend a fair bit of of time working with women (and sometimes men) who are attempting to escape ex-partners/spouses who are physically abusive and pose an ongoing threat to them. Firearms and other weapons are often the most effective way for these women to develop the means to protect themselves in the time they have available.
For context, I'm male, and weighed nearly 275 pounds when I was a varsity athlete in high school/college. I wasn't fat, I was just very very solid. I am at ~50 years old, only about 15 pounds heavier, and am able to move the 120 pound anvil in my shop around with one hand, without thinking about it much, and can easily bench press my own body
weight. I have trained in martial arts every day for nearly 35 years now, and used to compete in full contact tournaments. I have trained with some of the world's best martial artists, both in unarmed and armed techniques, and have the luxury of time and money to continue to do so every day. I am also very very fast over short distances, which is a great help when fencing or wrestling.
Imagine if you were a 150 pound woman, and someone like me were stalking you intent on doing you harm. You would simply have no realistic chance of resisting, unarmed. None. No little tricks you learned in an unarmed self-defense seminar would save you. Yet if you had a weapon, knew how to use it, and were capable of doing so, you *would* have a chance.
Now consider, men who have spent time prison are often faster, train more, and are stronger than I am. And they sometimes travel in groups.
Also consider that I, as trained and strong as I am, would have very little chance unarmed against two men of even moderate skill, or a single armed man.
Also also consider that when I'm 90, I may be less able to resist even a single man, unarmed. (Though my great-grandfather, a blacksmith, was still shoeing horses the day he died in his mid-90s, so maybe genetics will help...)
Weapons have a place in our lives.
99% of people do not purchase vehicles with intentions on using them as weapons, however, I'll bet my bottom dollar that the same percentages cannot be applied to those purchasing guns.
True, but a weapon they are: "In the United States the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) estimates that 17,941 people died in 2006 in alcohol-related collisions, representing 40% of total traffic deaths in the US" and a total number of fatal vehicular deaths for 2010 was approx. 31,000.
Much like your great-grandfather, mine died in his nineties while chopping wood. Not a chance I'm going out that way. I've mentioned before that my once hale and strong father was mugged in his eighties in his own front yard. Hearing about it made me so mad I could have shot the guy myself. Repeatedly. Father certainly knew his way around weaponry, as a Pacific Theater infantry veteran, but he wasn't armed as a civilian. And I don't think it would have made a difference, unless he was actually openly carrying at the time of the assault, which is unheard-of where I come from.
Imagine if you were a 150 pound woman, and someone like me were stalking you intent on doing you harm. You would simply have no realistic chance of resisting, unarmed. None. No little tricks you learned in an unarmed self-defense seminar would save you. Yet if you had a weapon, knew how to use it, and were capable of doing so, you *would* have a chance.
Well I did once seriously hurt a male attacker with a hard wooden Dr. Scholl sandal - and I was only 103 lbs at that time! Well he was unarmed but otherwise I'd say it was pretty even :-)!. OK so I had lots of martial arts training too so that evened it up even a bit more. That was on a cross country trip alone from PA to Calif via Florida when my car broke down in a remote area. If that guy had been armed I'd be one of those missing women on the back of a milk carton while my body rotted in a Georgia swamp.
But yes, I agree with you. In most normal "non-Dr. Scholl sandal" incidents most women wouldn't stand a chance against a large male or a group of males unless they have either lots of training(and that's iffy since the other guy may have just as much training as you do) or some kind of weapon. It is one of the reasons I do carry a handgun with me when I go somewhere remote or even just driving late at night. Well I always carry a handgun but you know what I mean. It does give me freedom and peace of mind lnowing that I protect myself better then I could if unarmed. Knowing that if someone breaks into my house I won't be one of those people screaming into the phone to police while someone attackes them. I enjoy myself more, am more relaxed and, best of all, don't have to wear those dang wooden sandals anymore :-)!
As a side note. On my forst house I had put up metal deadbolted security screen doors instead of regular screen doors. I also had those decrotive wrought iron security bars installed on all 3 bedroom window. My friends made fun of me because they thought I was a crazy paranoid freak. However, come summer in hot SoCal, I felt completely comfortable leave both my front and back doors open as well as all the bedroom windows. I never shut any doors or windows for months! I lived alone in a somewhat crime ridden area called Little Saigon (asian gangs and home invasions). By having secruity bars and doors in place as PROTECTION, I was able to relax and enjoy living in my home more so then if I didn't have them.
ApatheticNoMore
3-2-12, 12:46am
This discussion always ends in the same way: bae, Alan, Spartana= smart reasonable people who are completely responsible with their firearms.
The rest of America with their guns= violent idiots.
That's not rational or reasonable and it exhibits a false superiority that isn't based in fact. Whether it is you, Mrs. M, or any numbers of posters here, it's always the same conclusion and it is tiresome.
There are people who are violent idiots. And while a gun might be beneficial to the victim of abuse, more people would probably be dead if their ABUSERS all had had guns. There are people who go off in fits of rage (how I got my stitches as a kid). So yea, there are people with anger problems. There are child abusers and spouse beaters (and the less of them who have guns the better). There are substance abusers (obviously not all substances lead to violence, and some quite the opposite, but some lead to a complete Jekyl and Hyde transformation - and vast scary crazy rage I've seen with my own eyes, that isn't even remembered the next day but somehow the bruises are there on the victim). There are people who don't adequately lock up their guns and so a depressed family member finds them and ends their life (although there are plenty of ways to do that without guns - and frankly some of them much less painful and dramatic).
Bae, Alan etc. are responsible with guns I suppose by definition in having never pointed the gun at people in rage, much less killed anyone in anger, or attempted suicide (probably sounds like faint praise :)). But anyway, I don't actually think everyone is that stable really, I have never believed so. I saw too much out of control rage to ever think everyone was stable. But it was never from strangers, probably why I have a pretty darn low degree of stranger danger fear.
In my experience after several decades of working with battered women, men don't seem to need guns to brutalize and kill their partners. Women however pretty much need weapons to resist men.
I myself have no fear of the people I closely associate with, because I don't associate with violent, rage-filled, substance-abusing people.
flowerseverywhere
3-2-12, 6:04am
I was assaulted yesterday, odd story and luckily ended up with two black eyes and some minor abrasions. I won't go into details but I am thinking about this gun thing in a whole new light.
99% of people do not purchase vehicles with intentions on using them as weapons, however, I'll bet my bottom dollar that the same percentages cannot be applied to those purchasing guns.
Ahhh. We're finally boiled down enough to see the bottom of the pan. It isn't more gun restrictions we need, its more intention restrictions. That should nip this epidemic of thoughtcrime in the bud.
I was assaulted yesterday, odd story and luckily ended up with two black eyes and some minor abrasions. I won't go into details but I am thinking about this gun thing in a whole new light.
:-(. I hope you recover swiftly, that's horrid.
Flowers, ouch! Hope you heal quickly.
What bothers me about threads like this (because it HAS happened before)........where some of us are upset because a horrible thing has happened involving guns, and it ends up being a brag-fest for *some* of the gun/weapon owners. This is really insensitive and obnoxious. If you want to brag about your arsenal, please start your own thread and not piggyback it onto a thread about a horrible shooting at a high school.
Flowerseverywhere.........I hope you are okay. What a traumatic thing for you.
flowerseverywhere
3-2-12, 12:55pm
What bothers me about threads like this (because it HAS happened before)........where some of us are upset because a horrible thing has happened involving guns, and it ends up being a brag-fest for *some* of the gun/weapon owners. This is really insensitive and obnoxious. If you want to brag about your arsenal, please start your own thread and not piggyback it onto a thread about a horrible shooting at a high school.
Flowerseverywhere.........I hope you are okay. What a traumatic thing for you.
I'm glad people posted about guns and weapons, what training they have, what the various gun laws are. I have learned a lot. I especially have been quite interested in what peoples opinions are on what is needed to defend themselves that have a lot of gun experience. If you look at the number of guns in all countries we have more per 100 people in the US but all the countries where people are likely to post here have quite a large gun ownership. Even England and wales are 6.2/100 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_gun_ownership. Of course you only need one gun to shoot one person.
I am fine, just shaken up and bruised- I won't post any details as you never know what is discoverable if this ends up in a court somewhere. It is no secret of course as there will be a newspaper article following the police report and you only have to take one look at me to know something happened.
ApatheticNoMore
3-2-12, 1:05pm
99% of people do not purchase vehicles with intentions on using them as weapons, however, I'll bet my bottom dollar that the same percentages cannot be applied to those purchasing guns.
Ahhh. We're finally boiled down enough to see the bottom of the pan. It isn't more gun restrictions we need, its more intention restrictions. That should nip this epidemic of thoughtcrime in the bud.
There's a really strong argument that can be made that cars never should have been legalized given the degree of the carnage (not to mention the environmental effect). However, when a whole society grows up car dependent there is not much that can be done at that point. Still the degree of carnage is far greater than most of the things people worry about.
What bothers me about threads like this (because it HAS happened before)........where some of us are upset because a horrible thing has happened involving guns, and it ends up being a brag-fest for *some* of the gun/weapon owners. This is really insensitive and obnoxious. If you want to brag about your arsenal, please start your own thread and not piggyback it onto a thread about a horrible shooting at a high school.
Flowerseverywhere.........I hope you are okay. What a traumatic thing for you.
We're not bragging but trying to show that we, along with many many other gun owners in this country, are responsible, concerned, caring, and safety conscience individuals. And that we, like 99% of other gun owners in this country, have never wantonly shot someone due to rage, anger, fear, irritation, recklessness, negligence, intoxication or drug use, or well... any reason! I don't think the same can be said for many vehicle drivers in this country - at least not here in L.A., home of Road Rage Central!
As far as hijacking the thread, well, it was Mrs. M's comments about gun owners in the USA that sent it in this direction. I for one felt it shoul dhave been more about how do we stop school bullying, rather than guns. Not last week a young girl died in LA due to getting beat up by another young girl. She was kicked in the head, apparently by a school bully, and died of a blood clot in her brain. Both girls were approx. 11 years old and the fight was about a boy.
P.S. (((((Flowerseverywhere))))) - I hope you are OK! I'm so sorry to hear about your attack. Don't let it put too much fear into you - causion yes, fear no - as you are stronger in mind and soul then anything anyone can do to you!!
And now, like Mrs. M, I will remove myself from this conversation but , as always, it has been interesting.
P.S. (((((Flowerseverywhere))))) - I hope you are OK! I'm so sorry to hear about your attack. Don't let it put too much fear into you - causion yes, fear no - as you are stronger in mind and soul then anything anyone can do to you!!
Flowerseverywhere: I could not have said it any better than Spartana did. All the best to you!
Just to complete the circle, here is what was posted in the Open forum when this thread was moved to PP. If anyone has comments or questions please feel free to contact any of the mods or admins directly. We agreed that this was a more appropriate location for this thread given the direction its taken, but don't have an established policy regarding when or why to move a thread so constructive feedback would be welcome.
MOVED: "another horrible high school shooting in Ohio"
Just in case anyone missed the redirect above, the "Ohio" thread was moved to Simple Public Policy. The nature and content of that thread make SPP a more fitting destination. This was done at the (reasonable) request of several members and the mod team agreed that it makes sense. No other changes of modifications were made to the thread. Please follow the redirect link above or simply go to Simple Public Policy to continue to participate in that thread.
What bothers me about threads like this (because it HAS happened before)........where some of us are upset because a horrible thing has happened involving guns, and it ends up being a brag-fest for *some* of the gun/weapon owners. This is really insensitive and obnoxious. If you want to brag about your arsenal, please start your own thread ...
I just glanced over the previous 13 pages. I don't see anyone here bragging about their "arsenal". I find no mention of any firearms by brand name, no discussion of the number of firearms any member owns, only one mention by Spartana of the types of weapons she carries, and only one photo of a weapon, the picture of the foam training blades and wooden hairpins my teenage daughter uses.
So, I have to think you must be talking about some other forum...
The only "piggybacking" that has occurred here is some forum members lashing out at American gun owners in terms that, if applied to African-Americans, Catholics, women, or Democrats, would get them banned from the forum. And then responsible firearms owners attempting to respond to the libel.
Cheers.
Flowerseverywhere - I am so sorry for what happened. I am thinking of you.
Bae, you should revisit this (http://www.simplelivingforum.net/showthread.php?1165-A-Simple-Rifle-For-Simple-Times&highlight=guns) thread of interest. (When you're done reviewing it, come on back and state your case again).
Look at page 2, first.
Originally posted by Bae.
I do have a nice mount on the boat for my smaller Browning, to help defend our border here from the Canadian menace.
Then go to page 3.
Originally posted by Bae.
I have a 10 pounder Parrott gun on order to set up the first coastal battery here. That'll keep those curling fiends away from our sacred shores!
Originally posted by Bae.
The only "piggybacking" that has occurred here is some forum members lashing out at American gun owners in terms that, if applied to African-Americans, Catholics, women, or Democrats, would get them banned from the forum. And then responsible firearms owners attempting to respond to the libel.My husband is a "responsible firearms owner", yet not once have I ever heard him connote such priggishness and disdainfulness towards the American people.
Cheers.
Mrs-M - that is really dishonest. The thread you took that from is from a thread in Hobbies & Creativity, a thread *I* started, about a Sharps Buffalo rifle I picked up. (A "military assault rifle" from the 1800s)
It is not from a Public Policy thread discussing violence and gun control.
I stand by my claim - this thread is not full of gun owners "bragging about their arsenals". It is however full of gun owners who think you are misinformed and not paying any attention to facts.
Related: for those who care, the Simple Living forum software does support an ignore list. You can access it via the "Settings" button at the top of the page. Or:
http://www.simplelivingforum.net/profile.php?do=ignorelist
Adios, Mrs-M.
Flowerseverywhere. So sorry to hear of your misfortune. Happy to know you are alright. Sending a caring hug your way to let you know you are thought of.
I agree whole-heartedly Mrs. M., but you know what the gun owners here are going to say................
In this country, the rights of the individual are more important than the rights of the whole................which will lead to nothing good.
And the right to bare arms was written back when there wasn't much of a system of law to protect people.
I see this country as "individual rights gone awry". Like a cancer that the body is supporting and giving rights to. That body won't last long.
I'm gonna be honest here.
I don't own any guns.
But I believe in the second amendment. Truly and deeply.
There are laws around who can own a gun, who can carry, where they can carry, etc. As Alan pointed out, this youngster didn't have any of those legalities.
The problem with making things illegal is that it makes it hard for good people to get ahold of it for the right reasons (everything from personal protection to hunting) but makes it much easier for 'bad people' to move those same arms into the wrong hands for the wrong reasons.
Now, why do these things happen?
Well, as always, it's a confluence of circumstances. I would not be surprised if the psychotropic drugs are part of the equation. I would not be surprised if bullying was part of the equation. I think that the institutional aspects of schooling and how they value control and certain personality types over others, likely leads to a great deal of student frustration (as well as low self esteem, etc). And, there is likely home-life issues as well.
And of course, the choices that the individual makes.
And the tragedy that it causes.
Really, not about guns. Gun was the method he chose -- he could have chosen to put a chemical mixture into the ventilation system and killed everyone pretty much at once -- just using household cleansers.
Should bleach and ammonia be controlled substances then?
Or should we look at the cause of the problem -- the mind and experience of the person committing the act -- or are we going to continue to demonize method?
Sad to see the direction that this thread has taken. A shooting in Ohio by one very troubled individual should not cause judgement of everyone else. I am sorry that this has happened and that is all that I can do.
Sad to see the direction that this thread has taken. A shooting in Ohio by one very troubled individual should not cause judgement of everyone else. I am sorry that this has happened and that is all that I can do.
I totally agree that the event that began this thread is tragic, but I'm not convinced we have gone down a dead end road with the direction its taken. For a multitude of reasons guns tend to spur more emotions than almost any other inanimate object I can think of. IMO it is a very positive thing to be able to put our cards on the table. We probably won't ever bring the two sides of the argument together, but I think it is a good thing to have this discourse and if not exactly compromise then at least work toward understanding the position of those who feel differently than yourself. At its very best that is what these forums can do for all of us.
***Mod Hat On***
Because this discussion was transferred from Open to PP some participants may not be completely comfortable or aware of the accepted ways of doing business here in PP. Due to the nature of topics here this tends to be a more interactive forum than most. If anyone wishes to quote and question another poster on a comment they made in the thread, that is absolutely acceptable (assuming you do it in a reasonable and civil manner). If you wish to question what a poster had to say in a different thread you should either question them in that thread or contact them directly. Comments taken out of context and/or imported from other discussions will usually not add much to the experience of other participants in a current discussion. We've got some great material right here guys. Lets work with it if this thread is going to continue.
Or should we look at the cause of the problem -- the mind and experience of the person committing the act -- or are we going to continue to demonize method?
This is a very sensible question. Speaking to the moral actor as opposed to totemic symbols.
Although in all candor, I see no point in owning guns myself. I can still remember one of my military instructors advising me to go into nuclear weapons because that was the only way I was likely to hit anything.
The thread you took that from is from a thread in Hobbies & Creativity, a thread *I* started, about a Sharps Buffalo rifle I picked up. (A "military assault rifle" from the 1800s)
It is not from a Public Policy thread discussing violence and gun control.
I remember that thread - as well as the one in the open forum about firearms for personal protection after Iris Lily got robbed. I felt both were just sharing info and experience on ownership of firearms as a hobby, for sporting, and personal protection - nothing more - certainly not bragging anymore than anyone else here talks about their hobbies or achievements. I also remember the "Canadian Curling Menance" comment and felt that it was meant to be a very good natured and humorous comment about Bae's location on the Canadian border. Nothing mean spirited or derogatory that I could see. I even told some of my Canadian friends about it and they thought it was hillarious - as did I.
Anyways, while, as Cathy A points out, this thread took a wrong turn from "Terrible Tragedy" to "Why do some Americans feel the need to own/carry guns for protection" to "America 'is a terrible place' because of our governments policy on gun ownership", I'm hoping Bae and Mrs M. can kiss and make up ;) and realize that, while we might not all agree on the gun ownship/carry policy in this country, we all agree that each of us has the right to express our opinions as we see fit with no harm done to anyone.
This is a very sensible question. Speaking to the moral actor as opposed to totemic symbols.
Although in all candor, I see no point in owning guns myself. I can still remember one of my military instructors advising me to go into nuclear weapons because that was the only way I was likely to hit anything.
Hilarious!!pow!
I can still remember one of my military instructors advising me to go into nuclear weapons because that was the only way I was likely to hit anything.
You have to be careful about the details.
This M-388 warhead which I came across while cleaning up the garage the other day has a range of 1.25 miles from the M28 handheld launcher, and a yield of about 20 tons of TNT, and puts out quite a bit of radiation. After the first test firing, they switched to the M29 launcher, with a range of 2.5 miles. Ooooops.
https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-ECHwlb2yz-E/TLEg20XUS0I/AAAAAAAABag/T-WRYPwC1ro/s576/img_0454.jpg
I sure would have hated to have been the guy firing the first one:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/43/DavyCrockettBomb.jpg/750px-DavyCrockettBomb.jpg
Oh Wile E. ...
Oh Wile E. ...
:laff::laff::laff::laff::laff:
Mrs-M - that is really dishonest. The thread you took that from is from a thread in Hobbies & Creativity, a thread *I* started, about a Sharps Buffalo rifle I picked up. (A "military assault rifle" from the 1800s)
It is not from a Public Policy thread discussing violence and gun control.
I stand by my claim - this thread is not full of gun owners "bragging about their arsenals". It is however full of gun owners who think you are misinformed and not paying any attention to facts.
Related: for those who care, the Simple Living forum software does support an ignore list. You can access it via the "Settings" button at the top of the page. Or:
http://www.simplelivingforum.net/profile.php?do=ignorelist
Adios, Mrs-M.
Sadly, it will not allow me to ignore a Moderator.
Mrs. M, I have to protest about the assumptions about legal gun owners. Responsible owners need licences based on training in proper use and safety practices for using their guns, carefully protect the ammo and store the weapons in safe places. DH and I do this.
Arms are big business around the world providing substantial revenue, come to North America from around the world and these are apparently available at the same type of sources that sell illegal drugs. No matter what the careful owner does with his or her weapons, the illegal weapons are going to be a problem.
It is a little tiresome to keep hearing about these 'terrible legal responsible gun owners' every time there is a shooting by someone who is very disturbed and using an illegal weapon.
Someone did something bad. I am really sorry to hear this. We don't know the whole story or background.
Sometimes it is a car that runs people down and we don't rant about the terrible legal car drivers; sometimes, a child drowns but we don't rant and deny access to all water sports, pools and beaches; sometimes, a ferris wheel has an accident but we don't rant and stop all fairground activities; sometimes, a parent kills their own children but we don't rant and go off about every parent...
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.