Here's where the gun debate should go!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bunnys

Is there something wrong with the call for a candlelight vigil or is it just Jesse Jackson? Regardless of the answer, why?

---

It's Jesse Jackson. Perhaps I'm jaded with having lived in the Chicago area for the past 16 years and so he's all over the local media more than folks might see him in the national media. But whenever something happens that he could grandstand, it seems like he's all over it. Anything for a scrap of publicity. He's also divisive.

He goes on and on about how Chicago needs stricter gun control. Well, Chicago *did* have very strict gun control laws - no one was allowed to legally own a handgun beginning in 1982 until that was struck down in the McDonald case in 2010. Did the ban make a difference? Hardly. Chicago's dragging its heels.

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2...n-violence-ban

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rogar

These mass murders definitively get more media attention than the daily crimes. Major Bloomberg was on our local coverage and said that New York City has 365 gun related killings a year (I think he was ball-parking). If you can consider the mayors of these cities as any sort of experts, there is a coalition of city mayors including Chicago, Boston, and NYC who are members, along with of a coalition of a few hundred other mayors, that have agreed on the need for tighter gun controls (M.A.I.G.). Bloomberg is especially outspoken. Their have a formal list of items that basically tighten gun registration regulations and give federal and local agencies more access to gun sale and ownership records.

---

Yes, there are most definitely these mayors. You'll hear Rahm bleating locally about stricter gun control. But on the national level? The gun control debate seems to revolve around these sensational mass shootings, not the daily count. It's especially interesting watching the news after a hot weekend this summer in Chicago to see what the body count will be.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Iris lily

Oh free, that is so much hyperbole, it's ridiculous.

---

I was just kidding but I guess I was wright. Here is what the NRA spokesperson said in 2008.
The NRA’s [spokeswoman Rachel] Parsons signaled disagreement with respondents who believe that people should be barred from keeping machine guns and fully automatic weapons in their homes.

"Anyone wanting to own such a weapon faces a lengthy and demanding review process, including several background checks, Parsons said, adding that legally owned fully automatic firearms result in little or no crime.

“The NRA stands firmly by the notion that law-abiding citizens are not the problem,” she said."

Link to article: http://blog.bradycampaign.org/?p=436

That's a bit different, no?

Are you aware of the current legal requirements for civilan ownership of fully automatic weapons in the USA?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Zoebird.
No doubt, Bae would have taken down that young man in 30 seconds flat and been a hero -- assuming the laws allowed him to legally conceal-carry.

---

This is exactly the sort of offal that causes me to upchuck every time I hear it.

Did anyone else watch the hour-long Dateline special (tonight) on the Colorado shooting???, because DH and I, just finished watching it, and what a sobering watch it was...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bae

That's a bit different, no?

Are you aware of the current legal requirements for civilan ownership of fully automatic weapons in the USA?

---

Yes it is virtually impossible to own a machine gun. That is a good thing Can you imagine how many more people would have been killed in such mass killings. I have shot a machine gun in the army an M60 and know how deadly they are. You probably know you use short burst so you don't burn the barrel up but those short burst are very deadly. I would guess even you would agree that ownership of machine guns should be very tightly controlled.

It is already tightly controlled, and has been since 1934. The NRA helped write that law.

When a tragedy strikes it is a normal reaction to want to do something to prevent something similar from happening, but I don't any easy solution to this one in the gun control arena. It would be nice to wake up and not have any assault weapons like the AR-15 or AK-47s in public hands. They have little value as a sporting weapon and probably not a top choice for personal protection, but there are already so many of these floating around that it would be impossible to somehow recall or eliminate these in any practical numbers. As far as I can tell, the ten year or so ban on assault weapons was practically invisible.

There are some loopholes that should be closed on background checks for firearm purchases, at gun shows for example. Statistics seem to show that murders are typically committed by people who have a prior criminal record, but these people also are likely to have access to illegal guns.

I'm not even sure about allowing more or better access to law enforcement on firearms or ammunition ownership and purchases. Maybe when someone buys huge amounts of ammunition or multiple weapons in a short amount of time there should be a flag that goes up or some sort of limits. But this also allows an implicit trust in legal authority. I have a female friend with a conceal to carry permit who was harassed by police after a routine traffic stop check showed she may be armed. Personally, I turned in a broken old shotgun at local police station and was questioned at some length while they held my driver's license. I'm sure my name is still on their records.

I've been to a few gun shows and shops that specialize in personal protection weapons. Most of the people are collectors, hunters, or people wanting protection for themselves and families. But there are invariably a handful of people that look downright scary. Some probably are radical survivalists, some just odd. Any they are all probably heavily armed. I don't know of a way to eliminate the crazies without also taking away the rights of protection against the crazies.

It just seems like we are too far into the gun culture and have to look at other solutions?

There is no easy-fix, Rogar, that's for sure...

The only thing I know is, it's an incredibly sad day when the definition of "hero" (nowadays), alludes to someone (armed) who makes their way out the door of their home/business first thing in the morning, to alter mankind.

Equally sad (and pathetic), are those who feel they have the god-given right to turn any/all public spaces into their very own personal shooting galleries (being heroes), all in the name of the Second Amendment, putting the lives of innocent people at risk.

There you go again, Mrs-M, with your uninformed judgemental insults.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mrs-M

This is exactly the sort of offal that causes me to upchuck every time I hear it.

---

First, offal is very nutritious and healthy, so I don't understand your issue with offal or you use of it in this statement.

To me it reads "this is exactly the sort of really tastey, delicious and healthy choice that makes me want to vomit every time that I hear it."

Secondarily, "take down" and "subdue" are the same thing. It doesn't imply killing the young man. It only implies keeping him from continuing.

In general, the police use several methods to subdue individuals -- and in these instances, they shoot or taser them.

If an individual in the theater (or several individuals in the theater in the case of krav maga/mma folks who often subdue perpatrators in small robbery situations), had those means at his/her disposal, it's likely that we would read that fewer people were killed or injured.

The issue here is not that guns are the problem, or that gun owners are. The issue here is that there was a young man in a lot of pain, whose pain drove him to madness. And that madness killed 12 and injured -- 58 others (at the last count that I read).

If someone had subdued him before police got there, it might have been "non one killed, several injured." or it might have been "two killed, several injured" or some such. Not these large numbers that we see.

If saving people using adequate force to subdue a person perpetrating an extreme act of violence makes you vomit, then I really, truly do not understand.

I mean, it's ok for the police to subdue him, but not a random person? You're ok with him being subdued right? As opposed to just continuing until he ran out of ammunition?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mrs-M

The only thing I know is, it's an incredibly sad day when the definition of "hero" (nowadays), alludes to someone (armed) who makes their way out the door of their home/business first thing in the morning, to alter mankind.

---

You have no way of knowing a person's mind. I don't know anyone who carries a weapon "to alter mankind." Most of them wear it because they want it for their personal security.

One of my friends carries a knife at all times and has since he was 14. It's a large knife, and he knows how to carry it and how to use it. He was trained in the appropriate martial arts when he was between the ages of 12 and 14.

Between the ages of 10 and 18, he, his brother, and his mother lived in one of the roughest neighborhoods in Baltimore. HIs brother -- who is older -- got involved in drugs, and often my friend and his mother would be out on the streets looking for him in the middle of the night.

Three times they were mugged at gun or knife point, and in one instance, his mother was brutalized before his eyes.

It was at this time that he learned several things. First, if your brother is being a stupid druggie, don't go looking for him in the middle of the night. Instead, go back to sleep and be ready for your math test in the morning.

Second, he needed to learn how to defend himself (and to the best of his ability his mother). He went and asked a local martial artist to train him. The school was about 2 blocks from his school, and he told the guy point blank what the situation was and that he couldn't pay. They set up a work-study option for my friend. He spent two years learning basic martial arts skills -- both traditional and modern -- and at age 12, was introduced to using knives.

At age 14, he started to carry one everywhere *except* school, as that was not allowed. He spoke to his principal and said that he would carry the weapon *to* school, turn it over to the principal each morning, and then pick it up after school. The teacher of his martial arts also wrote a letter about my friend's training, and the deal was struck.

From that day to this, unless he's on a flight, he carries a knife on his person -- into the office, around the city, and everywhere he goes. He will remove it when going into government offices (a rare occasion) or any place where it would be a problem. But it's important to note that he usually calls security ahead, tells them that he carries it, and then turns it in so that they can return it when he leaves the building.

My friend is 42 years old.

Third, he learned to stick to the shadows. The issue that he kept seeing is that he and his mother were always attacked when they walked from light to light. He said "the bad guys are in the shadows, you can't see them." And so he learned to stay in the shadows. You blend with the bad guys, and no one picks on you. in fact, no one can see you. He taught me this as well, because he knew I was often in the city at night. He taught me how to effectively stand, use a hoodie, and stay to the dark. He taught me how to keep myself safe.

My friend is not a vigilante. He has no interest in "altering human history" or whatever claim you are making. He simply feels confident considering his experience and worldview (as well as the fact that he lives in Philadelphia and walks his dog most nights too), he prefers to carry something so that, should something happen, he can defend himself.

I can also tell you that he's only had to defend himself once -- age age 15 -- when a group of boys plotted to attack him to "test" his knife skills. He didn't kill, maim, or stab one of them. Simply, he did what his teaching taught him: use your hands as best as you can, subdue them as quickly as possible, make sure you *do not* loose your weapon to one of them, and escape as quickly as possible. Considering it was 6 untrained on 1 trained, I think he did ok.

I would also -- and in fact i have -- trusted this friend with my own life. I will trust him to the day that I die. He is beyond trustworthy, beyond capable, and *beyond the pale* of what a "Good Man" is.

He has a great job (completely self taught IT with very high security clearance with the government); he has a loving girlfriend/fiance (or what we call "partners" here); he rehabilitates abused dogs, with special emphasis in "fighting breeds" such as boxers, pit bulls, dobbies, rotties, german shepards and mixtures of these dogs. He takes the "lost cause" cases and turns them into animals that are -- generally speaking -- able to go with responsible families with older children (not one of the dogs that he has rehabilitated has harmed a person since rehabilitation). He understands these animals deeply, cares for them, and moves them on to the right kinds of homes. And he makes sure that they are placed well.

He practices yoga, he teaches martial arts and yoga at his teacher's school. He teaches how to subdue without using weapons unless you have to.

And on three occasions, he's stopped robberies -- with guns -- in progress. Knowing that all he had was his courage and a knife.

Does he walk out into the world to "alter mankind?"

No. He steps out into the world a confident human being, who is also compassionate and capable. He'll stand up for what is right -- whether it's a child who needs or wants to learn to protect himself from bullies or a shop-keeper being held at gunpoint for a few dollars. He understands justice.

I really don't think you do.

And yet you judge him so harshly.

Quote:

---

Equally sad (and pathetic), are those who feel they have the god-given right to turn any/all public spaces into their very own personal shooting galleries (being heroes), all in the name of the Second Amendment, putting the lives of innocent people at risk.

---

The argument you keep making is this:

all cats are mammals.
all dolphins are mammals;
all cats are dolphins.

except it's this version:

Responsible citizens own guns;
Sociopaths who go on killing rampages own guns;
Responsible citizens who own guns are sociopaths who go on killing sprees.

It's simply not logical.

Here is the appropriate logic.

The majority of gun owners are responsible, average citizens who choose to own weaponry for a variety of purposes. It could be for sport (skeet shooting, shooting ranges/marksmanship, etc); it could be for sustainability (hunting for food); it could be for personal security; it could be because they enjoy weapons technology (and/or antique weapons as well), and would like to collect and keep these in working order (the same way people might like to do with cars or motorcycles).

The majority of gun owners are law-abiding citizens, not just in terms of gun-ownership, but in every other way possible. Gun control really only inhibits their ability to access guns, but it's not a problem, because if they want those guns, they will simply move through the appropriate hoops to get one.

The majority of people who go on killing sprees suffer from mental illness and/or sociopathy.

While many acquire their guns legally, some also acquire them illegally. Some acquire them illegally by acquiring them from a person who owns them legally. Some of them choose to use bombs or other weapons because they are more accessible than legal or illegal guns.

In Finland and Norway, there were relatively recent, similar massacres. These were perpetrated by men who were -- as far as can be told from the articles online -- sociopaths. Both suffered with mental illness.

The methods to acquiring weapons in these countries is much greater than in the US (from what I can tell), and yet both men acquired guns.

Gun control doesn't stop sociopaths from getting guns. Most sociopaths tend to be "quite people who kept to themselves" or people who simply "pass" in daily life. Sandusky, for example, is obviously a sociopath of a horrifying order. And yet most saw him as an upstanding citizen and nice man for many years. Sociopaths rarely have criminal pasts until whatever it is that they are doing comes to light. With Sandusky, it was as we saw it unfold. With the gunman in norway, it was his killing spree that brought his sociopathy to light.

What gun control does is that it gives a clear set of hoops for people ot go through to qualify for weapons. It mainly nets out criminals from getting guns legally. Thing is, criminals really dont' care about legality. Criminals -- if they want guns -- will get them illegally. After all, we know that there is a healthy, black-market arms trade world-wide. It's no secret, is it?

So, look at it this way.

Sociopaths, like criminals, will get the weapons that they require by any means necessary, with no regard for the law because their ultimate aim is to do whatever it is that they are going to do (bomb a government building, shoot up a school, shoot up a movie theater, etc). Gun control wouldn't stop them -- they'd either change tactic or they will go about and get what they feel they need for their sociopathic act criminally. it won't matter to them.

They tend to choose legal routes because it keeps them off the radar until their "last stand." And fwiw, it generally is. I'm surprised this young man was subdued at all. These things usually end in suicide of the perpetrator.

But, he was subdued, and what will come to light -- eventually -- is that he fits the typical profile for a sociopath with mental illness.

Which is not the profile of the average gun-owner.

Zoebird. Your stance on gun-ownership (and use) quintessentially epitomizes why there is such a HUGE problem in the US (re: gun related violence). For every wrong committed with a gun, gun-owners find ten "rights" (imaginary ones if they have to), and the merry-go-round goes round and round and round...

Re: offal, and it's definition, check out this link (if you're interested). http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/offal

The third entry reads, refuse; rubbish; garbage.

Did anyone else take the time to delve into the link posted (Open Forum), where the 71 year old man shoots two punks in the internet cafe?

Real bright, eh? I mean does that take a high IQ (or what), (((NOT))), to take up arms and open fire (IN A PUBLIC PLACE) like a bunch of tobacco-chewing cowboys from back in the old western days!

I wonder... do you think the 71 year old man give thought as to what would have happened had a bullet gone straight through one of the punks and hit another "innocent" person in the cafe? My guess is NO.

Honestly... society really can do without heroes like that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mrs-M

Did anyone else take the time to delve into the link posted (Open Forum), where the 71 year old man shoots two punks in the internet cafe?

Real bright, eh? I mean does that take a high IQ (or what), (((NOT))), to take up arms and open fire (IN A PUBLIC PLACE) like a bunch of tobacco-chewing cowboys from back in the old western days!

---

I watched that footage a few times and found it encouraging--encouraging that someone chased the gun totting perps off of the premises.

It is certainly true that when weapons are being discharged things that the shooters don't intend happen. But since none of us know the intent of the robbers in using their own weapons, I think it's great that they were run off and no one was hurt except perhaps them.

Ok, so digging to the third dictionary definition, I"ll give it to you. Though generally, it's understood to be "archaic."

Beyond that, you've not produced any evidence or a rational argument that legal gun ownership leads to criminality.

Here is some evidence from the National Institute of Justice about gun violence.

It looks to me like one thing is really relevant in that information: gun deaths from gang-related activity and criminal activity has increased, while gun related injury and death from arguments (lets call this non-crime related, average citizenry) has remained the same since the 1970s.

Now, I admit -- because it is nearly midnight -- that I don't understand the reference points of those statistics. It says that gang-related homicide involving guns raised from 70% in the 70s to 97% past 2000.

Likewise, "In 2005, 11,346 persons were killed by firearm violence and 477,040 persons were victims of a crime committed with a firearm."

What it doesn't break down for us is how many of those 11,346 deaths were due to criminality (gang related crime) or arguments (average citizens getting out of hand).

There's also this http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/guns.cfm from that page. It asserts: "According to the 1997 Survey of State Prison Inmates, among those possessing a gun, the source of the gun was from --

a flea market or gun show for fewer than 2%;
a retail store or pawnshop for about 12%; and
family, friends, a street buy, or an illegal source for 80%

Meaning that the majority of gun violence extends out of illegal -- not legal -- gun ownership.

Here's http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/glance/guncrime.cfm from that page which asserts that gun violence has "leveled off" since the 1990s.

This one asserts that the majority of fire-arms deaths are suicides, followed by close margins between accidental (unintentional) and homicidal (intentional) use of guns. What it doesn't yet break down is how intentional gun use falls along lines of criminality.

My impression is that most people who are using guns to murder others obtain their guns illegally, which seems to be born out by the statistic above, meaning that they aren't the sorts of upstanding citizens that we are talking about.

Here also is a really interesting article about gun control in Belgium, and whether or not those controls affected the gun-violence rates in that country. This is the most relevant statement:

Quote:

---

A scientific study from the University of Dortmund calculated that in Germany a "97%- 3%" rule applies : of all firearm crimes, legal firearms are only used in 3% of the cases, and illegal firearms in 97 % of the cases .

---

Quote:

---

4

---

Thus, I think that this study -- at least -- supports my assertion. Gun ownership -- particularly legal gun ownership -- doesn't equate to criminality. And of gun-related violence in the US, criminals themselves asserted that 80% of their guns were illegal.

So far, you haven't defined your problem at all, nor provided any evidence for your problem.

Second to this, you assert that "gun owners find ten "rights"). The reality is that there is only one right: The right to bear arms under the second amendment. That right was defined specifically to create a standing militia to defend against both foreign and domestic invaders -- which could include a tyrannical government.

The legal situation of rights is clear. As the government has a standing military with extreme might, as well as a police force with the same, the average citizenry is at risk of not being able to defend themselves should the state go tyrannical *if* gun law is such that individuals cannot get weapons of "equal force."

The legal precedent in regards to force is "equal force." You are behaving legally so long as force is equal. Meaning, if you pull a knife on me, I can't pull a gun on you, but we can knife fight the live long day. If you have fists, I cannot use knife. It's called using equal force.

In law enforcement, it's much the same. Technically, they are supposed to use legal measures of force.

And, I would say that the theory of it is a two way street between citizenry and government.

In order for us to have equal force, we must maintain access to equal force.

Otherwise, those weapons are only handled by government (military, law enforcement) or criminals (arms dealing).

And as the evidence from Belgium shows, there are more illegal guns in that country than legal ones. I can only imagine what the extrapolation is in the US.

You see, gun control is the same issue as the "war on drugs." The swiss decided to end the war on drugs -- making most drugs government controlled substances. This decrminalized drug use and released people from prisons. It essentially ended the illegal drug trade and the crime related to it. It created a tax-based revenue stream for the government to support programs related both to drug distribution (within the new legal parameters) as well as drug treatment and rehabilitation under their health system (which is part social, part private).

Like drug control law in the US, the more control there is, the more crime their is around it. The same is true of gun control laws. At the very least, logic bears this out. It's a logical inference at least.

So far, I've yet to see evidence *or* a logical inference from you. Please feel free to post some.

foremost, again, you are both assuming his ability (his knowledge, awareness, and capacity with a firearm) as well as his mental state (do you think he cared . . .?)

I don't konw if he cared or not. I can only presume. YOu presume that he did not. What if I presume that he did?

I do, btw, presume that such a person as Bae or that man, or my friend who carries a knife -- has the best possible intention and wouldn't utilize the weapon unless absolutely necessary and without risking himself and other innocent bystanders.

Why do you presume otherwise?

This is what the belgian article (linked above) said about the US:

Quote:

---

A. Number of weapons in the USA

In the USA at least 86 on 100 inhabitants possess a firearm 10. So there are at least 258 million firearms, probably the highest number of firearms per inhabitant worldwide.

B. Firearms and homicide/manslaughter


The "International Peace Information Service" states that in 2003 there were 3,45 firearm homicides per 100.000 inhabitants. Furthermore homicide is not only done with firearms in the USA. Also with non-firearms there were 2,25 homicides in 2003.


This is high compared to Europe, but very low compared to other countries on the American Continent : Ecuador 10 per 100.000, Brazilia 14 per 100.000, Venezuela 21 per 100.000, Colombia 62 per 100.000, Argentinia 9,5 per 100.000, Costa Rica 6,5 per 100.000, Mexico 13 per 100.000, Panama 9,6 per 100.000, Venezuela 33 per 100.000, Paraguy 12,6 per 100.000, Ecuador 18,3 per 100.000, Guyana 13,8 per 100.000, El Salvador 31,5 per 100.000, ... (just for info : in the Russian Federation there are 19,9 homicides per 100.000)

There is a clear reduction of crime in the USA : between 1996 and 2005 the number of homicides was reduced with 15% and the number of robberies was reduced with 22% 11. And this although the number of firearms keeps increasing over time.


The International Peace Information Service comes to the conclusion “In the USA in average 86 on 100 persons possess a firearm. The number of homicides that is committed with these arms remains within acceptable boundaries, and is very different from city to city" (free translation from the Dutch text)

This difference between cities and states is very important, to understand crime in the USA. There are enormous differences in Gun Legislation, and enormous differences in Gun deaths. But the cities/states that have a strict gun legislation, are also in the list of the cities/states with the highest number of homicides : Chicago, Detroit, Washington DC 12, ...
1

Washington DC (with the most strict gun legislation of the USA) is the “murder capital” of the USA : After the introduction of the Gun Ban in 1976 homicide increased from 26,8 per 100.000 in 1976 to 80,6 per 100.000 in 1991. As from 1993 we see a gradual reduction of the number of homicides in Washington DC. This gradual reduction is not a result of the Gun Ban (which was already in place for 17 years with as only result an increase of the homicides with 300 %), but was the result of the "gentrification" (investments in new buildings/infrastructure/... and the arrival of new and richer inhabitants).


In 2005 there were still 35,4 homicides per 100.000 inhabitants (6,3 times higher than the average for the USA). In 2006 the “crime emergency” was put in place : strict control of youngsters, more financial means for the police, “youth development strategy”, .... On 6 months time the criminality decreased with 18 %.

Despite all this Washington DC is today still far above the homicide level of 1976 (introduction of Gun Ban), whereas for the rest of the USA the number of homicides was reduced with 40 % over this same period in time.

Except for geographical differences in violent crime in the USA, there are also important demografical differences. Specific demografic groups (representing 26 % of the population) are over represented in murder (84 %), drug trafficking (88%) and gun crime (82%).

Murder and homicide in large cities is said to be mainly caused by criminal gangs, often active in drug trafficking : 30% of the murder in large cities is committed by criminals that are on parole/probation, 72% of the murder suspects was already convicted for violent crime 13

C. Firearms and suicide


The USA, with 4 times more weapons per inhabitant than Belgium, has a much lower suicide rate.
In the USA only 10 per 100.000 inhabitants commit suicide. This means that the USA only has 41% of the suicide rate of Belgium. And the number of suicides continues to drop. The high number of weapons available does not lead to a higher number of suicides.

(source: International Peace Information Service, “Kleine Wapens », dd 2006 11 FBI, http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/table_01.html 12 FBI Uniform Crime Reports (UCR) for 2000.)

---

Apparently, the evidence also supports my inference. Gun control increases gun violence and criminal activity -- at least, that's what the evidence seems to support anyway.

Oh, and emphases -- bold and italicized and italicized -- are mine. Regular bold are the subject headings within the article.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mrs-M

...to take up arms and open fire (IN A PUBLIC PLACE) like a bunch of tobacco-chewing cowboys from back in the old western days!

---

Let's just see about that. I was raised on a cattle ranch and spent a great deal of time on the back of a horse so, at least at that time, I fit fairly close with many folks definition of a cowboy. I gave up the habit years ago, but did occasionally chew tobacco when I was working. I own guns. All that and yet I have somehow been able to resist the urge to turn the world into my personal OK Corral. Either I have super human fortitude that allows me to resist overwhelming temtation ~OR~ that was simply a preposterous, insulting and rather judgmental statement born from too much time watching old westerns on TV rather than searching out true and factual information. My wife will confirm that I'm no superman...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gregg

Let's just see about that. I was raised on a cattle ranch and spent a great deal of time on the back of a horse so, at least at that time, I fit fairly close with many folks definition of a cowboy. I gave up the habit years ago, but did occasionally chew tobacco when I was working. I own guns. All that and yet I have somehow been able to resist the urge to turn the world into my personal OK Corral. Either I have super human fortitude that allows me to resist overwhelming temtation ~OR~ that was simply a preposterous, insulting and judgmental statement made by someone who apparently spent way too much time watching old westerns on TV. Well, I'm no superman...

---

The huge majority of gun killers in my zip code are as far from tobacco chewin' boot wearin' cowboy culture as you can get, unless you consider hip-hop baggy pants and expensive sneakers to be the garb of the Old West.

Maybe that's the new west, huh, Iris?

Gun ownership is a net positive for me. In my younger days I helped put food on the table by hunting. I've had many pleasurable hours with friends and family target shooting. I feel a small sense of security knowing that in an extreme case a gun could be useful defending my home and family. I appreciate the craftsmanship of some of the finer examples I own. I don't have any negative experiences as a gun owner to relate to anyone. That is due in no small part to taking careful steps to negate as many potentially negative events as possible, which is simply something responsible gun owners do.

The real point here is do you outlaw something that has many positive uses simply because a relatively small number of people abuse it? If that is the approach then we should all agree to remove Rx pain killers from the market. They are almost certainly abused 100 times more frequently than guns are. The number of deaths from them has tripled in the last decade and they are a problem in every industrialized country. Even for our even keeled neighbors to the north. From the article, "Available evidence suggests that Canadians are among the heaviest consumers of psychotropic medication in the world". So aren't Rx drugs a much more logical place to invoke a ban if we're trying to save society from itself? Someone abusing gun ownership the way James Holmes did will rightfully make headlines and cause us to debate policy, but a doctor's prescription pad, and the powerful lobbies behind it, can be a pretty devastating weapon as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gregg

Gun ownership is a net positive for me. In my younger days I helped put food on the table by hunting. I've had many pleasurable hours with friends and family target shooting. I feel a small sense of security knowing that in an extreme case a gun could be useful defending my home and family. I appreciate the craftsmanship of some of the finer examples I own. I don't have any negative experiences as a gun owner to relate to anyone. That is due in no small part to taking careful steps to negate as many potentially negative events as possible, which is simply something responsible gun owners do.

---

That pretty much sums up my experience too, Gregg. I’ve eaten a lot of venison (never hunted for sport), the only pigeon I’ve shot was made of clay, growing up my parents kept the guns in an unlocked closet and said ‘don’t touch the guns’ so I didn’t. My father taught me how to shoot when I was 8 by wrapping his big ole’ arms around my arms. Opinions come from experience* and that’s mine.

*or lack thereof.

How many people would have been killed in that theater with a hunting gun? It doesn't have to be all or nothing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CathyA

How many people would have been killed in that theater with a hunting gun? It doesn't have to be all or nothing.

---

You realize that the best-selling hunting guns over the past decade have been based on the AR-15 platform? And that's where the market is moving? And that even very traditional hunting arms producers have AR-15-based offerings now? And that there are top-notch hunting arms based on the AK platform as well?

The reasons are simple - reliability, ease of maintenance, easy configurability, and so on.

There is very little difference, objectively, between a scary black military-looking semi-automatic rifle, and a modern hunting rifle. Often they are exactly the same item.

For instance, I do a great portion of my varmint control here with a FN P90 rifle, which is a scary-looking very modern semi-auto firearm that has a 50-round magazine, and that the media often breathlessly portrays as the choice of drug cartels because of its alleged armor-piercing capabilities. The reason I use it is because it is tremendously accurate, very light and compact, easy to mount anti-varmint optics on, and can shoot some very nice frangible ammunition that turns into harmless powder when it contacts a hard surface, so there is very little danger of rounds richochetting or travelling any distance through the woods here.

To those who think gun ownership and carrying is a positive thing - do you think private businesses and property owners should have the right to ban guns on their own businesses/properties? I see arguments of carry as a positive thing - however the theatre chain banned weapons from their theatres.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by creaker

To those who think gun ownership and carrying is a positive thing - do you think private businesses and property owners should have the right to ban guns on their own businesses/properties?

---

Sure. It's their property. But I think they should be able to discriminate about all sorts of things on the same basis.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bae

Sure. It's their property. But I think they should be able to discriminate about all sorts of things on the same basis.

---

Just wanted to repeat this just in case anyone has any doubts as to the agenda of the NRA. There you go.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by peggy

Just wanted to repeat this just in case anyone has any doubts as to the agenda of the NRA. There you go.

---

I'm unclear what you mean by that. I agreed that property owners ought to be able to control the use of their property. I'm not sure what that has to do with the NRA or their secret agenda.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bae

You realize that the best-selling hunting guns over the past decade have been based on the AR-15 platform? And that's where the market is moving? And that even very traditional hunting arms producers have AR-15-based offerings now? And that there are top-notch hunting arms based on the AK platform as well?

The reasons are simple - reliability, ease of maintenance, easy configurability, and so on.



There is very little difference, objectively, between a scary black military-looking semi-automatic rifle, and a modern hunting rifle. Often they are exactly the same item.

For instance, I do a great portion of my varmint control here with a FN P90 rifle, which is a scary-looking very modern semi-auto firearm that has a 50-round magazine, and that the media often breathlessly portrays as the choice of drug cartels because of its alleged armor-piercing capabilities. The reason I use it is because it is tremendously accurate, very light and compact, easy to mount anti-varmint optics on, and can shoot some very nice frangible ammunition that turns into harmless powder when it contacts a hard surface, so there is very little danger of rounds richochetting or travelling any distance through the woods here.

---

Do those man eating rodents ever shoot back. 50 round magizene you must have an army of rodents in your neighborhood.

You also forgot to add that the AR15 is the in weapon. You can play army and look like a real solder.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by freein05

Do those man eating rodents ever shoot back. 50 round magizene you must have an army of rodents in your neighborhood.

---

They devour my livestock and crops, and cause operational safety issues at the airstrip here.

Quote:

---

You also forgot to add that the AR15 is the in weapon. You can play army and look like a real solder.

---

I believe I mentioned previously that the AR-15 platform was the top-selling rifle in the USA, and has been for some time. And mentioned a few reasons why, which have nothing to do with "playing army", a task for which artillery and air support is advised.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CathyA

How many people would have been killed in that theater with a hunting gun? It doesn't have to be all or nothing.

---

James Holmes used 4 guns in the shooting. Two were Glock, .40 caliber hand guns. Those are very popular for all the reasons bae listed earlier, but I will grant that they would not usually be considered hunting guns.

The rifle used was a Smith & Wesson made version of Colt's AR-15. It is a military style rifle that is essentially the civilian version of the M-16 carried by most of our troops. As bae also said that is a very popular platform for hunting rifles for the same reason it works well in military operations, and he is exactly correct. It is lightweight, accurate, fairly dependable and easy to work on. I have several friends who routinely use them in ranching duties, so yes, they can be considered a hunting gun.

The shotgun was a Remington 870. That is a pump action shotgun designed specifically for hunting and target shooting. There are models available that have more defensive characteristics (shorter barrels, larger magazines, etc.), but I don't know which version was used in Colorado. I do know that I received one of these as a Christmas present when I was 12 years old. I still have it and it still works great. My kids learned to shoot with guns that were specifically made for young marksmen, but all of them graduated to the Remington at some point in their instruction. My Grandma had 2 of them in her closet when she passed away and I know my Mom still has a couple of Dad's around. Those are all hunting guns in every respect.

Any legally purchased gun I know of can be used for sporting pursuits just like any car can be used to go get bread at the store. Any gun can be misused if the owner has evil intent or is mentally disturbed just like any car can kill someone if the driver is drunk or texting. I do understand the idea that it could be helpful to limit certain types of guns. Its a logical thought if you're not completely familiar with how they all work. With the car analogy comparing hunting guns to "assault weapons" is like comparing a Civic to a Suburban. Both have all the same parts, just different styles and sizes. There isn't much difference at all regarding how they work.

A driver in a Civic or in a Subruban that loses control for whatever reason is a threat to those around him, but deciding which one could inflict more damage depends on any number of other conditions that constantly vary. I'd rather be hit by the Suburban going 5 mph in a parking lot than by the Civic doing 100 mph with a driver hellbent on running me down. A more sensible solution than outlawing either is to properly train the driver of both so accidents are avoided as often as possible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bae

It is already tightly controlled, and has been since 1934. The NRA helped write that law.

---

Did you read the quote I posted from the NRA rep in 2008. She indicates that it would be acceptable for individuals to have machine guns in their homes. The NRA is a lot different today then when I was a member 30 years ago. Once a gun nut not always a gun nut. That is me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by creaker

To those who think gun ownership and carrying is a positive thing - do you think private businesses and property owners should have the right to ban guns on their own businesses/properties? I see arguments of carry as a positive thing - however the theatre chain banned weapons from their theatres.

---

Absolutely they should have the right to ban guns on their property. If you ask me that might even include guns carried by uniformed law enforcement, but that's a different thread. The theater did, as I understand it, have a no gun policy. I don't think James Holmes was inclined to abide by any of society's rules that night, including theater policy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by freein05

Did you read the quote I posted from the NRA rep in 2008. She indicates that it would be acceptable for individuals to have machine guns in their homes. The NRA is a lot different today then when I was a member 30 years ago. Once a gun nut not always a gun nut. That is me.

---

Did you read my responses? It *is* acceptable for individuals to have machine guns in the home, and has been, well, forever. They have been regulated heavily since 1934, under legislation the NRA helped to write. Legally owned machine guns are used in essentially zero crimes by civilians. The NRA representative was speaking in the context of current law, not arguing that we should pass some new law to hand out machine guns on street corners. You probably know that.

Then you throw "gun nut" out, so I know you are interested more in cultural warfare than fact or reasoned discourse.

I was at an Officer Involved Shooting Saturday evening that turned into a mob riot scene. I was then awakened last night at 2:00 to respond to another Officer Involved Shooting. It isn't pretty when someone shoots at a cop. The cop wasn't shot but there is another gang member that has assumed room temperature.

People say that they need guns for protection! From whom or what?

Bae as stated I meant me. When I was a lot younger I read the NRA magazine, Guns &Amo, and other weapons publications. I had by today's standards a small arsenal.

Pistols: Ruger single six, S&W 44 mag, US Army 45 auto loader.

Rifles: Remington 30-06 auto loader, 30 caliber carbine with 30 round mag, military Sprignfield 30-06, 22 cal bolt action rifle.

Shotguns: two 12 gauge pump shoot guns, and Winchester model 101 over and under 12 gauge shotgun.

I now have the 22 because it was a present from my parents on my 16th birthday and a 12 gauge shotgun for protection from what I don't know. But since I have not shot anything in so many years I would need a shotgun to hit anything.

Again I was only talking about me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bae

I'm unclear what you mean by that. I agreed that property owners ought to be able to control the use of their property. I'm not sure what that has to do with the NRA or their secret agenda.

---

http://lezgetreal.com/2012/05/mo-no-...iscrimination/

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/g...428565de7.html

from this article:
"The National Rifle Association is pushing similar gun owner discrimination bills in other states, including Alabama and Tennessee, where the proposal has put lawmakers in a crossfire between gun activists and some of the state's largest employers. Some of the state's largest corporations, including FedEx, Bridgestone and Volkswagen, testified against the legislation and companion gun bills earlier this month."

The way you just casually drop in that not allowing guns in businesses is discrimination fits right in.