Guns [Archive] - The New Kitchen Table

Lady Arwyn

30th December 2004, 03:54 AM

I chose neutral. I have handled and shot handguns while in the Navy, and I owned a rifle when we lived on a farm. I used it to "put down" injured farm animals :( and to shoot any coyote I saw. :darkside:

I believe that people SHOULD be alllowed to own guns, within reason. A handgun, or a hunting/target rifle, sure. But there is no legitimate reason to own an operable military assualt rifle or similar.

I also think that EVERY firearm purchase should be accompanied by a background check and waiting period, a required safety class for every member of the household, and a minimum standard of storage for that firearm. What difference would a wait of a few days, a week, even a month make?

It makes no sense that you have to get a license to drive a car, but anyone can walk into a gun dealer and buy a firearm.

Really, the Amendment that allows Americans to own firearms says "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.." Militias at the time were organized as the state/local contribution to the defense of the Nation, and are now known as the National Guard (I don't consider modern private "militias" to be legitimate), so, while the courts have found that the general citizenry MAY own handguns, technically I believe that unless you are a member of the National Guard (or police force), a farmer/rancher, etc (legitimate reasons for needing a firearm) ownership should be forbidden.

Boy, that would increase the enlistment rate of the National Guard! You wanna hunt? Join the Guard! :D

Dawn

30th December 2004, 06:40 AM

I voted neutral, as well. And I agree with many of the points that Lady Arwyn posted. :ok:

I grew up on a small farm, so my dad always had guns around. Many in my family own them, as well. (I am from Oklahoma. ;) ) I have no idea how to use one though, so I don't own one.

Faren

30th December 2004, 08:26 AM

I have guns and have shot them (target practice only though). My husband hunts, but I'm not sure I could actually use a gun unless I was afraid for my or my childrens' lives. Though there was this rooster that I wouldn't have minded taking out. :irked: :devil:

JayEgo

30th December 2004, 01:09 PM

prekharper

30th December 2004, 01:23 PM

For them -- as long as we're talking "guns" and not "weapons." IMHO, no one needs to own an Uzi or an AK-47. However, I have several guns, can and have shot them. I live surrounded by forest, and occasionally an injured or rabid animal makes its way to my yard -- for my protection and that of my family, animals who are acting out-of-the-ordinary (nocturnals wandering around in full daylight, attacking my front door, etc.) are shot. (It hasn't happened often, but it has happened)

Ravien Coromana

30th December 2004, 01:37 PM

for them, shot them, dont have one. If they were illagel for us... then what would happen if a robber came in with a gun. cant shoot him, guns are illigal.

C_ris

30th December 2004, 06:28 PM

I went neutral because i am against guns in the populace, they should only be carried in public by very highly trained police officers - not even normal PCs. I don't mind people having guns in their own homes, but not on the streets out of a locked case.

Dux

30th December 2004, 08:15 PM

Really, the Amendment that allows Americans to own firearms says "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.." Militias at the time were organized as the state/local contribution to the defense of the Nation, and are now known as the National Guard (I don't consider modern private "militias" to be legitimate), so, while the courts have found that the general citizenry MAY own handguns, technically I believe that unless you are a member of the National Guard (or police force), a farmer/rancher, etc (legitimate reasons for needing a firearm) ownership should be forbidden.

It's true that the amendment was written so that the people in the militias could arm themselves. remember in those days the government did not supply most of the arms to the Army - so if you needed to fight - you had to provide your own.

However, the courts have never made a ruling about that amendment. they won't touch it. Interpretation of it (and misintrepretation) has been left up to the citizens. But despite what many believe the 2nd amendment does NOT give you the right to own a gun unless you are a member of a state militia and since we no longer have those...

Personal opinion - I believe in background checks. I believe if you are going to own a gun, you should be forced to learn how to use it. I believe that if you've committed a violent crime you should not have a gun - EVER! I also believe that all guns should be registered. You should have the right to be a collector and all modern guns should have safetys put on them. :2cent: :soapbox:

leahiniowa

30th December 2004, 09:18 PM

I voted on this poll but also want to know, I tried twice to post a poll on this website and for the life of me, don't know how to activate the poll template. Can someone help me?

leahiniowa

30th December 2004, 09:40 PM

Oh, okay I did it.

Mausey

30th December 2004, 09:47 PM

Lady Arwyn *snip*

I believe that people SHOULD be alllowed to own guns, within reason. A handgun, or a hunting/target rifle, sure. But there is no legitimate reason to own an operable military assualt rifle or similar. *snip*

*snip* It makes no sense that you have to get a license to drive a car, but anyone can walk into a gun dealer and buy a firearm. *snip*

I agree with these points. Farmers and ranchers need a rifle to put down wounded animals. It's not reasonable to phone a police officer to come out to put down a cow that's fallen and broke a leg. I think a criminal record check is a wonderful idea. Do I think that somebody's collection of antique handguns should be destroyed because they're a handgun... no. Do I think the average person needs a fully automatic assualt rifle ....no.
There has to be a happy medium, it's just finding it that seems to be a problem.

Sandi

30th December 2004, 10:20 PM

In my lifetime I have been "accidentally" shot at 3 times. The first time the bullet went litterally right over my nose so that I heard the little Tzing sound I shall never forget. That was many years ago very near a barn in Vienna Virginia. I was on a 16 hand dapple gray (white with black trim) horse and wearing a bright pink jacket. "Sorry, honey," said the shooter, "I thought you was a deer." Couple of years later I was saved by the swift reaction of my little paint quarter horse who pivoted on his hocks when a man with a double barrel shot gun rose from behind the fallen log we'd been about to jump in a Maryland wildlife preserve. Guess what he said? Last time was last year. Neighbors on the other side of the woods. I was in my own back yard, for crying out loud, inside the city limits! Yes, there is a deer population around here. But I don't think I much resemble one.

AnnMarie

30th December 2004, 11:19 PM

I own a handgun. There are also 2 rifles in my apartment, and I don't know how many in my mother's. My father was a gunsmith and a dealer, a collector and a sportsman. I grew up around guns. Until I was old enough to own my own, I didn't TOUCH one without my father's knowlege and approval. I firmly believe if you outlaw guns, only Outlaws will have guns. This is being proven in London. The law-abiding in England gave up their guns.... the punks didn't, and it's really not that hard to get them in from the Continent. (MO...YMMV)

In New York, to get a pistol permit, you must be 21, pass an approved safety/usage course (usually taught by police officers or retired military), must pass an FBI check, and must have at least four letters of reccomendation before you go up in front of a judge. The paperwork involved in selling guns has increased in the last 30 years.... and dealers have to renew their FFL periodically. When my father died, my mother had to turn all his paperwork over to the BFT....The guy brought a truck to pick it up. And that INCLUDES longarms as well as pistols. (No licence needed for the long arms, but they do need to run a check, which can usually be done by phone and is based with the social security number, not your driver's licence number)

Sandi... I was also shot at by a so-called hunter. There were 8 of us in the group, ranging from me (5'2") yto my friend Bobcat (6'3"), ALL wearing BLAZE ORANGE hard hats, on private, POSTED land... and a bullet ripped into a tree an inch above Bobcat's head. We caught the idiot...he thought he was shooting at deer, too... He didn't know what a deer looked like, he couldn't read a blasted map, and we latter found out (thanks to my dad) that he'd never taken a hunters safety course... we had a greedy B**** SELLING the certificates. (Okay, needless to say, she spent some time in jail) You can't help the fact there are morons out there, you can only do your best to police your own ranks, and usually hunters are pretty good at it... because if we don't, we lose the privegle, and we all know it.

Lady Arwyn

31st December 2004, 02:46 AM

In New York, to get a pistol permit, you must be 21, pass an approved safety/usage course (usually taught by police officers or retired military), must pass an FBI check, and must have at least four letters of reccomendation before you go up in front of a judge.

I do believe (correct me if I'm wrong) those are the requirements for a concealed weapon permit, meaning you can carry your handgun on your person, out of sight.

In order to purchase a pistol for personal, home use, or for use at a target range (to be transported in a sealed case), you have to be 18 and go through a basic background check (to rule out any felonies). THere is a 3 day waiting period. And if a private person was to sell his handgun privately, the ownership/registration of that handgun disappears. Anyone can get that handgun without state knowledge. Only DEALERS are required to do background checks.

As far as I know, few states (if any) have a background check process for rifles/long guns. Anyone can purchase one. We walked into Wal-Mart and walked out with a .22 and a .270 (BaBOOM) within an hour. They took our names and put them on a registration card, but there was no check to see if we were bank robbers, they only asked us if we had ever been convicted of a felony and gave a cursory glance at our IDs.

And even worse, is the Gun Show Loophole. In most states at gun shows, there is no permit process whatsoever. Anyone, even children, can walk in, purchase whatever weapons and ammo they want, and walk out. This is how the Columbine killers obtrained their weapons. Every weapon they used was legally obtained. The Colorado law requiring background checks/registration at Colorado gun shows (enacted just after the Columbine Massacre) is about to expire, there are no plans to renew the law.

Shadow*

31st December 2004, 03:19 AM

My perspective is that of the UK and gun usage here is on the increase in a negative way.

I have never seen the need to own or use guns socially and personally would like to see a blanket ban on such weapons now, before we get to the point of folk owning them as a matter of course. I would also like to see much tougher penalities for the misuse of such weapons.

On the whole I agree with what Jay has said above, although I don't forsee a blanket ban ever being enforced. Certain people such as farmers and vets do require the use of a weapon for the merciful destruction of large animals. I do not agree with people owning weapons for purely 'social' endeavours, which includes pheasant shooting (well it's hardly 'sporting').

I do however believe that the issuing of licences to those who own weapons should be tightened. At present, as far as I am aware, the local police pay a visit to the gun owner to check his/her details and to check that the weapons are kept in a locked and bolted down gun box. This procedure occurs on a yearly basis with prior warning being given of the visit. IMO this is not a satisfactory way of checking that weapons are being kept in a responsible manner....the other 364 days they could be left lying around any which way!

No insult intended, but I would prefer not to have the UK turn into a gun toting US.
While I understand that the majority may be responsible gun owners it is the non-responsible element that does the greatest damage. Fewer owned weapons here in the UK would mean fewer opportunities for theft and misuse (although not a lot can be done about those on the blackmarket).

p.s. I voted cops only as it was the nearest I could get to a 'limited' use only

bisb

31st December 2004, 05:22 AM

Where I live we have lots of coyotes that harass the livestock. And will try to lure pets away from the yard. We also have used the rifle to put a deer hit by a car out of it's misery.
I also believe that if you hunt it should be because you do it for the food. Here we have a program where a hunter can donate his deer to a local foodbank, if they want to hunt but don't want the meat.

Madrigal

31st December 2004, 06:28 AM

[QUOTE=Sandi]In my lifetime I have been "accidentally" shot at 3 times. The first time the bullet went litterally right over my nose so that I heard the little Tzing sound I shall never forget. That was many years ago very near a barn in Vienna Virginia. I was on a 16 hand dapple gray (white with black trim) horse and wearing a bright pink jacket. "Sorry, honey," said the shooter, "I thought you was a deer." [QUOTE]

How long ago was that? I've had the same thing happen to me in Lorton VA (a few towns over, now far more rural--Vienna's extremely built up) while riding, but with a bow. I just about ripped the guy's head off, told him that purple and bright blue (the colors I used to ride in, and I was seeing how my outfit worked on a horse) were NOT usually the colors deer came in, and that if he EVER tried it again I was going home to get my bow and use it on him.

I do think hunters should get a vision test.

I don't think people should have AK-47s and so on... but individual hanguns, yep. Our house has been robbed--they killed our dog, and my mother avoided them by hiding in a closet for half an hour. The police showed up almost an hour after they'd been gone. They obviously had at least a baseball bat. My mom is not physically strong, and is very small. She now also carries a tiny revolver.

With guns, it's an all-or-nothing thing. If only the bad guys have them, the normal guys are at an obvious disadvantage. The cops are usually too late. So the only way to put things back on an equal footing is to give everyone guns--because the bad guys aren't going to give back theirs just because the law says so.

waterlogged

31st December 2004, 08:23 AM

Personally I agree that AK47 and the like are unnecessary, and I think that it's ok to have a pistol around, but other then that I think no firearms are needed. If you need somthing for defence martial arts are wondrfully effective (you don't need to be strong or quick, just smarter then a canary) a stick and string (bow) work very well, it just takes more practice which will give more of a sence of responcibilty. I also beleive that it is better morally, in the sence that with a gun you are taking a life (big deal whether it is a human or animal) with nothing but a chemical reaction that you happened to have handy and a little bit of aim. With a bow or physical attack all of the energy comes from you, not just some alchemy-gone-wrong.

Side note: please be careful shooting coyotes, I have had two friends dogs and one of my dogs killed because some *beep*er thought that they were coyotes, and I have heard many more.

leahiniowa

31st December 2004, 11:50 AM

I grew up around guns and was well educated on gun safety. We also were taught to never ever ever shoot at something unless we were absolutely 100% without doubt that it was a deer. So I think that gun ownership, of any kind, should be a privilege granted once one passes certain safety, vision and proficiency tests.

I don't know if the UK would ever turn into a gun crazy US. A lot of the gun thing is cultural. In Israel almost every family has a gun and they are not used for much crime or domestic violence like in the US.

Hans

31st December 2004, 12:05 PM

Should be completely illegal except for law enforcement officers, military and such.

If any hunting should be done I could condone hunting guns for private persons on license, strictly controlled, as is done in virtually all civilised countries on our world...

Other arms: outlaw them and punish people wearing them heavily!

(and don't give me that bull about responsible, registered members... I'v seen better persons lose their temper! and I don't want to hear about people carrying guns illegally if they can't do it legal; when guns are outlawed they can at least know they are breaking the law and the appropriate people can act accordingly)

Wolfegar

31st December 2004, 03:52 PM

For them -- as long as we're talking "guns" and not "weapons."

*Snippys.*
Guns are weapons. A sharpened pencil shoved through a person's eye or that soft spot at your throat is a weapon.

Guns, everything from the tiny derringer to those humongous cannons on battleships are weapons. Make no mistake about that.

If there were a way that only law enforcement officers and the military could be guaranteed to be the only people carrying firearms, that would, in my opinion, be a good thing.

I don't think it's possible. I don't think it will ever be possible.

However, I think when a person goes to buy a firearm, or a bow, or any other classed weapon, they should have to be trained in the proper safety and usage of the item before it is ever turned over to them. Before the training begins the registration paperwork will be filled out, filed, processed and approved or disapproved. If it is approved, then the training can begin.

As a young teen, I belonged to an organized rifle club. I learned about gun safety there.

Before joining the rifle club, my father had let me fire his pistol at the shooting range. My father, unwisely, had rifles in a few places around the house, (one was behind the coat rack with a large tag on it that said, "loaded" on it).

Our house had been broken into while us kids were at school and our parents were at work. Those thieves got the guns with the ammo. And some other stuff. My father wasn't the smartest man around. The safety regs weren't as...advanced (?), as they are now either. But I think they did have trigger locks back in the sixties, didn't they? He didn't have those.

I don't believe in hunting for sport. If you want to be sporting then give your prey a chance to hunt you back. I do believe in hunting for food. Though I do my "hunting" in kitchen. :roll:

I don't have firearm in the house. Unless you want to count the gas CO2 bb gun that's packed away somewhere that's over twenty years old. It might never get unpacked.

In case you're interested, we have various knives, some swords, and staffs, (staves?) somewhere around here too. We have a couple of maces. Those are here primarily for decoration though.

BTW, I voted not to arm the PMDs.

AnnMarie

1st January 2005, 08:58 PM

I do believe (correct me if I'm wrong) those are the requirements for a concealed weapon permit, meaning you can carry your handgun on your person, out of sight.

In order to purchase a pistol for personal, home use, or for use at a target range (to be transported in a sealed case), you have to be 18 and go through a basic background check (to rule out any felonies). THere is a 3 day waiting period. And if a private person was to sell his handgun privately, the ownership/registration of that handgun disappears. Anyone can get that handgun without state knowledge. Only DEALERS are required to do background checks.

As far as I know, few states (if any) have a background check process for rifles/long guns. Anyone can purchase one. We walked into Wal-Mart and walked out with a .22 and a .270 (BaBOOM) within an hour. They took our names and put them on a registration card, but there was no check to see if we were bank robbers, they only asked us if we had ever been convicted of a felony and gave a cursory glance at our IDs.

And even worse, is the Gun Show Loophole. In most states at gun shows, there is no permit process whatsoever. Anyone, even children, can walk in, purchase whatever weapons and ammo they want, and walk out. This is how the Columbine killers obtrained their weapons. Every weapon they used was legally obtained. The Colorado law requiring background checks/registration at Colorado gun shows (enacted just after the Columbine Massacre) is about to expire, there are no plans to renew the law.

Nope... For a concealed carry permit, you have to make a special request in the paperwork. The rest is the same. And you can't techenically sell a handgun without going through a dealer. That's because ALL handguns have to be registered. They are listed on your pistol permit. At gun shows, you can purchase most ammo. To purchase guns, my dad always carried his FFL ... it saved the dealer from having to call a check.

Don't get me started on Wallyworld in requards to guns. They have been fined in the past, and I would DEARLY love to see them permenantly BANNED from dealing in firearms.

leahiniowa

2nd January 2005, 01:53 AM

I also think it's a big strange for Walmart to sell guns, I don't know why. It just seemed to me that they belong in a sporting goods store or a gunshop. And they usually put the guns so close to the toy section! Which I suppose is really no big deal, but it's just a funny juxtaposition to me.

Spike

2nd January 2005, 05:26 AM

I do believe (correct me if I'm wrong) those are the requirements for a concealed weapon permit, meaning you can carry your handgun on your person, out of sight.

In order to purchase a pistol for personal, home use, or for use at a target range (to be transported in a sealed case), you have to be 18 and go through a basic background check (to rule out any felonies). THere is a 3 day waiting period. And if a private person was to sell his handgun privately, the ownership/registration of that handgun disappears. Anyone can get that handgun without state knowledge. Only DEALERS are required to do background checks.

As far as I know, few states (if any) have a background check process for rifles/long guns. Anyone can purchase one. We walked into Wal-Mart and walked out with a .22 and a .270 (BaBOOM) within an hour. They took our names and put them on a registration card, but there was no check to see if we were bank robbers, they only asked us if we had ever been convicted of a felony and gave a cursory glance at our IDs.

And even worse, is the Gun Show Loophole. In most states at gun shows, there is no permit process whatsoever. Anyone, even children, can walk in, purchase whatever weapons and ammo they want, and walk out. This is how the Columbine killers obtrained their weapons. Every weapon they used was legally obtained. The Colorado law requiring background checks/registration at Colorado gun shows (enacted just after the Columbine Massacre) is about to expire, there are no plans to renew the law.

Actually the legal age for a Pistol is 21 a shotgun is 18.
A gun permit usually allows the person to carry Concealed on their person in a legal holster, meaning it can't be just tucked into your pants or back pocket.

And in most states once you have gone through the State Background check, the equivalent of the FBI, not your local Sheriff or Police Deprtment required to obtain said permit, there is No waiting period if purchased in the Parish or county in which you live in.

As for the Columbine teenagers, some of the guns were purchased by people of legal age at a gun show then given to them.
the problem with that whole incident was that their parents weren't involved enough in their kids lives to realize what was going on.

A sad state of parenting I think, but thats just my opinion.

Here is a link that you can check how gun laws are in each State.

http://crime.about.com/od/gunlawsbystate/

Milo

2nd January 2005, 06:48 AM

Spike

2nd January 2005, 07:42 AM

You dont kill deer with handguns, as far as I know.

Actually many hunters use handguns to kill Big Game.
Anything above a .357 magnum fits the bill, usually with specially loaded ammo.
Using handguns does require a more accurate shot and more patience on the hunters part, it's not like you can shoot 200 or more yards and expect to kill the animal in one shot.

Well unless you use the .454 Casall sp? or .50 Caliper varity.

Milo

2nd January 2005, 08:52 AM

leahiniowa

2nd January 2005, 12:49 PM

I agree with C'milo about hunting deer, as far as the one shot goes. When I grew up my parents always taught us to be sure to try to kill the deer in the most humane way possible, and as quickly as possible, and to try to do it in one shot, and if you do wound it, track it down, even if it takes all night and a bunch of hired dogs. I think it is pretty irresponsible hunting to hunt with a handgun,which has much much much less accuracy in its pattern.

A couple of months ago, there was this big problem. There are a lot of Hmong near here, and they like to hunt, but have different cultural backgrounds about territory, etc. It seems some Hmong guy was in someone else's deerstand, saw the 6 Wisconsinite hunters coming and trying to get him to leave, and he shot and killed I think all of them, or most of them, or some of them, I forget. But usually that stuff doesn't happen.

It's just like anything else, you can use it for good or ill. Cars are pretty powerful weapons, buildings can be pretty damn high, people use lye to unclog their drains . . .

Calaedros

2nd January 2005, 02:08 PM

Police, military and anyone who can show a valid reason for needing a gun (e.g. farmers, hunters) should be allowed guns, with restrictions on type and number.

There is absolutely *no* reason why anyone else should have a gun. Some might say "but wot if i get robbed and dnt hv a gun!!11!???". Well, tough. You shouldn't shoot people anyway, and if guns are illegal then it'll be less likely for them to have one. If they're legal then you can be nearly certain that the intruder will have a gun.

As for carrying them in the street... Why!? Maybe it makes you feel cool and tough, but if someone picks your pocket are you actually going to shoot them in the back as they run away? Personal protection is also a silly excuse. I don't have a gun and I haven't been shot yet. If you get mugged, hand over your wallet - $40 is a lot cheaper than getting in a firefight with someone and either dying or going to jail.

Cal

leahiniowa

2nd January 2005, 02:38 PM

Calaedros

2nd January 2005, 03:06 PM

I disagree with you about that, Cal. Even though now I live in a culture (Chassidic) which doesn't hunt (we only eat meat which has been slaughtered ritually), many people in the area where I live hunt for food. (They also fish.) There are quite a lot of people here who live well on lower incomes than most, partly due to the low cost of housing, but also because they garden, hunt and fish. I grew up on a nice supply of organic, free range venison, goose, duck, quail, fish. Not only were we able to eat a varied, almost extravagant diet inexpensively, I think it made us a lot healthier than most of the people of my age cohort.

But I can see that laws might need to be different in different parts of the world to reflect that particular culture. There are some areas which have little edible natural wildlife and are much more densely populated, etc.

I'd be interested to get the take on some of our Scandanavian friends here about their take on hunting, because it is intensely popular among the Norwegians here in Iowa, Wisconsin and Minnesota.

I've no problem with people who hunt - in fact I said so in my first sentence :) However, for someone who lives in the middle of the city and owns only a handgun, I don't think that hunting can be considered a legitimate reason.

[EDIT to add/clarify] The point I'm making is against people who have no demonstrable reason for having a gun, other than because they want one or because they intend to use it on someone. Guns are fine as a tool, but I have a problem with people owning them with the express purpose of using them on other people. Police and military are unfortunately necessary exceptions to this.

Cal

woollymouse

2nd January 2005, 04:40 PM

As someone who has been trained to carry a rifle in the course of certain parts of my job, I see it as a necessary part of my training. However, this doesn't mean I like guns in any way shape or form. I've recently spent a week live armed and the thought of possibly having to protect myself and others with it scares me. I realise that I have had training on a dangerous article and know how to use it safely but, it's the people who have guns who have not had specialist training or who think just because a robber has one they should have one for protection which worry me. Even in the hands of trained individuals something can and sometimes does go wrong so in the hands of the untrained or inexperienced this problem is increased dramatically. Guns and other forms of weaponry should be controlled an outright ban is preferred but unfortunatley even if these were to be the case there are low life's who will always seak to hid behind weapons which make them feel big. It needs to be said however, 'It takes seconds to fire a gun but, it takes a life time to recover when things go wrong.'

leahiniowa

2nd January 2005, 05:42 PM

Woops, Cal, guess I wasn't reading carefully! Now I see it, very first sentence!

Agreed.

We have a friend and a few years ago he had something like an AK47 or an Uzi laying on his dining room table. He just had it.

I wasn't too comfortable with that.

S'amm

2nd January 2005, 05:46 PM

....I believe that people SHOULD be allowed to own guns, within reason. A handgun, or a hunting/target rifle, sure. But there is no legitimate reason to own an operable military assualt rifle or similar. ....

:D

I also believe this lady Arwyn. I actually won medals as a teenager for marksmanship. I got my first rifle at the age of 16 from my Dad for my birthday. He took me out, told me to shoot a "bunny" and that was the end of my hunting life. From then on it was paper.

S'amm

Spike

2nd January 2005, 09:32 PM

I think that if your going to hunt you had better take every possible measure to kill the critter in one shot. If that means using a rifle instead of a hand gun, so be it.

I maintain that handguns are more useful for killing people at short range than for killing animals.

The hunters that do use handguns are very much aware of making the kill in one shot, hence their patience while hunting and the accuracy that they obtain from many hours practicing their markmanship.

Spike

2nd January 2005, 09:35 PM

I've no problem with people who hunt - in fact I said so in my first sentence :) However, for someone who lives in the middle of the city and owns only a handgun, I don't think that hunting can be considered a legitimate reason.

[EDIT to add/clarify] The point I'm making is against people who have no demonstrable reason for having a gun, other than because they want one or because they intend to use it on someone. Guns are fine as a tool, but I have a problem with people owning them with the express purpose of using them on other people. Police and military are unfortunately necessary exceptions to this.

Cal

People who live in the middle of cities also go out to the country to hunt.
For that reason they have an excuse to own a gun then.

The choice of which type is of their choice, but that doesn't mean I condon sp? them using AK47's or other types of firearms of that type.

Madrigal

2nd January 2005, 10:12 PM

Calaedros: "but wot if i get robbed and dnt hv a gun!!11!???".

Tsk. I'd imagine my spelling and grammar is usually better than that. *raises eyebrow* In fact, I haven't seen anyone on here in favor of guns who spells that way. Being in favor guns does not make us babbling idiots, dearie, though the fact that you seem to think so may in fact reverse the supposition.

Getting robbed? The people who went through my house killed a hundred-pound, young, healthy Rhodesian Ridgeback. He was good with kids--I used to ride on him when I was little--but wasn't all that tolerant of people he didn't know coming into his house. There was quite a bit of blood spattered around, and I doubt it was entirely his.

Meanwhile, my mother's hiding in a closet. The alarm was set off, but it took the police thirty minutes to get there--and we aren't very isolated.

She later told the cops she heard them searching the house. She's always been a small person and not physically strong; she had recently had surgery to repair a slip disk and was still not moving well. Fancy martial arts moves? Out of the question. The closet with the bow was three floors away.

Now imagine this: the thieves hear something, or notice that closet door's shut where it was open before. Or maybe they haven't already been through the ground floor and wonder if there's something valuable there. It's right next to the dining room--silver candlesticks, maybe? Anything can be melted down or resold.

Mom's hiding there. There're no convenient hanging clothes, or rooms it connects to. There's less than a square yard (meter) of space.

Now imagine one of those thieves opens the door.

Do you think I'd still have a mother? I doubt it. I doubt it very strongly.

A similar thing happened to my English teacher three weeks ago. She was jumped, mugged, and beaten to the point where she's due to be in the hospital all through winter break. This was on a street in Georgetown--not a dark alley, not even a dark evening. She was with her husband and a friend, both of whom were injured, if not as severely.

No cops came. When the muggers were gone and her husband called 911, the cops and the ambulance again took nearly half an hour to arrive. Think anyone was a fancy martial artist? No. None of them had the time for the years of practice anything that might help would take. Think having a bow would be tolerated by the cops? I don't think so either.

One misplaced blow a few inches higher and she'd be dead, too.

I know three girls who were gang-raped. Half of a nearby neighborhood was once burglarized--a separate occurrence from the one where Mom hid in a closet. There’s currently a serial arsonist operating a few miles north, and his fires have killed more than once. You hear of MS-13 and various Homiez and Honiez and Thugz on the Metro routes I take some days; at Ballou, a nearby school, there have been at least three school shootings this year. You see the one girl in my class who hits the deck when she hears a loud pop. Who remembers the Sniper?

When the cops found my mother, still in the closet, and she asked them why they’d taken so long, they said it wasn’t a freak occurrence. That the sort of response time she’d seen was normal. Do you know what they said to her? Sister, get a gun. They even recommended a place to get training for it.

My mother and I are lucky. We live in a state where guns are legal. But where I go to school? Where the English teacher was walking and the girls were raped and the Homiez and Honiez run their gangs? Where Ballou has its school shootings and students refuse to go to class because they don’t feel safe because people are shooting each other? It’s Washington, DC. The murder capital of the nation and possibly the world, where guns are officially outlawed. Where the rate of gun violence far exceeds that found in Virginia.

My family makes its home in the latter, but my father and I spend most weekdays in the city. There are gangs beginning to make their way into Northern Virginia as well… but there are also few laws that outright prohibit guns. Take a wild guess which one I feel a hell of a lot safer while walking in.

Madrigal

2nd January 2005, 10:21 PM

(continuing)

This is a repost from my blog, dated December 14:

This kid Kwame from the inner city, in the class that I intern teaching, has been talking about guns. He threatens to bring them and ‘shoot people in the head’ and tells his classmates they should shoot people too--they generally believe him. Guns, guns, guns. One day Kwame and a few more kids were talking about their favorite subject and when they told this one girl they’d shoot her (this after several rounds with time-out and counselors and detention and so on) I turned around and did my best scary person look and asked him if he knew exactly what happens when a gun shoots someone in the head.

“Yeah I know,” he says. “They die.” After a moment more of staring, he goes on: “They fall down and die and there lots of blood and people yelling!” He started playing with the crucifix he sometimes wears--it caught my eye, for no particular reason, and gave me some ideas. “Sweet!”

“Anything more?”

“Yeah, it don’t hurt.”

I was looking at that crucifix, and I was thinking. Most of the class was just listening to us now, which is a bit more frightening than you’d think. “Maybe not at the moment,” I said. “But you know… when a bullet hits your head, it tears right through your skin. Just rips it up. It leaves all this gunpowder behind it, in a ring around the wound--and you know, you can never, never get it off no matter how hard you wash. That’s because it’s like a tattoo--a ring around this bloody hole with your brain pouring out with little white bits of your skull.”

Did I mention I act?

“And the bullet doesn’t stop there. It goes on right through your brain and twists it all up, mixes it up like you’d mix cereal in a bowl. Then it goes out the other side and blows all that stuff in your head against the wall.”

“And you know what? That messes up everything you do. Imagine you were brought back to life…” there’s that crucifix “and you had just the body you were buried with. You wouldn’t be able to hear, or see, or even feel and taste and touch and think because your brain would’ve blown all that stuff in your head away. You couldn’t move. You’d just sit there in the dark… forever.”

He mumbled something. Another kid told me that story was scary, and got very quiet when I told him it wasn’t a story at all. The teacher pretended she hadn’t noticed; I wondered if I was about to get a call from the parents or the school complaining about the psychotic intern. I’m still wondering about that.

But you know what? I haven’t heard anyone talking about shooting each other since, even in the other classes. You do what you’ve got to: chances are, what you say to the kids can’t be half as scary as what they’re running into at home.

PS: don’t get me wrong. I’m not anti-gun at all--that would be somewhat ironic, as I’m a real live card-carrying member of the NRA. I’m just anti-murder, and that includes the glorification of such.

Between this occurrance and the one posted above, you should be able to get a good idea of why I feel how I do about guns. They are necessary evils.

Ah, the babbling idiodicy. Calaedros, for someone who usually seems so smart, you really have struck me as a jerk.

AnnMarie

2nd January 2005, 11:49 PM

I voted pmd. I dont like guns. I think guns, for most people, are essentially useless. Especially handguns. You dont kill deer with handguns, as far as I know. I am also very opposed to conceal and carry. I dont think people should be carrying guns around in public anyways, but i'd rather see the gun, than think it might be there.

Actually, there are people who deer hunt with pistols. My father always carried his, and my brother still does... If you severely injure a deer, a pistol is usually a better bet for a close-distance final shot. (You would prefer never to need it, but it's always good to be prepared.)

Cancealed carry on a pistol also means I can keep it locked in my glove compartment istead of out on the seat.

Xhack

3rd January 2005, 01:01 AM

Beyond gun control, there is the undisputable fact that America is a violent society. Why this should be so, I can’t say – but it is so. Here are some government statistics from both sides of the pond . . .

Scotland has a population of 5.1 million. Here are the stats for the last five years for which figures are available. As well as murder, they include lesser charge of culpable homicide (manslaughter in England) :
1997 – 88
1998 – 100
1999 - 120 (1 case unsolved)
2000 – 105
2001 – 107
That gives an average of 2.038 murders per 100,000 population.

Set against that the figures for the United States (population 281,422,000):
1997 - 18,209
1998 - 16,914
1999 - 15,522
2000 - 15,517
2001 - 15,982.
That’s an average of 5.838 murders per 100,000 – a murder rate 286 per cent larger than the Scottish figures, And we Scots have a reputation within the UK for being a violent society

And around 71 per cent of the American murders for those years are down to firearms. Beyond the murder element, the United States returns an horrifying overall gun death figure of 14.24 deaths per 100,000; Scotland 0.54 per 100,000 (source - study published April 17, 1998 by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in the International Journal of Epidemiology).

In a country still traumatized by the Dunblane massacre, we do think that severe gun control works.

(Edited second last para for clarity)

Spike

3rd January 2005, 03:10 AM

Xhack, what is the law in Scotland for owning a firearm?
Is it allowed?
Does it require a permit?
Is it illegal for citizens to own firearms?

I'm not sure myself, so I thought I would ask you.

I would like to add that while here in America there is a large amount of violent crimes as to murders, but you would have to admit that violence in any country is "Still" violence whether it is 1 in every 100, 000 or 100 in every 100,000.

Milo

3rd January 2005, 04:02 AM

Its still violence... but a hundred times less? What point are you trying to make?

Spike

3rd January 2005, 04:59 AM

Thought this was interesting reading......

The US Dept. of Justice recently published a report concerning homicide trends in the US. Using the FBI Uniform Crime Reports it shows that the US murder rate has declined dramatically throughout the 1990s. The US homicide rate for 1997 dropped to 6.8/100,000 of the population, the equivalent figure for England and Wales continues to increase and now stands at 1.5/100,000 population. The US homicide rate is now at its lowest level since 1967 and recent reports indicate that the US and UK crime figures are converging. UK crime rates are increasing while the US crime rate drops, a trend indicated by the 3rd International Crime Survey and a Dept. of Justice report published in October of last year. The violent crime rate in England & Wales now exceeds that of the US.
Pat Mayhew in her evidence to the Dunblane enquiry[1] notes that the US homicide rate using handguns is over 150 times that of the UK. The Labour party[2] continued in a similar vein in its own submission to the enquiry. As is typical of many advocates of gun control a simple causal relationship is implied in both papers. However, in the period under study the overall US homicide rate remained approximately 8 times that of the UK. The continuing decline in the US crime rate means that the US homicide rate has now dropped to approximately 4 times that of the UK. Why then does a factor of 150 in the homicide rate using handguns not translate into a similar factor in the overall homicide rate?

In part at least the discrepancy can be explained by the "weapon substitution" theory, whereby an offender denied access to firearms would substitute another lethal weapon. The theory would suggest that the crime dictates the weapon rather than the weapon dictating the crime. Mayhew counters that most violent incidents are committed fairly spontaneously and that the presence of a lethal weapon produces a violent outcome. Such spontaneity is in fact myth, a myth generated more by wishful thinking than any basis in fact. Firstly consider domestic violence, many offenders do claim that a violent confrontation with a partner arose spontaneously and that their actions were not premeditated. Yet domestic violence is rarely an isolated outbreak of such violence but simply another episode in a long cycle of abuse. Secondly an armed robber does not discharge a firearm 'spontaneously' during a robbery. The robbery may not have been planned with the intent to discharge a weapon but by carrying a firearm criminals are clearly prepared to do so should the situation demand it.

The difference in the US and UK figures can also be explained by the manner in which they are compiled. The US figure is based upon the Uniform Crime Reports compiled by the FBI. The FBI is solely responsible for classifying crimes and no matter what the subsequent criminal case becomes it is not changed. On the other hand homicide in the UK reflects only those crimes resulting in a criminal conviction for murder, manslaughter or infanticide. The US figure represents a gross estimate of homicide whilst the British estimate reflects a more conservative figure. The difference in methodology would tend to suggest that the difference between the US and the UK is not as pronounced as some gun control advocates would have us believe.

Finally, gun control advocates frequently attribute the UK's low rate of violent crime to its restrictive gun laws. They would do well to bear in mind that in 1919, the year before gun control legislation was introduced, the US homicide rate was almost twelve times that of the UK. After close to 80 years of rigorous gun control the gap has now narrowed to a factor of four.

Bibliography
1. Evidence Submitted on Behalf of the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Home Secretary.
Home Office Research & Statistics Directorate.
2. Control of Guns: The Labour Party's Evidence
George Robertson, MP and Jack Straw, MP.

Here is the link also....

http://members.aol.com/gunbancon/Frames/US_murder.html#Ref1

Spike

3rd January 2005, 05:12 AM

Here is some more reading material.....

Last Updated: 10/18/2003 |GunCite Home|

International Homicide Comparisons

[For international gun and non-gun homicide, suicide, and total violent death rates, see GunCite's International Violent Death Rates]
Arbitrary Comparisons Between Countries

The U.S. has a high gun murder rate, whereas a country like England with strict gun controls has almost no gun murders and a very low murder rate. Doesn't this show that gun control is effective in reducing murder rates? Not exactly. Prior to having any gun controls, England already had a homicide rate much lower than the United States (Guns, Murders, and the Constitution: A Realistic Assessment of Gun Control, Don B. Kates Jr.). Japan is another country typically cited (see Japanese Gun Control, by David B. Kopel). (Briefly discussing the difference in homicide rates between England and the U.S. is Clayton Cramer's, Variations in California Murder Rates: Does Gun Availability Cause High Murder Rates?)

Gun control opponents can play similar games. The Swiss with 7 million people have hundreds of thousands of fully-automatic rifles in their homes (see GunCite's "Swiss Gun Laws") and the Israelis, until recently, have had easy access to guns (brief summary of Israeli firearms regulations here). Both countries have low homicide rates. Likewise this doesn't mean more guns less crime.

The U.S. has a higher non-gun murder rate than many European country's total murder rates. On the other hand, Taiwan, the Philippines, and Mexico have non-gun murder rates in excess of our total murder rate.

Incidentally in 13th century Europe, several studies have estimated homicide rates in major cities to be around 60 per 100,000. (Even back then, the equivalent of coroners, kept records.)

There are many, many factors, some much more prominent than gun availability that influence homicide rates and crime in general. (See this excerpt from 1997 FBI Uniform Crime Report and GunCite's "Is Gun Ownership Correlated with Violent Deaths?")

Due to the many confounding factors that arise when attempting international comparisons, this approach would appear to hold little promise for determining the influence of gun levels (or handgun availability) on violence rates.

And the link...

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvinco.html

Can you tell I just love this subject.

:bouncy:

Milo

3rd January 2005, 05:30 AM

So that article proves.... that we are just naturally a murderous country? Why? :ouch:

Spike

3rd January 2005, 06:11 AM

So that article proves.... that we are just naturally a murderous country? Why? :ouch:

No, actually that humanity is murderous, not the country.

Milo

3rd January 2005, 06:54 AM

But.... we are so much more murderous than other countries? I dont think they are a different breed of humans...

Spike

3rd January 2005, 07:13 AM

But.... we are so much more murderous than other countries? I dont think they are a different breed of humans...

Actually no we aren't....

The U.S. has a higher non-gun murder rate than many European country's total murder rates. On the other hand, Taiwan, the Philippines, and Mexico have non-gun murder rates in excess of our total murder rate.

There are 3 countries that have a higher murder non-gun murder rate than our total murder rate.

I have no answer as to why or if we are more murderous than other countries.
There are countries that have used genicide to kill off whole ethnic groups, to me that is more murderous.

Xhack

3rd January 2005, 10:52 AM

When it comes to reported violence, you have to compare like with like. I don't know how it's done in the States (state by state?), but in England and Wales the Home Office changed the rules in the mid-80s so that stats were compiled on the basis on the initial complaint.

This was so that prosecution could more securely be made on the worst-possible scenario (it's easier to "go for broke" initially, then scale back as moderating facts emerge).

There was a political element to this change, since the Tories were on a "Lor'n'Order" kick at the time. So, in England, it's the police stats that are used, which convey a bleaker picture than the actual facts.

In Scotland, the police investigate the complaint, then pass the facts to the local Procurator Fiscal who filters them and decides whether a crime has, in fact, been committed. He decides the severity of the complaint - in capital cases, he reports onwards to the Lord Advocate for a prosecution decision.

So, even in the UK, with two separate legal systems, comparisons on violent crime are not analogous.

Spike - I notice in one of your references, the Swiss canard was dredged up. Can we please, at least, kill this one stone dead (oops!) before it gains anymore credence?

The NRA frequently quotes Switzerland as a country with high numbers of firearms in circulation, but a low firearm-related homicide rate. In fact, the number of firearms in Switzerland is comparable to other European countries, and claims of a low firearm-homicide rate are moderated by a high firearm-suicide rate.

The Swiss constitution requires every male Swiss citizen between 18 and 50 to be armed and to serve in the militia. After basic training, each soldier receives a weapon and ammunition to keep at home. Ammunition is received in a sealed box, which may be opened only in a national emergency.

But, despite NRA claims that Switzerland is one of the most armed countries in the world, only 27% of Swiss households have firearms, 60% of which are those military weapons. So, despite having a militia, firearm ownership rates in Switzerland are similar to other European countries (but not the UK).

But . . .but . . . Switzerland's gun death rate is high – 5.31 per 100,000 (cf above Scotland death rate of 0.54 per 100,000)

According to Swiss criminologist Martin Killias, of the Université de Lausanne, many suicide candidates in Switzerland turn to the government-provided weapon, confirming that the more accessible firearms are, the more they are used to kill – albeit, in this case, suicide.

Following the recent international spasm of mass murders with guns, coupled with a concern about crime, Switzerland strengthened and standardised its laws in 1996, so reducing provincial (cantonal) control of firearms by strengthening federal jurisdiction.

I realise that would not be palatable to many Americans, but there does seem to be a case for a more interventionist Federal policy

Calaedros

3rd January 2005, 11:44 AM

I apologise for the crude way I put the previous comment, Madrigal - it certainly wasn't directed at you, but I really have seen such comments elsewhere when discussing this subject. Whether this make me a jerk or not, I don't really want to know.

Now, I read your post about your mother the first time you posted it. I remember thinking that yes, it was awful, and I sympathised greatly both for your dog and for the ordeal that your mother went through. However, what good would a gun have done? Instead of your dog, yes, a loved pet, but still a dog, it could have been the burglar's blood splattered across the wall? I respect the fact that other people have different opinions, which is why I like to post here, but to me that seems wrong. Your mother was, if I understand correctly, unharmed, and so I don't think that a gun would have made a great lot of difference. I don't care to speculate on what would have happened had they come across your mother, but I suspect that they would have been less violent towards her than to a large dog that was attacking them. I really don't mean to sound harsh, but this is how I see it.

Concerning the others who were attacked? Perhaps they were injured, but what's the alternative? Killing someone. For people who are raped there are rape alarms, CS spray and other non-lethal methods of protection. Even just thinking carefully about where you're walking on your own.

I think the point I'm trying to press upon you is that it is absolutely unnecessary to go around shooting people. They might be despicable low-lifes with no moral fibre whatsoever, but they are still people and in my opinion using guns on other people without express authority (military, law enforcement) is completely wrong.

Cal

Madrigal

4th January 2005, 03:49 AM

I also apologize for snapping at you; you didn't deserve to be called a jerk.

It's quite possible that the burgulars wouldn't have had anything more than a baseball bat, and that they would have been less violent had they found my mother. It's also possible they wouldn't have. Given the way their nerves were sure to be in a situation like that--just killed something, trying to make it out before the cops come and get through anything in their way--I'm not at all willing to bank on the former. If it meant that Mom didn't hold them at gunpoint or scare them off and instead killed them, as is very possible, I'd still rather she had the gun.

Think about how violent they'd already been. One blow to the head would've stopped the dog. Instead, beating him until there's blood splashed around?

Thinking carefully about walking doesn't work. The English teacher was not alone, she was not in some dark alley or secluded park, and it was not late at night nor early in the morning. It can certainly decrease your chances and is a very wise thing to do, but it's not all that reliable. Mace and equivalents don't affect a sizeable amount of the population. A rape alarm's just sound--and if an attacker's pumped up to the point where a knee to the balls isn't going to stop him (often it won't), do you think a loud sound will?

Killing someone. Yes. Killing someone because there's a significant chance they're going to kill you this instant. There's a difference between that and going around shooting people. I'm not proposing tracking down the people who broke into our house and gunning them down with an AK-47. In fact, I'm not proposing tracking them down and killing them at all; the most I'd like to see is that they someday be brought to justice, and there's no way I can influence that now.

I do believe that guns are a method of last resort--I've taken some Impact courses and so on--but I think that method should be available when necessary. "Better tried by twelve than carried by six," if worst comes to worst.

leahiniowa

4th January 2005, 12:15 PM

Certain cultures have a higher rate of violence. That was what I was trying to say before when I said, basically what one of those articles quoted said, that Israeli's all have guns and they are rarely if ever used in robberies and domestic violence or murder.

Maybe it's the frontier mentality, I don't know. The Canadians don't have the violent culture, but look at Mexico and into Central and South America. Japan may be non violent, but many if not most Asian countries do have a high rate of violence.

The United States is a bit different from most other countries because, from a very early point in the gestation of this country, we have been a hodge podge of peoples coming from vastly differing cultures.

Even cultures which have been univocal and cohesive for centuries differ between each other.

I don't think it's logical to try to transpose the values/laws of one culture upon another, unless they are very closely related and similar.

I don't necessarily think EVERYONE could defend themselves with a gun (or any type of weapon). And I do think that SOME people could do MORE damage with a gun than without. But I do know that my mother could defend herself with one, if G-d forbid she was ever in a situation where she had to.

The other thing is that people sometimes hear about a shooting, and when they hear that someone was injured but will survive, think, okay, then, it's all fine and dandy. Meanwhile some five year old has a jaw in which the bones and teeth look like rice krispies. I remember when two boys from my neighborhood in Brooklyn were shot by an Arab with a van full of weapons right on the Brooklyn Bridge. One died, and the other went through so much rehab, it was years before he married, and I don't know what kind of impairments he may have, but I'm sure he's got them.

If you drive South on the FDR Drive in Manhattan and take the exit to the Brooklyn Bridge, you can see the Ari Halberstam ZTz'l Memorial Ramp.

AnnMarie

5th January 2005, 12:01 AM

I think guns, like religion and politics, are a potentially explosive topic to discuss. You will never get everyone to agree. We have diferent backgrounds, diferent experiences, and diferent personalities.

I'm bowing out of this one.

I.L.Y.

5th January 2005, 06:15 AM

The different viewpoints are the reason to debate. I personally enjoy these debates greatly, because it shows me a whole different side of things that I don't see in my everyday life.

As to the debate, I think Spike's got this one very well in hand and I commend him on that. Xhack, I respect you caring enough to research the stats you used, but I think they just muddied the waters. In all reality, there's no way to really compare the two countries gun and non-gun deaths since both countries approach both the prosecution of the crimes, and the crimes themselves in totally different, almost opposite ways. As Wolfegar said, it's just as easy to kill with a pencil as it is anything else. Push it into the right place, and you needn't do more.

I know some will say "But it's easier with a gun." and yes, it is. That's the point of a gun. To make it easy to kill or injure something, and most importantly, from a distance instead of having to be right there with whatever is being shot. But, if someone is bound and determined, or even just hyped up enough on adreneline, then no matter what they've got, whether it be a pencil, a pike or a pistol, someone will die. Just because guns aren't around doesn't mean that violence rates will decrease.

Also, some people forget that shooting someone doesn't mean killing them. It's very easy to, but a trained shooter can disable someone instead of killing them, which is a much, much better alternative. That's why I whole-heartedly support the sentiment already stated here that all who own a gun should have to be trained in its use, and have certification to show that training, having to renew it every year or so. Background checks, heck yeah. Keeping *all* weapons away from violent-crime offenders, all for it. But keeping guns away from law-abiding citizens who may need them in the future sometime? Nah. No way will I ever support that.

Personally, for protection in my own home, I'd much rather keep a machete close to my bed(which I do). I fear that if I used a gun to protect myself in my own home, someone I care about might be hurt inadvertantly by a bullet going through a wall when I'm trying to drive the intruder out. There are low-power alternative ammos that reduce or negate that chance, but I'd still much rather use a blade than a ballistic. I very much treasure the freedom to choose though. I know there are others who aren't as proficient or comfortable with a blade, especially a big one, as I am. Maybe a firearm with a low-power, non-lethal ammunition is the better alternative for them.

In my opinion, the problem with guns started when they were invented. But you know what? Now that they're here, they're never, ever going away. The only way to be rid of them is to go back in time and stop them ever being made in the first place. They will always be around now. Even if every single country agreed to lay down their arms, criminals would still have them, and then they'd have free fun of the entire world. I don't particularly like the thought of that.

And Cal, I know you were interested in my beliefs on killing in defense. I don't like it at all. I wish it weren't needed, but, sometimes, I believe that it is. It's a last-ditch option, and when I say that, I say it quite seriously. I would try everything, including negotiating, fist fighting, blade fighting, whatever I could, to stop them first. But if worst came to worst, there's a reason I keep a clip loaded with three shells below my .22 rifle.

Milo

5th January 2005, 07:00 AM

Something funny I realize about statistics. When anti-gun person x posts a post saying that such and such a country has less murders than us, a pro-gun person quickly posts back that such and such a country has more.

SO? Shouldnt we strive to be the best? Here in the U.S. people are fond of calling it the greatest country in the world. Maybe we should make sure of that first.

Spike

5th January 2005, 11:42 AM

leahiniowa

5th January 2005, 12:16 PM

Now THAT was an explosive statement!!!

Spike

5th January 2005, 12:54 PM

Now THAT was an explosive statement!!!

Was't meant to be explosive.

It's just MHO, is all.

:bouncy:

leahiniowa

5th January 2005, 01:15 PM

I'm not making a value judgment as to the veracity of what you said or not.

Just that, previously, on related websites (the OKT), we've had that discussion before. You're the worst. We're the best. You are imperialist. You are jealous.

Personally, I feel extremely blessed to have been born in the US. And the hodge podge culture we have is, I think, stronger b/c of its disparities and vagaries. But I know some people will strongly disagree.

Let's sit back and see what happens . . . . :bouncy:

Spike

5th January 2005, 01:27 PM

ladyholdermara

5th January 2005, 01:30 PM

NEED another categorie lol "I think they should be used for hunting only" or somthing liike that there lol

Lived with guns half my life, my father has several rifles, but I won't have one in my own house.

Calaedros

5th January 2005, 02:32 PM

But we are the Best, so why improve on a good thing?

Hehe, yes, a nice troll if ever I saw one :)

Cal

Xhack

5th January 2005, 03:08 PM

Tsk, Cal, don't encourage the boy* Dignified silence, dontcha know . . . :D

*boy - an assumption; forgive me if I'm wrong :redfruit:

leahiniowa

5th January 2005, 05:10 PM

I have a feeling, from his post count (unless he was Someone Else on the OKT), that he had no idea what he was potentially walking into with a statement like that on this board.
:eek:

Calaedros

5th January 2005, 05:24 PM

I have a feeling, from his post count (unless he was Someone Else on the OKT), that he had no idea what he was potentially walking into with a statement like that on this board.
:eek:

I think he's just a troll, and don't intend on continuing to feed him :)

Cal

Milo

5th January 2005, 09:37 PM

Spike, most of your other posts are pretty intelligent.
Are you saying that a higher murder rate than european countries is better? :eek: :noface:

Madrigal

6th January 2005, 02:48 AM

As a lawyer's brat, I just can't resist playing devil's advocate.

Call it a form of Darwinism. The reason the US is so powerful is that many of the people who are in power clawed their way there, while the riffraff can go shoot each other and themselves all they like. In the city, you learn to stay on your toes, plan for the worst case, and protect yourself.

( ;) )

Anareth

6th January 2005, 04:31 AM

Like guns, have shot them, don't own one at present. I would like to have a handgun and be able to carry it, but not all states are reasonable on that. (Of course, I'm in training to be a chef. If someone comes after me and I have access to my knife kit (and can keep it away from the attacker) I could stab someone to death with one drive of the 9" fairly easily.) I have no moral problems with anyone killing an intruder to defend life or property.

I'm all for hunting as well, especially rats with antlers (we go for doe where I live--they're the problem in the population.) I don't shoot coyotes--there's a season on them--but about the dogs? If they're running loose and chasing stock or deer, we'll shoot them. Technically you're supposed to call the DNR and they'll seize the dog and kill it, but normally they can't get there in time to see it happen. But people who let their dogs run wild should expect them to disappear--they pack up and will go after other dogs, cattle, goats, sheep--one bunch near where I lived attacked a horse with a rider aboard. Another time I saw two pin a deer in the river--I didn't know deer could scream, but they can. Keep your dogs fenced or on a lead or have them well-trained enough to stay on your land, or expect them to not come home one day.

I.L.Y.

6th January 2005, 05:41 AM

My dad and I(neither of which are psychologists or sociologists by any means, but we *do* have a heavy interest in both subjects) have discussed the theory that as a population gets denser in an area, the rate of violence goes up.

Humans are social animals, to a point. Once they get packed into a space tight enough, sociopathic tendendcies tend to be more common. Ever notice that more homicides happen in cities than in rural areas?

I know that there are more people in cities than rural areas, so by the laws of statistics, it's more likely to happen in a city, but I don't think that accounts for all of it.

Maybe the US has packed its people into cities more than the UK has and thus has raised its own volent-crime rate?

I don't know if this theory has any validity to it or not. Just tossing it out there.

Emmy

6th January 2005, 05:45 AM

I for them, mainly because where I'm at.. had shot Rifles not guns twice a year, for four years

Rifles ARE guns.

An interesting article in an Australian newspaper. (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,11202534%255E1702,00.html)

and another (http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/10/27/1098667808713.html?from=storylhs&oneclick=true)

Speaking from the point of veiw of a person who works in a Court, I believe that guns should only be available to people who can prove they need them, are trained in their use and safety, and can be held responsible for anything that is done with their gun unless they can prove they did everything in their power to prevent it's use by another person.
As soon as possible I believe all firearms should be required to have a device on it that makes it useable only by the person it is registered to. Surely with DNA technology this should be possible, if not now but in the near future.

You can and will be charged with a criminal offence for causing injury to a person who is on your property whether they were there legally or not. Self defence or no self defence. You'll still have to go through a trial to prove it was self defence. And in most places you have to prove that you did not use more force than absolutely necessary for your own defence.
You can be sued for injuring a person on your property whether they were there legally or not. There have been cases where the rightful tenant of a property has lost a civil case where a burglar has injured themself on something unsafe in the house or property and the burglar has won the case - despite having been convicted as a result of the burglary. Unfortunately I can't direct you to any news articles in relation to this as I don't know much more about the case/s where this has happened. It's sad, but it's true.
The less guns there are in the world means less likelyhood that people who misuse them will have them.

Spike

6th January 2005, 08:22 AM

Hehe, yes, a nice troll if ever I saw one :)

Cal

Tsk Tsk, same ole name calling just like at the KT.

Spike

6th January 2005, 08:23 AM

Spike, most of your other posts are pretty intelligent.
Are you saying that a higher murder rate than european countries is better? :eek: :noface:

Not at all, I'm just saying that statistics can and are usually skewed to make it seem better and or worse in some cases.

Spike

6th January 2005, 08:26 AM

I have a feeling, from his post count (unless he was Someone Else on the OKT), that he had no idea what he was potentially walking into with a statement like that on this board.
:eek:

I've been around longer than quiet a few of you, and to assume I don't have a clue as to what I have walked into, your sadly mistaken.

hmmmm, lets seee......almost from the very beginning.

:bouncy:

Spike

6th January 2005, 08:34 AM

Rifles ARE guns.

An interesting article in an Australian newspaper. (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,11202534%255E1702,00.html)

and another (http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/10/27/1098667808713.html?from=storylhs&oneclick=true)

Speaking from the point of veiw of a person who works in a Court, I believe that guns should only be available to people who can prove they need them, are trained in their use and safety, and can be held responsible for anything that is done with their gun unless they can prove they did everything in their power to prevent it's use by another person.
As soon as possible I believe all firearms should be required to have a device on it that makes it useable only by the person it is registered to. Surely with DNA technology this should be possible, if not now but in the near future.

You can and will be charged with a criminal offence for causing injury to a person who is on your property whether they were there legally or not. Self defence or no self defence. You'll still have to go through a trial to prove it was self defence. And in most places you have to prove that you did not use more force than absolutely necessary for your own defence.
You can be sued for injuring a person on your property whether they were there legally or not. There have been cases where the rightful tenant of a property has lost a civil case where a burglar has injured themself on something unsafe in the house or property and the burglar has won the case - despite having been convicted as a result of the burglary. Unfortunately I can't direct you to any news articles in relation to this as I don't know much more about the case/s where this has happened. It's sad, but it's true.
The less guns there are in the world means less likelyhood that people who misuse them will have them.

In the US, not sure of all states, it is against the law to use a gun in self defense "unless" there is immenent bodily harm to you or one of your family members.

When something does happen and someone is shot in "self defense" it is investigated and determined if it was indeed justifiable.

I could go for the DNA technology you mentioned, it would seem that it could be possible, and perhaps someday it will.

Education for those who want to own a gun is essential, but letting criminals odtain guns "Illegally" needs to be stopped, it seems easier said than done, hopefully that too will happen one day.

Spike

6th January 2005, 08:38 AM

Tsk, Cal, don't encourage the boy* Dignified silence, dontcha know . . . :D

*boy - an assumption; forgive me if I'm wrong :redfruit:

Your forgiven....this time.

leahiniowa

6th January 2005, 11:55 AM

Emmy those are good points. Generally, at least in many places in the US, yes, you'd be tried criminally for shooting the person, but most likely let off, especially considering what burglers can do to the people they find when burgling. But the civil suit, yes, that's definitely a possibility, and yes, it is amazing what people will sue for. I was just reading an article somewhere, and it wasn't even in the Reader's Digest That's Outrageous column. I remember once this Mexican dishwasher got drunk in NYC and ended up falling down on the subway tracks and his hands got run over by the subway, and he was awarded a couple million dollars b/c nobody chased him down into the empty station and tried to stop him from falling down on the tracks. Who knows, maybe he even jumped the stile!

Calaedros

6th January 2005, 12:12 PM

Hmm, the comments of legality of presence made me wonder - is trespass illegal in the US? This is a little OT, but I'm curious.

Cal

leahiniowa

6th January 2005, 12:54 PM

Cal, I think it depends on the situation and probably also which state you live in. Walking through someone's front yard for a short cut probably would not get prosecuted, even if someone called the police. Hopping over a fence to get into someone's yard, that basically is trespassing, but I don't really think someone would be put in jail unless they were a repeat offender, and even then, probably would get out immediately. (This actually can be a problem, because when people put out restraining orders against stalkers, often the stalker still gets to the victim. Many women have been killed by their husbands/boyfriends while they had a restraining order against them.)

For larger pieces of land, I suppose it depends upon whether they had signs up warning trespassers, or depending upon what the trespasser was doing.

In some states, such as Texas, if you kill someone who is trespassing you are most likely not to be prosecuted. Now I don't know exactly how that works if you and the person are standing on the front lawn. In my imagination, that scenario always seems to be in the middle of the night and in one's house or back yard (enclosed).

We don't have guaranteed trails were people are allowed to walk through someone's property if there is a traditional trail there, like they do in the UK.

Xhack

6th January 2005, 01:32 PM

There's a presumption of public access, so no criminal law of trespass in Scotland, though there's still a civil resort.

There was a famous case about 50 years ago where a landowner sued someone for damaging the blades of grass over which the miscreant had walked. The courts found for the landowner, awarded him damages of one farthing, but awarded costs AGAINST him, which by then amounted to thousands.

So, not too many cases come up :D

C_ris

6th January 2005, 03:24 PM

Calaedros

6th January 2005, 03:44 PM

I would expect that there are many factors that the perceived increased rate of violence is attributable to. The most obvious is that there are so many more people. The next most, in my opinion, is that the drug culture and gangs etc. is quite common in large cities, but isn't particularly practical in very rural areas.

I haven't thought about this as much as you, but there are a lot more factors in a city than just population size and proximity to other humans.

Cal

I.L.Y.

6th January 2005, 05:04 PM

<snip>I haven't thought about this as much as you, but there are a lot more factors in a city than just population size and proximity to other humans.

Cal

I know that, but most of those problems, such as increased rates of drug trafficing, etc are more likely and concentrated to a city *because* there are so many more people there.

I mean, think about how many "gangs" you see out in rural areas. In my county, there's no town larger tha a thousand members, and most of the rest is all farmland, so it's pretty much 100% rural. The only "gang" we've ever had here, even in my dad's recollection, was a group of guys back in his day that hung around together trying to act tough and drinking together. But other than that.....it was about it. They played pranks, but no one ever got really hurt, let alone killed.

Even in St. Joseph, the closest city to us, which has about 75,000-80,000 I think, but I didn't look it up so I could be wrong, deaths due to violent crimes are still not all that common. Whenever someone dies of non-natural causes, it's on the news. I can't remember one in the past..........4 or 5 months other than the Skidmore lady who was killed and her baby taken from her womb.

leahiniowa

6th January 2005, 07:17 PM

I know that, for me, the proximity to so many other people makes me feel claustrophobic. It didn't used to, but as I get older I just lose my patience with it all. I still love New York city, for example, but just have gotten tired of waiting on line to buy groceries or use an ATM or waiting for a green light, etc. You have less privacy, parking is harder, I could go on and on. At this point I am so completely happy with my little city of 2500 people. I do love visiting NYC, and I like to go to the local larger cities near my home every so often, but for day to day life I am happy right here. I AM getting the itch, though, to pay a visit to NYC. I think I'm probably going to go in mid to late February, after I shlep the kids to Houston and back. I'll be ready for a nice break right around then. :banghead:

carmella

6th January 2005, 09:05 PM

Have shot guns. Used to own them. My father's are considered antiques now. He hated that. My son has inherited them.

We voted down a concealed carry law. The legislature overroad the popular vote and OK'ed concealed carry. There was all this fighting, and some of it is still in the courts because parts of the bill were poorly written ( part of the problem with term limits, but that is :ot: ) After all this, there was no big rush to get the concealed carry license The biggest change is all the stores schools and churches have NO GUNS ALLOWED signs on the doors.

We all need to take a breath. I objected to the legislature overidding the vote of the people . I felt that if there was a change in attitude, the vote should have been returned to the people. Also, put some people in office who know how to write bills that follow the needs of the law.

Spike

6th January 2005, 11:12 PM

Trespass is illegal if the land is properly posted as Private Property and posted with signs of "No Trespassing"

If you break into someones house it is called "Criminal trespass" or "Breaking and Entering"

Madrigal

7th January 2005, 02:44 AM

I've been around longer than quiet a few of you, and to assume I don't have a clue as to what I have walked into, your sadly mistaken.

hmmmm, lets seee......almost from the very beginning.

:bouncy:

Are we to start taking guesses? Mine goes with GB--just about everyone else who sounds remotely similar that I know is accounted for.

The gangs are expanding into the suburbs and some semi-rural areas around where I live. My house--where I more or less just sleep, since I spend almost all of my time in the city--is about ten minute's walk from anyone else. The nearest stoplight is fifteen miles away. Not quite suburban, definitely not rural. A gang tied up a woman in a nearby store and robbed the place last week. Another kid was raped.

Sure, gangs started out in the cities... but they do grow.

Spike

7th January 2005, 04:27 AM

Yes gangs started in the cities and now pose a threat to suburban life, it's a shame that kids/teenagers/young adults feel they need to form groups and section off territories and defend them in such a manner.

Think about it though, there are even gangs in schools, but they are usually called "cliques" nowhere as violent as street gangs but to a point just as hurtful to others feelings.

The thing that always amazes me is how cruel kids can be to other kids, these same kids were once cuddly and innocent babies, but then grow up to just terrorize others in school and in neighborhoods.

We can say it is due to too much TV, but even way back in the 40's and 50's kids were just as (if a little less or more ) cruel than today, so it couldn't be the TV's fault. Right?

For me, it is the lack of parental involvement with there kids upbringing, they don't go and visit grandma or grandpa. Parents both having to work to make ends meet, and don't get to spend Quality time with their children, not going fishing or perhaps finding the time to even fly a kite.

As for the guessing, you and others can try....and good luck.

:bouncy:

Milo

7th January 2005, 06:49 AM

Y'all may be suprised, but there is now a gun in our house. Yep, twelve gauge shot gun sitten right thar on the dining room table. Not loaded, but two different kinds of birdshot sitten right thar next to it. Locked in a case, but the key, sitten right thar next to it. Why you may ask? My brother, now 19, bought it when he was 14 in the intent to hunt. While he was allowed to buy it, my mummy didn't want it in the house. Hence it sat in somebody elses house for five years and was shot maybe twice. Tommorow it will go upstairs in a closet, still in its locked case. Also tommorow my brother will most likely go out and shoot it a few times. Will I join in his shooting? most likely. (forgive me if i'm starting to sound like rummy :noface: ) Why you ask? Cause shooting is fun. I know this from when I shot a 22 pistol at a camp when I was 5 (yeh, I still remember). However, I would be glad to see gun control, cause the "joy" of shooting a gun is something I'd be more than happy to go without (as I pretty much have all my life) if it would make life safer people.

On a different vein, that of them damned Librals and gun control. Way back when we still fought about the election I was arguing with the brother of a friend of mine. He said "Kerry wants to take our guns!!!" And I said "Hulloooo, no, he has guns of his own" (granted the goose was a pathetic photo op.) and he said "well, Kerry wants to tax our guns!!!" and I said "hullooo, things get taxed, you buy a lava lamp, you get taxed, you buy a gun, you get taxed." and he said "well, we have the right to have guns!!!" and I said "well we have the right to have lava lamps..."

Spike

7th January 2005, 07:09 AM

You should go into politics.

You sure your from OH-hi-O or Ken-tuc-kie?

:bouncy:

leahiniowa

7th January 2005, 01:42 PM

For some reason people get all confused and strange about their constitutional rights. Such as freedom of speech. Just because you won't get prosecuted for saying something doesn't mean that no one can sue you in a civil court for what you've said. Criminal punishment is not the same as a civil lawsuit (as OJ discovered). And the same goes for guns. Just b/c you have a constitutional right to have guns doesn't mean they can't be taxed. It's nuts. What do people think their consitutional rights give them? It's like they think it's a "get out of jail free" card or something. Being legal and protected doesn't mean you can object to any legislation regulating it. In fact, that's what frustrates me about people who object to gun registration/licensing. it doesn't deny anyone access to a gun, but you do have to know how to use it properly to have one. I don't see what's so bad about that, and it does not infringe upon anyone's rights.

I have been reading, as some of you know, Robert J. Sawyer's Neanderthal Parallax series of books. In that Neanderthal society, everyone gets the right to vote, but you have to be about forty before you can vote. So it's not that voting is denied anyone (well, unless they die young) but just that you have to be a certain age before you can do it.

Regulation and control are not the same thing as banning.

C_ris

7th January 2005, 04:15 PM

Rights come with Responsibility.

If you have a right to ahve a gun, and use that right, then you also have a responsibility to ensure that it is only used safely.

Milo

8th January 2005, 06:41 AM

You should go into politics.

You sure your from OH-hi-O or Ken-tuc-kie?

:bouncy:
Oh-Hi-Oh... As I understand Ken-tuc-kie doesn't have a sales tax?

(oh, i've thought about it. In quite a few years I might even consider it)

Sandi

8th January 2005, 06:04 PM

I feel the need to jump in here again even though I've already given my overall opinion about guns on page one. I feel that I should contribute a few local statistics to the brew. In the eight years I've been there my department has worked a few murders but I only remember two which were done with guns. One involved a "gang" whose activities including drug trafficing but was primarily into dog fighting. The victim was shot for holding back some of the gambling money from a dog fight. The other was a typical Domestic in which the husband dared the wife to shoot him so she did. Other weapons used were an electric cord, a kitchen knife, a "hunting" knife, baseball bats, a steam iron, a hammer and two nearly leathal attacks with vehicles. Nearly all the violent crimes in this area are domestic in nature, (fighting between couples, women fighting over men, men fighting over women),

While I still don't like the idea of everyone around me being armed with everything from pellet guns to assault rifles, I'm not sure how much they contribute to violent crimes. Most of the incidents I've seen involving guns have been accidents and suicides. It's the number of accidental shootings that makes me against an armed public, not the criminal intents.

Ryuu

11th January 2005, 11:33 PM

In part at least the discrepancy can be explained by the "weapon substitution" theory, whereby an offender denied access to firearms would substitute another lethal weapon. The theory would suggest that the crime dictates the weapon rather than the weapon dictating the crime. Mayhew counters that most violent incidents are committed fairly spontaneously and that the presence of a lethal weapon produces a violent outcome. Such spontaneity is in fact myth, a myth generated more by wishful thinking than any basis in fact. Firstly consider domestic violence, many offenders do claim that a violent confrontation with a partner arose spontaneously and that their actions were not premeditated. Yet domestic violence is rarely an isolated outbreak of such violence but simply another episode in a long cycle of abuse. Secondly an armed robber does not discharge a firearm 'spontaneously' during a robbery. The robbery may not have been planned with the intent to discharge a weapon but by carrying a firearm criminals are clearly prepared to do so should the situation demand it. Rawanda....no guns....lots of knives....think about it....

Ryuu

11th January 2005, 11:47 PM

Rifles ARE guns.heh heh heh! don't say that to a USMarine :laugh: trolling, indeed! & by a staffer;)

Speaking from the point of veiw of a person who works in a Court, I believe that guns should only be available to people who can prove they need them, are trained in their use and safety, and can be held responsible for anything that is done with their gun unless they can prove they did everything in their power to prevent it's use by another person.
As soon as possible I believe all firearms should be required to have a device on it that makes it useable only by the person it is registered to. Surely with DNA technology this should be possible, if not now but in the near future.

You can and will be charged with a criminal offence for causing injury to a person who is on your property whether they were there legally or not. Self defence or no self defence. You'll still have to go through a trial to prove it was self defence. And in most places you have to prove that you did not use more force than absolutely necessary for your own defence.
You can be sued for injuring a person on your property whether they were there legally or not. There have been cases where the rightful tenant of a property has lost a civil case where a burglar has injured themself on something unsafe in the house or property and the burglar has won the case - despite having been convicted as a result of the burglary. Unfortunately I can't direct you to any news articles in relation to this as I don't know much more about the case/s where this has happened. It's sad, but it's true.
The less guns there are in the world means less likelyhood that people who misuse them will have them.we have much the same in the US when it comes to injuries a criminal receives while committing the crime on your property---and only illustrates the visciousness and ruthlessness of LAWYERS :banghead: time for a revolution!! :devil:

Madrigal

12th January 2005, 01:17 AM

:) Try to start a revolution. My family will sue.

(Out of twenty, seventeen are lawyers of one stripe or another, including law students and those who intend to become law students.)

leahiniowa

12th January 2005, 01:34 AM

As long as they don't work for the IRS.

Earthmother

12th January 2005, 04:32 AM

I voted Neutral, yet I am not against gun ownership. I grew up with guns, was taught gun safety, and have shot at a range. The gun laws are there... they are not always enforced which is one of the major problems.

Now, my husband grew up in Mexico which is a dictatorship with gun control in the hands of the police and military. For him he has often seen that when the government controls the guns, freedoms decline. Europe maybe the exception but growing up in a dictatorship where the police where of no to little help has left a lasting impression. His frustration with the US and guns is that the government keeps fighting over laws concerning the guns while ignoring half the laws already on the books.

Currently, we own no guns.

Milo

12th January 2005, 06:17 PM

Spike

12th January 2005, 06:26 PM

Nothing worth in Mexico, even the water is bad.

I.L.Y.

13th January 2005, 03:51 AM

No professional rapists used by the government as far as I know.

leahiniowa

13th January 2005, 11:53 AM

Jake, the amateurs do well enough on their own. Rape has always been a part of war and peacetime crime.

Anything CAN be used to kill. However, I think that having the ability to not be "up close and personal" with a gun, you are able to depersonalize your victim and makes it easier to take their life. When you are right in their face, if you have a knife or something, you really experience the death throes here and now. With a gun, you can shoot, watch them fall, and go off for a beer. No blood, no struggles.

I.L.Y.

14th January 2005, 04:28 AM

I meant in use by the government as a form of torture. I've only heard of that from one government...

16th April 2005, 09:35 AM

It is MUCH harder to get a gun licence, and a gun, in Australia than in other countries, particularly since Port Arthur (for those not in the know, Martin Bryant went on a shooting spree in a cafe in Port Arthur, Tasmania, in 1996, killing 12 people)

I don't think that the general public should have guns. The police and military, yes, but otherwise no.

Bibliophilical_idiot

17th April 2005, 07:27 PM

im not for guns. i think it is a very cowardly way to kill some one and it would suck to die by being hit with a tiny soft piece of metal. guns are for cowards. but since we have them the only way to fight a gun is with a gun or not to fight at all.

skysong

18th April 2005, 02:21 AM

I don't like guns, period. I went to high school with a girl who has a self descriped "red-neck" she and I disagreed about guns and hunting. She liked to go deer hunting and I said that I could never shot I defenseless animal. I respect her right to hunt, but she should not expect me to want to hunt too.

SpaceCowboy

18th April 2005, 03:08 AM

I shoot and own a gun. But it is locked in a gun safe, and I don't get it out unless I am heading to the range. I was raised in the eastern part of San Diego County California, and learned to shoot at an early age. My uncle was a Navy SEAL and taught his kids, me and my sisters and our friends how to shoot. We all know and knew that a gun is not a toy it is a tool. And like any tool you use them only if they are needed. I used to have a concealed carry permit, but the only time I've ever had to defend myself it was physical. A guy tried to stick a gun in my back and slipped. His arm went between mine and my body, and I disarmed him by shattering his upper arm. You have to remember I am 6'-3" and about 300 pounds, and used my weight to my advantage there. People who use guns to terrorize people or to rob are trash and should be treated as such.

Blue Moon

18th April 2005, 04:13 AM

I think that they should be just for cops, especially since those four RCMP officers were killed by that psycotic man in Northern Alberta. It was so sad that a crazy man like that could even get his hands on a gun.

leahiniowa

18th April 2005, 02:08 PM

Only allowing the police to carry guns is what the right to bear arms in the United States bill of rights was designed to prevent (I know you're Canadian, I'm just mentioning this). Anyway, let me tell you, there are PLENTY of messed up cops out there - I certainly would not like for the cops to be the only ones wearing guns.

skysong - are you a vegan? And if so, how do you KNOW you are? (I am almost 100% positive I know vastly more about food production than you do, as I keep kosher and HAVE to know it.)

I'll worry about eating defenseless animals when THEY worry about eating us. Anyway, now that we have removed the natural predators and parasites from, say, white tail deer, a bullet in the heart is most likely much more kind than starving to death or being hit by a car and limping off to die.