Gun Enthusiasts Mobilize

[anonemouse 1]

Rant is like binging and snacking in preBand days....we know we shouldn't do it.

It can't make you fat, though, and it can help relieve some stress and pressure. So rant away! We won't attack (most of the time) unless you are really offensive or can't defend your position with logical arguments.

[396power 2]

Alright then give me a gun

[JeninCO 0]

I'm a card carrying liberal (literally) and I want a gun.

I think a gun is the only equalizer, especially as a woman.

[BJean 16]

Somebody want to look up the stats for the number of people killed in a household with guns in the residence and the number of people killed in a household with no guns in the residence?

If owning a gun really does prevent anyone in your home from being killed, then owning them is a no-brainer. If owning a gun makes it more probable (statistically) that you or someone in your home is killed or injured by a gun, then your argument for owning them for protection from the bad guys is not too justifiable, now is it?

One of the profs I had in college said that there is a Scandinavian country where it is a requirement that at age 18, all boy citizens must attend a course on gun safety and shooting and then they are issued a gun. It insures that every household has at least one gun in residence. He said that their stats for crimes committed with guns is very low. I never researched it to find out if this prof was BS-ing us, but my guess is he was a card carrying member of the NRA.

[gadgetlady 4]

I don't particularly care what the stats are. If you are a poorly trained gun owner, your probability of not using your gun properly is high. If you are well trained, your probability is low. I think education and training are more important than statistics.

[BJean 16]

I'm talking about the statistics as they relate to gun use.

What you're saying about training having a causal effect on proper usage of a gun seem to make perfect sense. Unfortunately I don't think you have to have training and qualify to pass a test on proper usage and storage in order to buy a gun. The consequences of using a gun improperly are extremely bad. (If one considers being shot and suffering injury and/or death to be bad.)

I don't blame honest, well-trained gun enthusiasts for not wanting additional laws passed for gun ownership. However I believe the laws on the books that aren't being enforced are not being enforced because they may be badly written laws or impractical laws that were enacted because of knee-jerk reactions to things like the horrific Blacksburg incident.

What we need are better laws that actually protect people from improper and inappropriate use of firearms. I don't believe we should take away the rights of Americans to own guns, but there are too many accidental shootings and there are too many cases of nut-balls committing heinous crimes with guns. (understatement)

[BJean 16]

I guess I'm not sure why you made the comment about statistics being immaterial to you. The number of killings that those two snipers committed in Washington, D.C. and northern Virginia is a statistic. The number of assassinations and attempted assassinations committed by guns in the U.S. is a statistic. The number of assaults and deaths committed in Waco is a statistic. The number of killings and injuries in Blacksburg are cited as statistics. Do you think that those statistics have nothing to do with the way guns are purchased and used in this country? I doubt very seriously if the individuals who committed those crimes were unschooled in the use of firearms.

[gadgetlady 4]

I was addressing specifically this comment:

Somebody want to look up the stats for the number of people killed in a household with guns in the residence and the number of people killed in a household with no guns in the residence?

If owning a gun really does prevent anyone in your home from being killed, then owning them is a no-brainer. If owning a gun makes it more probable (statistically) that you or someone in your home is killed or injured by a gun, then your argument for owning them for protection from the bad guys is not too justifiable, now is it?

I personally feel safer being in a house with a gun. I would never live in a house without one. And every member of our family has been trained very well in age-appropriate measures as to what to do with a gun (obviously for the young ones, don't ever touch one). I am confident that if someone ever broke into our house we would be adequately able to protect ourselves. I am equally confident that it is extremely unlikely that we will have a gun accident or that an intruder would be able to wrest our guns away from us (we wouldn't let them get close enough to do so due to locks, motion detectors, and alarms).

During the L.A. riots in the early '90's, all of my friends, including some anti-gun ones, camped out at my house because they knew they would have at least a fighting chance if someone broke in. I don't trust that the police can get to us quickly enough if someone is in our house and we call 911. And that was certainly not the case during the riots as the police were overwhelmed.

[BJean 16]

My son and DIL lived right in LA during the riots. After that, my son went out and purchased a number of guns, took lots of target practice and bought a huge commercial safe for the guns. I only hope that he doesn't actually kill someone someday. I don't want his family to be victimized by gun-totin' criminals, but I know how much it would change his life if he actually killed a human being.

I just wonder if it's more likely that someone they know and love will be one day shot with one of his guns or if it is more likely that they will have a criminal intruder and need to protect themselves? I guess that's why you aren't worried about the stats. You don't want to take any chance that you won't be able to kill someone who is a threat to your family. I understand. You don't believe in killing babies in utero, but you do believe in killing.

[BJean 16]

That last sentence wasn't made with the intention of hatefulness. I am just really trying to understand how people think it's okay to inject themselves in a decision about a women's uterus and that they think it is a sin to kill an innocent fetus, but that it's okay to kill anyone else who may threaten them. It seems like a double standard to me. You love babies, but you don't have compassion or understanding for people with troubled minds or souls. Don't you know that an unwanted pregnancy can be just as much a threat to a woman's life as a criminal with a gun pointed to her head?

[gadgetlady 4]

You don't believe in killing babies in utero, but you do believe in killing.

You just don't get it, do you? I don't like killing. I abhor violence of all kinds, most especially against children. But I would do anything to protect my family if they were physically threatened by an intruder in our house. I hope I never have to use a gun to protect them. But I would do it without hesitation if the lives of my family depended on it.

Believing one has the right to protect oneself is very different from believing murder or killing is OK.

[BJean 16]

Oops. Goofed again. I told myself to let the women's rights thing go. You obviously feel so strongly about it that nothing I say can make you understand why no one should pass a law saying that the government has the right to make decisions about what goes on inside her uterus.

[gadgetlady 4]

That last sentence wasn't made with the intention of hatefulness. I am just really trying to understand how people think it's okay to inject themselves in a decision about a women's uterus and that they think it is a sin to kill an innocent fetus, but that it's okay to kill anyone else who may threaten them. It seems like a double standard to me. You love babies, but you don't have compassion or understanding for people with troubled minds or souls. Don't you know that an unwanted pregnancy can be just as much a threat to a woman's life as a criminal with a gun pointed to her head?

Let me turn it around. You believe it is acceptable for someone to tear a n innocent baby apart limb from limb or burn a baby to death from the inside out as he or she drinks harsh chemicals, but it's NOT acceptable to have a weapon to protect one's family from an intruder who may want to rape, torture, or kill the family members?

I do have compassion for people with troubled minds and souls. While I would much prefer to offer an intruder in my house some counseling, I doubt he would be receptive to it. And I'm not willing to risk my family's life to test a theory that you can just talk a hardened criminal out of his chosen lifestyle while he is in the act.

And an pregnant woman may FEEL like she has a gun pointed to her head, but in reality she does not (remember, again, that the first trimester of pregnancy is the most emotion time of a woman's life). Unless there is a medical issue that would endanger her life physically if she continued the pregnancy, what she is doing is simply killing her baby for her own convenience.

[gadgetlady 4]

Sorry for the typos but my "edit" function hasn't worked since the new format was introduced.

[gadgetlady 4]

Oops. Goofed again. I told myself to let the women's rights thing go. You obviously feel so strongly about it that nothing I say can make you understand why no one should pass a law saying that the government has the right to make decisions about what goes on inside her uterus.

So you believe drugs should be legalized? The government gets involved in a lot of things that have to do with personal choices. The reason I believe the government has a right to get involved with this particular thing is because there's a separate human being involved. Not because of my religion or because of the issue of sin or because I love children or because I don't like sex. It is simply because the government's job is to protect innocent people who can't protect themselves.