I'm thinking of buying a gun

Jump to Last Post 1-39 of 39 discussions (221 posts)

0
Onusonusposted 13 years ago
I've never owned a gun perivately But after reading this E-Mail, I'm considering it.
A LITTLE GUN HISTORY

In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------

In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------

Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------

China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------

Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
---- ------------- -------------

Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------

Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
-----------------------------

Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.
------------------------------

You won't see this data on the US evening news, or hear politicians disseminating this information.

Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws adversely affect only the law-abiding citizens.

Take note my fellow Americans, before it's too late!

The next time someone talks in favor of gun control, please remind them of this history lesson.

With guns, we are 'citizens'. Without them, we are 'subjects'.

During WW II the Japanese decided not to invade America because they knew most Americans were ARMED!

If you value your freedom, please spread this anti gun-control message to all of your friends.

The purpose of fighting is to win.
There is no possible victory in defense.
The sword is more important than the shield, and skill is more important than either.
The final weapon is the brain.
All else is supplemental.

SWITZERLAND ISSUES EVERY HOUSEHOLD A GUN!
SWITZERLAND'S GOVERNMENT TRAINS EVERY ADULT THEY ISSUE A RIFLE.
SWITZERLAND HAS THE LOWEST GUN RELATED CRIME RATE OF ANY CIVILIZED COUNTRY IN THE WORLD!!!

IT'S A NO BRAINER!
DON'T LET OUR GOVERNMENT WASTE MILLIONS OF OUR TAX DOLLARS IN AN EFFORT TO MAKE ALL LAW ABIDING CITIZENS AN EASY TARGET.

I'm a firm believer in the 2nd Amendment!
reply report
1. 66
  Ralph Deedsposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I have two but not for any of the dumb reasons in this list.
  reply report
  0
  Onusonusposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  It must be nice to think that our country is incapable of doing something like that.
  reply report
2. 94
  habeeposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Interesting. Especially since the Swiss are so peaceful. Everyone around here owns a gun, and our crime rate is extremely low, too.
  reply report
  0
  Onusonusposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I personally have never kept a gun in the house. I think it would feel a little strange to have a killing device in the night stand. I would definately want to take some safety courses before making a purchase.
  reply report
3. 60
  Paul Wingertposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Onusonus' gun history is a waste of space. How could armed individuals defend themselves from the Russiam, German and Chinese armys and secret police who were responsible for all those deaths?
  reply report
  0
  Onusonusposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I don't have an answer for you but did you notice the part about the Japanese deciding not to invade us based on the ammount of citizens who owned guns? I think our weapons laws are exactly what keep others from invading.
  reply report
  82
  CMHypnoposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  If you own a gun you would have to be prepared to use it in the scenarios you have set out - are you really prepared to kill another human being?
  
  Also what is the likelihood of thousands of US citizens being rounded up by the secret police or the US being invaded? And in those circumstances I don't think that trained military personnel with military weaponry would really be all that worried about untrained citizens waving a few guns around.
  
  In the UK we have strict gun laws, and you need to have a good reason for owning one and have a secure place to keep your weapon if you are given a licence.
  reply report
  68
  Abbasangelposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Onusonus, talking about WWII the Japanese didn't succeed in invading Australia with "only" our army to protect us.... Sure they bombed Darwin and gave it a good go, but not successfully. They also bombed Pearl Harbour.
  reply report
  79
  Jack Burtonposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  making a lot of assumptions here that are not warranted.
  
  why do you believe the u.s. military would be so quick as to agree to "rouund poeple up"?
  
  and many of those people who own guns are former military themselves. Why do you discount their experience and knowledge?
  reply report
  61
  sn53Anonposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Hi CM,
  
  You wrote, "In the UK we have strict gun laws, and you need to have a good reason for owning one and have a secure place to keep your weapon if you are given a licence."
  
  But you are a subject. We are citizens. You are accustomed to bowing and scraping before your government. We are just beginning to become accustomed to it.
  reply report
  59
  John Holdenposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Erm, we are subjects of the Queen, not the government. The Queen who incidentally has far less say in our lives than your president does.
  reply report
  61
  sn53Anonposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Hi John,
  
  You wrote, "Erm, we are subjects of the Queen, not the government. The Queen who incidentally has far less say in our lives than your president does."
  
  It is a mind set difference. You are accustomed to being a subject. You are a bit of property. We are citizens.
  reply report
  59
  John Holdenposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I am the property of no man, or woman!
  
  I think I have a lot more freedom than many of your countrymen do, my entitlement to life does not depend on my work status, I can drive the length and breadth of my country without stopping to pay anybody.
  
  Nobody comes into my home and tells me what to do or when to do it.
  Nope, I'm nobodies property.
  reply report
  60
  uncorrectedvisionposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I like your passion in protesting on behalf of your liberty and your country. Good for you.(absolutely no sarcasm intended) I must agree, there are times that I wonder how much liberty Americans have given away.
  reply report
  60
  uncorrectedvisionposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I would gladly trade you Obama and a billion dollars for Elizabeth II.
  reply report
  60
  undermyhatposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  You are so lucky. She is a class act. It will be a sad day when she is gone. Her mother was pretty awesome also - the boys?? Maybe the grandsons would be better.
  reply report
  66
  Ralph Deedsposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Not likely. If it were true why are we spending billions on military weapons? Can I assume you support huge cuts in our military budget?
  reply report
  77
  Castlepalomaposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Onusonus
  
  I don't think owning a gun would stop any country from invading the USA
  
  Between Russia and the USA, they own 90% of the nuclear warheads in the entire World, there is no bigger dick waving than that.
  
  Beside Obama won the Nobel peace prize for increasing the war budget to its highest level ever.
  Sleep well
  reply report
  0
  Onusonusposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  It said Invading, not completely annihilating. There is a difference. Now try to keep it in your pants, there are women and children present.
  reply report
  77
  Castlepalomaposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  The greatest threat to Mankind is Nuclear War
  
  Is Uncle Sam waving OK,
  
  Can I say, Sam waving?
  reply report
  61
  Jim Hunterposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  "How could armed individuals defend themselves from the Russiam, German and Chinese armys and secret police who were responsible for all those deaths?"
  
  By pointing the weapon and pulling the trigger.
  
  How would you do it?
  reply report
4. 57
  MrAhSeaposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  As with every other law its actually hugely flawed ... Banning guns only refers to the law abiding citizen so as a law abiding citizen you not likely to shoot or rob anyone but banning them actually helps the criminals that don't obey the law hence laws are there to assist the criminally minded in our society and this law makes us all easier targets
  reply report
5. 80
  oceansnsunsetsposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Yes, owning a gun is a right, and it should be allowed to be exercised.
  Learning to really use one and being trained is also helpful, not just having one.
  
  Learning from history is paramount, and paying attention to matters going on all around us.
  reply report
  66
  Ralph Deedsposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Owning a gun and two 33-round capacity extended magazines is not a Constitutional right and should be illegal.
  reply report
  80
  oceansnsunsetsposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  That sounds a bit extreme, and not worth banning all guns over, but I am sure that isn't what you are expressing or suggesting. Do you disagree with what I said, and if so, what exactly?
  reply report
  61
  logic,commonsenseposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Checked all the news services and couldn't find where anyone died and made you God.
  I don't believe it is for you to say how many guns or magazines anyone is allowed to have. The Constitution, if you would read it as Giffords did, does not stipulate anything specific regarding armament. You may have your opinion and you may vote accordingly, but you personally do not have the right to tell anyone what they can or cannnot have.
  Ooops! Apparently I forgot, I guess you are one of the elitists that thinks everyone is stupider than yourself and needs to be told how much they need to pay in taxes, how to vote, and how much regulation they need.
  My bad!
  reply report
  61
  Jim Hunterposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Plus he's one of the only two people left who think the New York Times is relevant.
  
  Paul Krugman is the other, you may remember him as being awarded the Nobel Prize for making economics popular.
  
  Nothing he says makes any sense which is why he never bothers to answer why his theories are right, they just are.
  reply report
  79
  Jack Burtonposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Responding to threads on the internet is not in the constitution and should be declared illegal.
  reply report
  61
  Martinblade1posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  As I am sure you are aware that argument is unfortunately used to say the constitution is out of date and should be replaced. Yet ultimately all it does is show that the forefathers did actually make a document that is truly relevant regardless of technological changes.
  
  They made principles to protect freedom, not legalistic crap designed to only protect the rights of someone who owns a movable type printing press from the evils of typewriter owners.
  reply report
6. 80
  oceansnsunsetsposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  You ought to put those facts in a hub perhaps, history showing where out of control governments or powers can overwhelm people and take not only freedoms but their lives.
  
  Our constitution, in the US, was made to avoid such things, but as we see, we are slowly getting away from that, and its not right, and not what made this country great.
  reply report
7. 80
  oceansnsunsetsposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  The whole bigger argument about guns in America, and the two extremes is really about the militia.
  
  People being able to rise up and fight a corrupt government should be forced to or have their freedoms taken, was what was in the minds of the forefathers.
  
  Yes, that all sounds extreme to some, but it didn't to the forefathers that knew history and lived what we only read about now. I don't agree with people that aren't for that basic idea however, that power should be in the hands of the people, and governing. That is for the people...
  As it should be.
  reply report
  80
  oceansnsunsetsposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  That second sentence should read, "People being able to rise up and fight a corrupt government should they be forced to, or else risk their freedoms being taken, was what was in the mind of the forefathers."
  reply report
8. 69
  tonymac04posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Please check the facts about gun control in Switzerland. It is not as stated in the email. Private gun ownership is highly circumscribed.
  reply report
  0
  Onusonusposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politi … witzerland
  
  It says that males in switzerland are required to join the militia for at least ten years. They are issued a gun and they keep it at home. when they are discharged they have the option of keeping it.
  reply report
9. 77
  Wesman Todd Shawposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Great post. I'd never heard that about the Swiss though, but I second the Kidgas comment below mine!
  reply report
  72
  Jeff Berndtposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Really? Great post? It reads like one of those forwarded conservative rants that end up in my inbox every couple weeks.
  reply report
  77
  Wesman Todd Shawposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Yeah, true; but the discussion that it helped to create is the thing, right?
  reply report
10. 60
  Maembeposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Man, chain emails sure are dumb.
  reply report
11. 60
  uncorrectedvisionposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I would buy five. 1) a 9mm. semi-auto handgun with a high capacity magazine for up close home defense. 2) a 12 gauge shot gun for the biggest emergency 3) a .357 magnum revolver for reliability (always wise to prepare for the unexpected.) 4)A .22 caliber rifle with a scope - because they are amazingly fun to shoot, are cheap to feed and can help feed your family in a dire emergency 5) a .223 caliber/5.56 mm rifle because you never ever ever know.
  reply report
12. 60
  Pollyannalanaposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  Terrorist it is beginning to look like are all over the US and the government wants us to give up guns because of a few nuts? Why don't they worry about the nuts (of which there are plenty of on the left) and forget about getting American's guns because it is not going to happen and most of us are not fools. We know about this you have written about here and we would still have to be mighty suspicious even if we didn't!
  reply report
  0
  ahorsebackposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  +++++++++++++++
  reply report
63
Kidgasposted 13 years ago
I learned something new about Switzerland today. If I were an army, I would march around a country where there was a gun for every 2 citizens.
reply report
1. 93
  Rochelle Frankposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Plus-- they all have Swiss Army Knives.
  reply report
  0
  Onusonusposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Don't leave home without it.
  
  reply report
  60
  undermyhatposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  That is so they can sneak out at night and disassemble your tanks and there is nothing you can do to stop them.
  reply report
2. 0
  Onusonusposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  That's an interesting statistic.
  reply report
3. 0
  kimberlyslyricsposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  reply report
4. 66
  Ralph Deedsposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I believe Switzerland also has national health care? Do you agree that would be good for the U.S.?
  reply report
  77
  Wesman Todd Shawposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  There'd probably be less "need" for guns if we had that, man's inhumanity towards his fellow man. . . .breeds violence; but care for all, certainly would seem to go some ways towards preventing it.
  reply report
77
Uninvited Writerposted 13 years ago
I hate when people reprint stuff that would go in my spam folder
reply report
1. 0
  Onusonusposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  It's even more on an enigma when people read things at their liesure when they say they don't want to. Please don't torture yourself on my account.
  reply report
2. 62
  Daniel Carterposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Yes, these emails keep getting circulated just like political commentators. They should all be put in the spam folder.
  
  Nothing wrong with owning a gun. But if you're buying one based on fear, what does that tell you? (Some one's gonna get hurt until sanity is restored.)
  
  You might want to think it through when your thoughts are clearer and you're not reading emails that are of no worth to anyone.
  reply report
  80
  oceansnsunsetsposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  What does it tell you when a person buys a gun out of fear? Wondering if I read that how you meant it?
  reply report
  66
  Ralph Deedsposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  For some people those circulating emails appear to be their only or primary source of information.
  reply report
68
Abbasangelposted 13 years ago
Australia has gun control and wasn't listed on your Gun History there.

Our gun laws are pretty tight. Particularly after the Port Arthur Massacare.

I personally don't have one and I am quite happy with my neighbours not having them either. You actually need to have a recorded place to shoot it (like a private farm) or have a licence like a security officer, police or army.

Our schools don't have shootings. I can go to a major shopping centre without fear of being shot.
reply report
1. 60
  uncorrectedvisionposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  February 15, 2010 Shorncliffe,
  Queensland,
  Australia ..., 13 1 dead Elliot Fletcher, a 12-year-old boy, was stabbed and killed on the grounds of St Patrick's College by a 13-year-old classmate.[405] The two students were involved in an argument on the playground of the Catholic school before the stabbing took place.
  
  You are right that wasn't a school shooting.
  
  I apologize, that wasn't entirely fair. However, in my research I discovered a large number of school shootings in places where firearms are far more restricted than in American states that have loose restrictions on ownership.
  
  First the obvious - it is illegal to carry a firearm on to school property all over the US and in some places even illegal if locked in your parked car.
  Second - I found shootings in Canada, France, Germany, New Zealand and the Netherlands - not the arsenals of personal fire arm ownership that Switzerland is.
  Third - I found, with in the United States, school shootings in California, Illinois, New York, New York City, Illinois, Chicago - all places with much more restrictive firearms laws than my home state of Indiana or the city of Indianapolis.
  reply report
80
lovemychrisposted 13 years ago
I think Paul is right.
I'm sure criminals have guns. Yet if the police go to raid them, they send in a swat team. No amount of guns you have can stop a swat team.
Plus, one of my grandsons' is black. There are people up the street who already call him a n**ger. If they had guns, I would be afraid for his safety every day.

Owning guns is owning a killing weapon. How can you make sure it doesn't get in the wrong hands?
reply report
1. 79
  Jack Burtonposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  therre is a vast amount of difference between calling someone a name and shooting them.
  
  Owning a gun is owning a “saving a life” macnhine
  
  My neighbor had $20,000 of jewelry stolen from her home. The police pretty much guaranteed the profits were used to put drugs into someones’s system. Bad neighbor. – she should have made sure she didn’t support drug use.
  reply report
  66
  Ralph Deedsposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  "Owning a gun is owning a “saving a life” macnhine."
  
  Tell that to the victims and families of drive by shootings, stray bullets from inner city drug warfare, the thousands of people slaughtered along our border in Mexico with guns purchased in the U.S.,families of gun suicide victims and children who have shot themselves or others with their parents guns.
  reply report
0
ryankettposted 13 years ago
You state that the Swiss govenment issue every household with a gun, yet has the lowest rate of gun crime in the world.

In the USA there are 200 million privately owned guns. Considering households generally contain multiple people, there are many more guns in the USA.

If Switzerland has less guns than America, and a lower gun crime rate, then why are you suggesting that Americans should buy more guns? As opposed to, say, limiting the number of guns in the USA to 1 gun per household? There is some twisted logic on this forum sometimes.

You should also note that the inhabitants of Switzerland are amongst the wealthiest in the world, there are no such things as ghettos.

Five minutes of my own research into this topic found numerous flaws in this statement anyway, why are so many people dumb enough to feel inclined to believe everything that they read? For example:

- They have compulsory MILITARY training for every male citizen. They don't just get trained to use a gun, they get several weeks minimum of full military training EACH YEAR between the age of 21 and 32.
- These males, between the age of 21-32, are required to keep a M-57 assault rifle and 24 rounds of ammunition at home at all times. They return it aged 33.
- These males effectively form the countries reserve forces, equivalent to the US National Guard.

But then don't let the hard facts stand in the way of a good bit of propoganda. If you were presenting an argument for compulsory conscription into the US National Guard then these statement would have at least a little credibility.
reply report
1. 94
  habeeposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  But Ryankett, most hunters need more than one gun if they hunt more than one species: a shotgun for birds, a .308 or 30.06 for deer, and a .22 for squirrels.
  reply report
2. 61
  Jim Hunterposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  "why are so many people dumb enough to feel inclined to believe everything that they read?"
  
  Excellent point, disregard this entire post.
  
  Not a single citation to back any of it.
  reply report
  66
  Ralph Deedsposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Why Not Regulate Guns as Seriously as Toys?
  By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
  Published: January 12, 2011
  
  Jared Loughner was considered too mentally unstable to attend community college. He was rejected by the Army. Yet buy a Glock handgun and a 33-round magazine? No problem.
  Damon Winter/The New York Times
  
  Nicholas D. Kristof
  On the Ground
  
  Nicholas Kristof addresses reader feedback and posts short takes from his travels.
  
  To protect the public, we regulate cars and toys, medicines and mutual funds. So, simply as a public health matter, shouldn’t we take steps to reduce the toll from our domestic arms industry?
  
  Look, I’m an Oregon farm boy who was given a .22 rifle for my 12th birthday. I still shoot occasionally when visiting the family farm, and I understand one appeal of guns: they’re fun.
  
  It’s also true that city slickers sometimes exaggerate the risk of any one gun. The authors of Freakonomics noted that a home with a swimming pool is considerably more dangerous for small children than a home with a gun. They said that 1 child drowns annually for every 11,000 residential pools, but 1 child is shot dead for every 1 million-plus guns.
  
  All that said, guns are far more deadly in America, not least because there are so many of them. There are about 85 guns per 100 people in the United States, and we are particularly awash in handguns.
  
  (The only country I’ve seen that is more armed than America is Yemen. Near the town of Sadah, I dropped by a gun market where I was offered grenade launchers, machine guns, antitank mines, and even an anti-aircraft weapon. Yep, an N.R.A. dream! No pesky regulators. Just terrorism and a minor civil war.)
  
  Just since the killings in Tucson, another 320 or so Americans have been killed by guns — anonymously, with barely a whisker of attention. By tomorrow it’ll be 400 deaths. Every day, about 80 people die from guns, and several times as many are injured.
  
  Handgun sales in Arizona soared by 60 percent on Monday, according to Bloomberg News, as buyers sought to beat any beefing up of gun laws. People also often buy guns in hopes of being safer. But the evidence is overwhelming that firearms actually endanger those who own them. One scholar, John Lott Jr., published a book suggesting that more guns lead to less crime, but many studies have now debunked that finding (although it’s also true that a boom in concealed weapons didn’t lead to the bloodbath that liberals had forecast).
  
  A careful article forthcoming in the American Journal of Lifestyle Medicine by David Hemenway, a Harvard professor who wrote a brilliant book a few years ago reframing the gun debate as a public health challenge, makes clear that a gun in the home makes you much more likely to be shot — by accident, by suicide or by homicide.
  
  The chances that a gun will be used to deter a home invasion are unbelievably remote, and dialing 911 is more effective in reducing injury than brandishing a weapon, the journal article says. But it adds that American children are 11 times more likely to die in a gun accident than in other developed countries, because of the prevalence of guns.
  
  Likewise, suicide rates are higher in states with more guns, simply because there are more gun suicides. Other kinds of suicide rates are no higher. And because most homicides in the home are by family members or acquaintances — not by an intruder — the presence of a gun in the home increases the risk of a gun murder in that home.
  
  So what can be done? I asked Professor Hemenway how he would oversee a public health approach to reducing gun deaths and injuries. He suggested:
  
  • Limit gun purchases to one per month per person, to reduce gun trafficking. And just as the government has cracked down on retailers who sell cigarettes to minors, get tough on gun dealers who sell to traffickers.
  
  • Push for more gun safes, and make serial numbers harder to erase.
  
  • Improve background checks and follow Canada in requiring a 28-day waiting period to buy a handgun. And ban oversize magazines, such as the 33-bullet magazine allegedly used in Tucson. If the shooter had had to reload after firing 10 bullets, he might have been tackled earlier. And invest in new technologies such as “smart guns,” which can be fired only when near a separate wristband or after a fingerprint scan.
  
  We can also learn from Australia, which in 1996 banned assault weapons and began buying back 650,000 of them. The impact is controversial and has sometimes been distorted. But the Journal of Public Health Policy notes that after the ban, the firearm suicide rate dropped by half in Australia over the next seven years, and the firearm homicide rate was almost halved.
  
  Congress on Wednesday echoed with speeches honoring those shot in Tucson. That’s great — but hollow. The best memorial would be to regulate firearms every bit as seriously as we regulate automobiles or toys.
  
  •
  
  I invite you to visit my blog, On the Ground. Please also join me on Facebook, watch my YouTube videos and follow me on Twitter.
  
  Link to comments here:
  
  http://community.nytimes.com/comments/w … istof.html
  reply report
  79
  Jack Burtonposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Not a single one of these comments will either stop a criminal from getting a gun or using it when he chooses. All they do is continue to reduce the rights of citizens.
  
  And anyone who posts that gettting guns is as easy as getting toys is a fundamentally unserious poster. When they have background checks to buy toys then get back to me.
  reply report
0
Kathryn LJposted 13 years ago
If the state wants' you dead - your dead! Gun or no gun! If you want explanations for why people passively allow themselves to be rounded up and exterminated, there are plenty of famous psychologists who have worked in this area. Carrying a gun doesn't stop 'them' coming for your children, your wife, your parents, your friends. Never mind gun control, you should be more worried about mind control, your examples all had heavy duty propaganda before the atrocities were committed. And people were willing not only to listen to it but to personally act upon it. A gun won't stop them coming for you matey, you just won't suspect the person who turns up.
reply report
0
PrettyPantherposted 13 years ago
Interesting the reasons people have for owning guns. I decided to get one and learn to shoot it after the Katrina disaster. When I saw how poorly our government handled that, I wanted to be prepared to protect myself and my family (I was a single mom at the time) in case I was in the middle of the next disaster.
reply report
76
barrancaposted 13 years ago
There are guns and then there are guns. Rifles and shotguns for sport and killing animals and then there are pistols for killing people and then there are weapons of war for mass slaughter. This country suffers from "Gunism". There are far too many cultists who make gun rights a central part of their political platform and believe anyone who would like rational gun legislation to be "un-american".
reply report
1. 61
  Ron Montgomeryposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Amen brother.
  reply report
2. 79
  Jack Burtonposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I’ve had my pistols for years and even with thousands of bullets thru them they haven’t killed any one. Do you think I can get my money back for buying obviously defective firearms?
  
  Which rifles and shotguns are you aware of that can’t kill people? Be specific. Give detail.
  
  The three largest mass murders in american were done without using a gun. The vast number of serial killers here never, ever used a gun.
  
  You can’t actually name any “rational” gun legislation that will accomplish a single positive thing… yet you expect people to support it.
  reply report
69
Bill Manningposted 13 years ago
Guns are simply common sense tools in the hands of normal citizens.

You put blankets in the trunk of your car for emergencies.

You carry basic survival gear while hiking alone.

You carry a gun to protect your home, self and loved ones from bad people.

Yes in a perfect world nobody will harm you. There has never been a perfect world and never will be.

A simple, basic handgun is just a tool to protect yourself, just like pepper spray. Nothing more.
reply report
1. 80
  oceansnsunsetsposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Excellent points Bill, logical, and I agree.
  reply report
2. 65
  Ivorwenposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  This is how I think of it, and I keep more than just a gun on hand, because a gun is one of the worst tools at close range.
  reply report
0
Home Girlposted 13 years ago
So you want every citizen to have a gun? You know when it happens? When people start a civil war! You need one? By the way in Russia(USSR) they never "surrounded" dissidents. They just had black lists and they would come at night when person was asleep, arrest him,her and this individuum would disappear for ever,as if he/she never existed. One by one. You cannot control order and civility in society by guns! Utterly impossible!
reply report
1. 69
  Bill Manningposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I could care less if anyone else has a gun. You can get one or not, same as you can carry a knife in your purse, it's up to you.
  
  No matter what you do or do not carry, the fact remains that the bad guys do carry guns. It's not up to debate, they have guns, simple as that.
  
  Defending yourself with pepper spray from a guy with a gun is not going to turn out well for you.
  
  It's not a debate, they already have guns, so going on about if people should have guns is a moot point, the bad guys already have them.
  
  So now it's up to each person to decide for themselves if they want to carry one or not, simple. To me it's a tool, nothing more. A match for what bad people already have.
  
  But everyone should decide for themselves if they want to carry one or not. Regardless if they do or do not, the bad guys already have guns.
  reply report
  59
  Rajab Nsubugaposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  In Uganda no Christians were targeted between 1971 - 1979. There was a general state of lawlessness due to the tyrannical nature of Idd Amin. However, turning to the discussion I do not believe the gun is a solution to curbing violence or crime. The solution is much greater than just a mere gun. Before diagnising what the real problems are, one can do with the help of sedatives but thats just for a moment and not the cure.
  reply report
  79
  Jack Burtonposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  A gun is a great solution when someone is breaking down your front door at night with the intent to do you harm. We can discuss philosophy and root causes much, much later but I really don't think it is going to help at that moment.
  reply report
2. 79
  Jack Burtonposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Of course the individual would disappear...what choice would he have since there was NO MEANS for him to defend himself.
  
  Just out of curiosity, do you want the very same conditons here in America...only the "authorities" have firearms?
  reply report
63
Greek Oneposted 13 years ago
Based on the reasons you listed, why waste your money on buying a gun?

To stop the types of government-backed massacres you describe, you will need a much larger military force.

Perhaps you should get together with a group of friends and buy some missiles, tanks, aircraft, subs, etc.

Or maybe you should target those in Congress whose speeches and policies you fear might take away your rights and freedoms down the line, and get them out of the picture ahead of time? i hear that's a popular approach now.

Perhaps you might also want to place a couple of bombs at offending government building... that might send the SOBs a message.

Either way, I would caution strongly against just getting a gun. It might accidentally fall into the wrong hands, and an innocent bystander might get shot in the head. If such a victim were to be a right wing nut job, the resulting hot air released from inside his skull might cause devastating damage to the ozone layer
reply report
1. 80
  oceansnsunsetsposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Deranged marxists, that are really more left wing than anything, are in a whole other category. Not many people realize that the person behind the shooting in Arizona was more in line with Leftist ideology than anything. Please be careful about what whoppers you may believe that are being fed to you. It can found out, the truth I mean behind such accusations.
  
  I am assuming you meant the guy in the news, because it has been such big news. Its a very typical leftist tactic to try to pin it in right wing etc, then to to after that whole group of people. I am more about the truth.
  
  The point of this thread I think that is the bigger point, is that an armed population can fight up against a government should it ever need to. By knowing history and what has happened in the past, its good that they afforded that right to people.
  Its not so cut and dry, its about just having the power, and the people should have it. Sure, they cannot stand up to a great evil should it ever come to that, but the put downs about getting together to get missiles etc is silly to me.
  
  Mainly, I wanted to comment on that shooter, that was a marxist, leftist, more line with Obama's way of thinking, with an added dose of derangement. No one that cares about facts buys into the lies and the intent there.
  reply report
  63
  Greek Oneposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  right wing, left wing.. a nut job is a nut job...
  
  but more importantly it is the relatively 'sane' militants on either side of the political spectrum who want to change society by the use of force, and who arm themselves for an eventual show down, that must be seen as the danger they are.
  
  To argue that guns in the hands of the people would have stopped any of the atrocities cited in the OP is as ridiculous as it is historically inaccurate.
  
  This isn't Colonial times.. if you really want to put weapons in the hands of a militia of citizens, you better get the type that will be able to combat the arsenal currently in the hands of the armed forces you want to be prepared to fight
  reply report
  80
  oceansnsunsetsposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I don't necessarily disagree with what you said, and think you may be exaggerating the effect and jumping to extremes a little, and you are not the only one. Its kind of being turned around from the point.
  
  A government that is corrupt, isn't as likely to enact its corruption onto a people that can fight back. Sure there are other ways now of mass hurting people if someone wanted to. Its a balance in effect. Corrupt, and evil government do enact damage (as seen in history) onto a people that can't fight back.
  I bet you every last one of those examples though, wished they could get off a parting shot , to at least one of the killers coming after them.
  
  Its a respect thing to, its not a "things must play out to some dramatic end" but in effect, preventing that actually.
  
  Its a keeping of the peace, because people can fight back if someone were saying threatening the life of a child or something. You cannot disagree it would be great to be trained with a gun, and be able to use it in saving the life of innocents, no?
  Now, in a world filled with terrorists that are bold...why not be protected?
  That nothing huge has happened in all these Years to American (for the most part, and besides 9-11 a coward attack at best) is partly due to the fact that the rules set in place and the Constitution are what make it a great country. The point is never having to use them.
  Not saying you are, but to those that want to bury their head in the sand and act like others don't want to take your freedoms and talk about it, and threaten lives for their own purposes, won't make the facts go away. Its sad.. It would be worse in an unarmed America.
  reply report
  80
  oceansnsunsetsposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Oh, and to add, its not about fighting the armed forces... its about a "militia" where the people are a power of their own. I just missed that in your comment to me. Hopefully the people in the US Armed Forces would want the best freedoms for all in America, that is what they fight for!
  
  The older idea, is a militia of just "people", that could stand up to a government trying to hurt them if it should ever come to that. Evil powers over people, you know what I am talking about in history right?
  reply report
  66
  Ralph Deedsposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Ancient history.
  reply report
60
Randy Godwinposted 13 years ago
For protecting your home and for hunting purposes, get a shotgun. it will shoot bird shot, which is very small to slightly larger lead pellets, buckshot, which comes in both number 1 and 00 lead balls, or rifled slugs, huge hunks of lead used for deer and other large game.

By using buckshot it isn't necessary to take close aim at your target to throw a covering blast of lethal lead at whatever you point the barrel at. At close range it is better than any rifle or handgun.

There are many firearms here in this part of the country, but very little accidental shootings or gun crime. We grow up learning to handle guns safely and confidently. But I do realize this is not the norm elsewhere in the country.
reply report
1. 94
  habeeposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  So true, RD. We had LOTS of guns in the house when I was growing up, and I would NEVER have thought about playing with one. I was taught from a young age to repect firearms, and there was no fascination involved because they were something that were always there.
  reply report
2. 79
  Jack Burtonposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Lots of mixed advice about home shotguns. Some experts swear by them and other equal experts swear at them. Many people can't handle the recoil, and the size of them make them awkward in many tight places.
  
  It really is harder to get them on target than what you are posting though.
  
  But this is America. We have a choice of everything for homeprotection from a .22 plinker to a .50 Desert Eagle in handguns, and ARs to shotguns for long guns. And that is the way it should be.
  reply report
61
BabaBooeyposted 13 years ago
Don't buy A gun. Buy as many as you can get your hands on! Every shape, size and color. The more the better.
reply report
1. 77
  Castlepalomaposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  To kill for food I can understand, I prefer shopping at Safeway'
  
  Killing only creates killing and I can't imagine running out of idea's to kill someone as I have traveled around the planet many times over,
  
  The countries with Capital punishment have the highest rate of murders To own a hand gun, gives you 6 time greater chance you will shoot a member of your family or friend rather than the criminals.
  
  In some places in the USA it feel like high noon
  
  Sorry, don't have any good reason to own a gun, for the sake of my soul and theirs.
  reply report
  79
  Jack Burtonposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Speaking of spam that is posted with no cites, that "6 times" is as shopworn as can be. It's been used and abused to the point where it is worthless.
  
  Using the same criteria the orginal authors used I can prove beyonod doubt that becuase people who go into hospitals die at a significantly much higher rate than people who don't --- so if you want to live longer never, ever go into a hospital.
  reply report
0
Home Girlposted 13 years ago
reply report
1. 59
  Druid Dudeposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Live by it, die by it. Shoot first? Warning shot, or just blast 'em? Things get really bad, save some for your loved ones...bullets, that is. Let's all descend into barbarism. "Sheriff! I'm callin' you out!". We can practice our quickdraw together! I've seen how bad some people shoot. I'll let y'all shoot it out.
  reply report
2. 76
  barrancaposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  love the image. Directly to my facebook page.
  reply report
63
Greek Oneposted 13 years ago
i'm sure your last post had many valid points, but I stopped reading after "I don't necessarily disagree with what you said"

I seldom get that so I thought I would stop there

reply report
1. 59
  Druid Dudeposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  who? Me?
  reply report
  63
  Greek Oneposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  no, ocean....
  
  unless you agree with me too
  reply report
76
barrancaposted 13 years ago
I just went to the grocery store, and my congressman, Chris Murphy, was out in front of the market meeting his constituents. I admire his immediate response and courage in the face of the AZ tragedy. I stopped to tell him what I was worried about in our country. Despite the fact that my wife's unemployment has run out (our income is more than halved) and we are barely meeting our expenses on my modest salary, I spontaneously told Murphy that I was most concerned about the erosion of civil liberties because of our ludicrously exaggerated response to terrorist acts. I told him, if social security is on the chopping block, then defense spending had damn well better be there also. This country's priorities are so wildly distorted in favor of war and weapons that it is hard to know where to begin. I told him we should repeal the patriot act and close Guantanamo. I should have continued: stop torturing people or locking them in solitary confinement without charges for months. I should have continued: rationalize health care with a single payer system. I should have continued: raise taxes on the ultra wealthy who pay at a rate lower than I do when most of their income is capital gains. I should have continued: we need reasonable gun laws that accommodate sportsmen but not gunists who have nothing better to do than caress their people killing weapons while fantasizing about their heroism.
reply report
1. 66
  Ralph Deedsposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  You're on the right track! Keep it up!
  reply report
2. 0
  Onusonusposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Man, now I feel like buying a bunch of fully automatic M4 Carbine assault rifles, some AK-47's, a .50 cal Desert Eagle, Maybe a S.A.W. or an AT-4, and lots of bullets. And I can do it because I'm a fricking American! God bless the USA!
  reply report
  77
  Castlepalomaposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  It's all a dick waving contest, even the missile look like bigger dicks.
  
  Afew people want to blow things up and kill things, gets good media rating too
  
  I guess it makes me love the other kind of animals even more so.
  reply report
  66
  Ralph Deedsposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  If memory serves you were the one who was "praying" for Obama not long ago. Better watch what you say or the Secret Service will be knocking on your door.
  reply report
  0
  Onusonusposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Good point Ralph. In most dictatorships freedom of speech is the first thing to go. They'll be hounding me for sure after they fire me from my government job.
  reply report
  66
  Ralph Deedsposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Advocating the assassination or the death of a president isn't protected speech under the First Amendment.
  reply report
  79
  Jack Burtonposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Simply amazing how many people got away with it during the Bush years, eh.
  reply report
  66
  Ralph Deedsposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Bush was villified for good reason, but I don't remember anybody publicly advocating that he should be assassinated. The Secret Service has reported that death threats against President Obama are much more numerous than against President Bush.
  reply report
  60
  Paul Wingertposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  In order buy (legally) fully automatic weapons, you need a special permit and good luck in getting one. Admitting the idea of buying fully automatic weapons (illegally or legally) isn't the smartest thing to do on a public forum.
  reply report
  0
  Onusonusposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  The other day I was talking to a guy with a van full of all kinds of fully automatic stuff. I figure this way I can bypass all of that Brady bill mumbo jumbo.
  Ah there's the guy. He's got some killer deals!
  reply report
  79
  Jack Burtonposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Actually,in most states getting a class 3 license to buy a fully automatic weapon is not that hard. A pain in the neck and it takes 6 months for approval but as long as it's legal in the state, and you have a coutry sheriff who is reasonable (which most are) then it is more of a money issue than anything else.
  reply report
  94
  habeeposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Why would you need fully automatic weapons? For home intruders, a shotgun will suffice. For deer, a bolt-action rifle will do.
  reply report
  0
  Onusonusposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Hunting deer can be very dangerous. When you're out there in the wild it's just you and the deer and they're sneeky little suckers.......
  reply report
  72
  Jeff Berndtposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  An 8-point buck has a whole 8 points to poke you with. You need a fully automatic weapon to be able to compete with all those points.
  
  /sarcasm=off
  
  Fully automatic weapons aren't for hunting. They make hamburger out of your quarry, and you can't really expect to be able to take it home and eat it, unless you bring a bucket. Good luck separating out the meat from the offal.
  reply report
  79
  Jack Burtonposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I cannot list my specific hub here because it is self promoting but if you google "jack burton" and "evil black rifle" you'll find out why jeff is no different from the people who complain about unicorns being mistreated down at the circus.
  reply report
  72
  Jeff Berndtposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Translation:
  I think Jeff is wrong. Rather than explain why I think so, I'm just going to make a joke comparing Jeff to some irrational people and hope folks make a connection between Jeff and irrationality. Also, I'll cite myself as a source for my disagreement with Jeff, making use of circular logic, which is always very convincing. This is so much easier than trying to have a real discussion, and it lets me feel like I've come out ahead without having to put forth any effort.
  
  reply report
  79
  Jack Burtonposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  why do you need a car that goes 40 miles over the speed limit?
  reply report
0
china manposted 13 years ago
The so called 'facts' in your email are not true. Don't be frightened into buying an armoury by the pea brained fascist moron who sent you the mail.
reply report
1. 77
  Castlepalomaposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  What a way to live, always looking over your shoulder and sitting flat against the wall in every public place you go.
  
  If they get angry, they may get their gun
  
  If I get angry, I might write a letter.
  reply report
  58
  Mark Knowlesposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  He is a Christian - this is how many Christians express God's "love."
  reply report
  77
  Castlepalomaposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  God, Guns, wail gays and atheists are not allow to run anything in any form of leadership in the USA.
  
  This kind of screwing is not love, give some other peace a chance.
  reply report
  79
  Jack Burtonposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  80 million gun owners in america. About 15,000 murders a year, the vast number of them are between gang members disputing business territory. So let's say, 5,000 angry people.
  
  That means that 79,995,000 guns owners are not going to be going out shooting people. I think your odds are pretty good, eh.
  reply report
  60
  uncorrectedvisionposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  The crime rate among conceal carry permit holders is significantly less than the crime rate among others. It isn't legal gun owners or legally held guns that cause the overwhelming majority of gun related crimes. To the contrary, states that issue permits readily have much lower crime rates than those who do not.
  reply report
86
quotationsposted 13 years ago
I agree with some of your points, but your post contains significant errors in an effort to bolster the argument that we must all be armed in order to prevent tyranny and genocide. Here is an example of plainly wrong "facts":

Not true at all. The Japanese did have some vague plans about invading the West Coast, but their primary objective was Hawaii, which would have allowed them to control the western approaches to the Japanese islands and keep the American navy at bay. The Japanese expansion towards Hawaii and possibly the West Coast was stopped by the crushing defeat that the Japanese suffered at the Battle of Midway as well as other defeats that they suffered which resulted in the complete destruction of their navy and air power.

To suggest that the Japanese "chose" not to invade the US because of fear that they would run into armed militias of Americans exercising their right to bear arms is nonsense. They were stopped by carrier based aircraft, and the organized armed forces - Navy - Air force - Marines - Army - of the United States, backed by its then industrial might.

You may think that I am making a big deal out of one small point in a long posting, but I point this inaccuracy out because the pro-gun lobby often engages in simplistic generalizations and mischaracterizations of history.

That said, I do have a permit to own firearms.
reply report
1. 77
  Castlepalomaposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  The greatest genocide in the USA history and in the world history ever, were the American natives, they did not have guns until we came.
  
  A rule of thumb per capita
  
  USA has twice the murders than Canada
  Canada has twice the murders than Europe
  Europe has twice the murders than Japan
  
  Take It From Japan: Less Guns, Less Gun Violence | Criminal ...
  Notice the japanese police, they don't have guns. Unlike American police, most Japanese cops don't have guns, ...
  reply report
2. 72
  Jeff Berndtposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  "To suggest that the Japanese "chose" not to invade the US because of fear that they would run into armed militias of Americans exercising their right to bear arms is nonsense."
  
  Thanks, mate. You saved me a lot of typing just now.
  reply report
63
LSpelposted 13 years ago
I own a gun and I don't see the problem with it. I am a 130lbs female, with a .40 cal. I am very liberal, yet I have no problem with owning a gun. Who knows when you might need it. Just because Canada is full of peace and love and anti-war (I mean that in a positive manner believe it or not) doesn't mean everywhere is. Sorry to say it, but its true.
reply report
1. 77
  Castlepalomaposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Just to let you know
  To own a hand gun, gives you 6 time greater chance you will shoot a member of your family or friend rather than the criminals.
  
  No skin off my nose, until I came knocking on your door accidently at night, asking for directions.
  reply report
  72
  Jeff Berndtposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  "To own a hand gun, gives you 6 time greater chance you will shoot a member of your family"
  
  Oh, now there you go with a bad conclusion from incomplete data that the anti-gun folks love to wave around.
  
  The statistic isn't really "you're more likely to shoot a family member or friend" but rather, when investigating firearm homicides, most of them involved a victim that was known to the shooter. Exactly how the victim was known to the shooter is not, or was not, tracked.
  
  So we don't really know if the victim and the shooter were family, friends, business associates, partners in crime, members of the same gang, members of rival volleyball teams, or what. We simply know that they knew each other.
  
  It's a big leap from "knew each other" to "were family or friends."
  
  This is not to say that everyone should go out and get a gun. Most of us probably shouldn't, based on the general willingness to take responsibility for one's own actions that I've seen. 'Cos owning a gun is exactly that: a huge responsibility. If you're not wiling to shoulder that responsibility, don't buy a gun.
  reply report
  66
  Ralph Deedsposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  They are all human beings. Also, people with handguns are more likely to shoot themselves accidentally or intentionally.
  reply report
  79
  Jack Burtonposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Notice ralph doesn't give an actual cite for this. He never, ever does. He goes from gun topic to gun topic dropping this but he never once actually shows where he got the info.
  
  {becuase he can't. he made it up. thin air.}
  reply report
  77
  Castlepalomaposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Jeff
  
  I did simplfied it down to much to family or friends." So it is who knew each other,
  
  Point is, it's not worth it
  reply report
  72
  Jeff Berndtposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Oh, sure, and that's why I don't keep a handgun in the house. It's a big responsibility, and I don't feel like I need to take on that responsibility to be able to defend my home and family.
  
  If someone does, okay, and I hope that they take their responsibilities just as seriously as they take their rights. (I find that there is often an imbalance.)
  reply report
  77
  Castlepalomaposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  True enough
  reply report
  79
  Jack Burtonposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  citing a bogus study doens't improve when you even miscite it. Please give a reference for your information.
  reply report
60
Beege215eposted 13 years ago
There have been many points made and well done. I don't think the government is intending to take away all guns. But as has been said in this forum, I do not see the need for semi automatic weapons in the hands of the average person. I do not see the need for a 30 bullet clip. I do not see the need. Modern weaponry is so much different than what our forefathers envisioned that their ideas and their rules cannot apply. I believe we need to be more level headed. Don't ban all guns, just add an ounce of common sense to gun ownership.
Many of those that have gone on killing sprees have legally bought their weapons, we need to change our licensing structure. All persons who choose to purchase must be required to wait at least 30 days to pick up their weapon during which time they must fulfill a training program and psychological screening. We cannot just continue to hand out guns like candy.
You may have the right to own or shoot a gun, but I have the right to survive any attack you may choose to promote.
reply report
1. 79
  Jack Burtonposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  You do know that banning “semi auto” weapons would effectively ban 99 percent of all handguns? Didn’t know that? But you posted it anyway?
  
  The lack of your imagination in not seeing a “need” doesn’t mean that other people who are actually familiar with guns don’t see a “need”.
  
  Modern communications is so different from what our forefathers envisioned I can’t imagine they would apply freedom of speech to modern high speed presses, radio, tv, or the internet.
  
  99.99 percent of all gun owners never, ever do anything wrong with their guns but YOU think that billions of dollars should be spent, and millions of hours of worthless endeavor taken up, just to satisfy trying to solve a problem that doesn’t exist.
  
  Only a person who has never once bought a gun would comment that they are handed out like candy.
  
  So you think muggers and rapists have a “right” to survive someone protecting themselves? If you are not trying to mug or rape someone why would you think they are planning on shooting you? Paranoid?
  reply report
60
Beege215eposted 13 years ago
one further comment on my part. Let's say there is a man across the room with a gun, and you are standing next to me with a gun. How am I supposed to know which of you is the bad guy and which is the good guy. You tell me you are the good guy? That just isn't good enough. The guy that starts shooting first is the bad guy? Maybe, but I don't want to bet my life on either of those things or either of you two strangers with guns. I guess you want me to pull out my own gun to defend myself, should I shoot both of you? Let's all go out and get a gun, and carry it with us so we can just shoot each other, just in case. That doesn't make sense.
reply report
1. 60
  Randy Godwinposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  And next we can go after knives, baseball bats, and especially automobiles, because more people are killed by cars than guns. What are the odds of killing your loved ones with or without automobiles? And then we go after the food buffets!
  reply report
  77
  Castlepalomaposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I takes skill to kill someone with the other, any fool can pull a trigger
  reply report
  60
  Randy Godwinposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Actually, lack of skill causes many auto accidents. Sorry!
  reply report
  59
  Druid Dudeposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  And I've seen many people who could hit a barn with a bullet to save their lives. Some who it was equally dangerous to be behind. Then put the barn in motion. Ignorance kills, and people pull the trigger. The gun doesn't control me, I control the gun. The only kind of "Gun Control" I need.
  reply report
  59
  Druid Dudeposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Meant "Couldn't hit a barn" sorry
  reply report
  77
  Castlepalomaposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Many countries have out lawed guns, why would anyone outlaw Automobiles, most people feel that automobiles are a necessity.
  
  A hand gun design to kill at close range is totally not necessity. Not even for authorities, because they kill more people than the criminal do.
  
  Anyone tries to attack me with knives, baseball bats, or even a dog, I have the skills to protect myself, and I have,
  
  If someone sneak up on me with concealed hand gun, then I am their total meat puppet and ready for rape, thief, dog tricks and still afterward they may kill me to shut me up.
  reply report
  60
  Randy Godwinposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  You are partially right, CP. I am trained in several different martial arts, including fighting with knives and sticks. But unlike you, I'm not positive there is no one who could defeat me or has better skills at hand to hand combat.
  
  On the other hand, I am an expert marksman with both handgun and rifles and feel extremely confident I will hit what I aim at. But I know most people are not confident or very experienced with firearms so I am probably not a typical gun owner.
  reply report
  60
  uncorrectedvisionposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  That is what the high capacity magazine is for. If someone breaks into a home of an unskilled shooter by the time they squeeze off all 17 rounds of 9 millimeter parabellum the burglar is probably long gone.
  reply report
  60
  Randy Godwinposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  A pump shotgun with buckshot would be much better for novice shooters. They will hit what they point the shotgun at and they have less chance to shoot themselves.
  reply report
  60
  uncorrectedvisionposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  More often than any other circumstance the brandishing of a firearm ends the crime.
  reply report
  60
  Randy Godwinposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  That's the reason I recommend a pump shotgun, UCV. The sound of a shell being pumped into the chamber of a shotgun is like no other. It may not even need to be brandished to be effective.
  reply report
  60
  uncorrectedvisionposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I own one and I have a loaded 357 magnum snub nose - my choice is the snub nose.
  reply report
  60
  Randy Godwinposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Those are great up to five or six feet and the target is standing still. I have a .44 caliber eight inch barrel revolver and can hit moving objects quite well. But my shotgun would take you out long before you got close enough to shoot me with your snub nose.
  
  reply report
  60
  uncorrectedvisionposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  The idea is I know my home, I am very good out to more than 7 yards with a mobile target and in a confined space, in the dark an intruder in my home will not leave.
  report
  60
  Randy Godwinposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  For your sake I hope the target is mobile towards you or away from you. What kind of clusters do you get at 21 ft on a lateral fast moving target? I presume you have six shots in the cylinder?
  report
  77
  Castlepalomaposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I don't know about hand to hand combat, Randy
  
  I'm trained in several different martial arts too and been a world class wrestler; maybe we should test it out on the front lawn, how old are you?
  
  Just kidding
  reply report
  60
  Randy Godwinposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Too old for tournament fighting anymore. LOL! Yes, no matter how bad you are, there's always someone badder!
  reply report
  77
  Castlepalomaposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  ha ha ha
  reply report
  79
  Jack Burtonposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  hmmmm…. Please tell all these thousands of ordinary, average citizens that you wish they didn’t have that handgun to save their lives. I am sure they’ll be please with your reasoning.
  
  http://thearmedcitizen.com/
  
  Just because YOU don’t feel you have survival skills or instincts please don’t project your weakness on to everyone else.
  reply report
2. 79
  Jack Burtonposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  So what are you going to do when the “man across the room with a gun” starts in shooting regardless of who is standing next to you?
  
  I have given thought to it and have several (hopefully) effective plans worked out, some of which involve the fact that I can reach out at long distance and touch him. What are YOUR plans?
  reply report
  77
  Castlepalomaposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Been around the world several time, been to a few war zone, fought a few muggers including monkeys, been at gun point, a few times. Live in the jungle for 4 month with just a tent and sleeping bag. I got a huge long list of adventurist instinct and survival skills and I can't imagine running out of ideas to harm or kill someone or even harm a monkey.
  
  Authority is the dangerous ones over all, as 95% of the crime is occupation crimes. I hear crickets when I open my door, when too many other people are scared out of their wits from watching Street crimes on TV...
  
  Killing will never stop killing and violence will never stop violence.
  A gun is an insecurity of a man's true manhood, as it solves nothing, much like war do, hunting not included.
  reply report
3. 72
  Jeff Berndtposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  The clear solution is two guns--one for each of them.
  reply report
  77
  Castlepalomaposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I would not like to get involved in a three way pistol duel with two other cowboys. Not my style way to get down to the true, they can only shows each other who is the greater bad ass?
  reply report
76
barrancaposted 13 years ago
NRA= Nitwit Raving & Armed. Sporting Rifles and Shotguns Only, kept in gun clubs checked out in order to hunt. Slaughter machines turned into plowshares. Stop the manufacture of ammunition for all these extant handguns, machine-guns, sniper rifles, etc.
reply report
1. 59
  John Holdenposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  But isn't that depriving Americans of their freedom and right to shoot any one they don't like?
  reply report
2. 79
  Jack Burtonposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Well, the next time someone claims that "no one" wants to take your guns away we can always point to this post. :-)
  
  I do admit I am at a loss to figure out how to persuade the criminals to keep all their guns at the sporting club until they "need them" but perhaps better minds than mine know that answer.
  reply report
60
SomewayOuttaHereposted 13 years ago
...i see this thread's still movin' along....
reply report
66
Ralph Deedsposted 13 years ago
Police officer shot and killed in New Jersey. So much for the effectiveness of guns to protect oneself-

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/15/nyreg … op.html?hp
reply report
1. 79
  Jack Burtonposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  MI: Lansing police officer, charged in drive-off, accused of writing bad checks
  
  http://www.lansingstatejournal.com/arti … /1001/NEWS
  
  FL: Police Dept. Calls Officer's Actions "Unsafe"
  
  http://www.wftv.com/news/26436093/detail.html
  
  GA: Officer Accused In Underage Sex Charge
  
  http://www.wsbtv.com/news/26377638/detail.html
  
  So much for the idea that the police are the only ones "worthy" and "trusted" of being able to carry a weapon.
  
  and that's in only the past few days. A weeks worth would take a whole page to list.
  reply report
  77
  Castlepalomaposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Humans are the most dangerous weapons on Earth with their powerful tongues, hatred with ignorance. Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies in a sense, is a theft to the poor as poverty is the greatest killer of all. These rights to bare arms are afraid of our own shadow, afraid that if we used a little common sense and admit these insecure principles were wrong.
  
  Guns are cheap and readily available to anyone with the cash... making something illegal doesn't make it disappear, but it would make live less dangerous and that is easily proven all around the world.
  
  USA is the worst country in the world to prove guns do not murder people within their own country and at war around the world. How can you kill people to show that killing people is wrong? It is very expensive and very mischievous way and military dose not start wars, politicians do.
  
  It start with barely arms for defenses rather than using your arms for hugging. Then it leads to fighting for peace, in which is like screwing for virginity.
  reply report
0
Pezzyposted 13 years ago
I have no problem with a hunter owning a shotgun or rifle for hunting. The problem I have are these guns holding large amounts of ammo with multiple firing power without needing to reload.
reply report
1. 66
  Ralph Deedsposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Common sense.
  reply report
  77
  Castlepalomaposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I rather see pot than to see a gun.
  Yet, who is sitting in jail most?
  reply report
2. 79
  Jack Burtonposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  pezzy, I don't want to disturb your world view but sometimes there just may be an awful lot of bad people out there and having the ability to protect yourself to the absolute best advantage is a decision that you should be making for yourself and not anyone else.
  reply report
60
uncorrectedvisionposted 13 years ago
The lowest crime rates in the United States are in those areas with the greatest legal ownership of and concealed carry permits for firearms. Hot burglaries, burglaries when someone is home, are rare. In countries where firearms are outlawed they are preferred, because the home owner can reveal the location of the valuables.
reply report
1. 77
  Castlepalomaposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Compared to Western Continental Europe, is four times higher in the US than in Countries like Germany, France, Spain or Italy combined.
  
  In 2008 more people were murder in Chicago than the same year in Iraqi
  People killed by guns/year
  USA: 11,127
  
  People killed by Marijuana
  USA 0
  Yet who sit in jail wail the USA has 25% of the jails in the world
  
  Protection is important and I like my head clear from all drugs, yet at these rates, means a whole lot of suffering for nothing
  reply report
2. 60
  Doug Hughesposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Here's an interesting gun statistic.
  
  "Firearm-related deaths were positively associated with states that voted for McCain (.66) and negatively associated with states that voted for Obama (-.66). Though this association is likely to infuriate many people, the statistics are unmistakable. Partisan affiliations alone cannot explain them; most likely they stem from two broader, underlying factors - the economic and employment makeup of the states and their policies toward guns and gun ownership."
  
  http://www.theatlantic.com/national/arc … ths/69354/
  reply report
54
pizzadogsposted 13 years ago
me too. my family does not care of responsibility. they don't listen what i am saying and there not loveing me there loveing meghan sawatsks jeff. and i had a fred in my new school. there's avery felica hadia ethan sam stephaine and most of ALL renee and AND ANGLICA! i hate her i mean like when i came in form recess anglica kiss my boyfriend on the cheek and then my frriend step help me stop cry. oh and my boyfriend is ethan
reply report
54
pizzadogsposted 13 years ago
well not renee
reply report
54
pizzadogsposted 13 years ago
oy
reply report
1. 77
  Castlepalomaposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  welcome to the forum
  
  I hope you don't do too much pot?
  reply report
82
2besureposted 13 years ago
I have been thinking about getting a gun for over a year. I am convinced that social unrest in America is on the horizon and I want to be able to defend myself.
reply report
1. 77
  Castlepalomaposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  It will only adds to your problems, it will never solve anything and never has.
  
  I've traveled into a few war zone, for me to have a gun , would means more likely someone will shoot at me.
  reply report
2. 0
  Onusonusposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I agree.
  reply report
60
shynslyposted 13 years ago
If I may be so bold, to all the anti-gun nuts... coming from a former soldier, what makes you think the vast majority of our Armed Forces would turn on it's own people, despite government orders to do so? Now... if we were all disarmed and soldiers knew they weren't necessarily going to have to use lethal force, they just might follow those orders... but, I'd bet 98% or better would not take part in such actions knowing they may have to actually inflict bloodshed on U.S. citizens, even if they knew they were better armed and in no real danger.

Secondly, I personally don't give a rats arse what does or doesn't work in other countries, but as for here at home, if you're so convinced that guns don't help to suppress the crime rate, than would you be willing to go along with my idea for new legislation that reads:

"Every privately owned or rented home in the United States in which a firearm is not present shall have a brightly colored, highly visible reflective sign prominently posted on the front door declaring that home as a "gun-free zone."

Obviously, I am a bit of a fan of the second amendment, but believe it or not, I do favor COMMON sense laws regarding it. I don't have a problem with having my guns (yes, I own several) being registered, I don't have a problem with background checks provided they are judged fairly, and while I applaud my home state of Arizona's decision to forego CCW requirements... I do have mixed emotions about people with no firearms training being allowed to carry.

I would be in favor of reinstating the requirement to get a permit so long as it was a free process to do so; I like the idea of people having to demonstrate some sort of a basic knowledge of firearms safety... I just don't think the government should be allowed to profit off of a constitutional right. Perhaps it could just be a test you have to pass at the DMV and have a "CCW" code added to your drivers license.

Now, in terms of regulating what kind or how many firearms/accessories you can own... go screw. Why do I NEED an extended cap. magazine or a .50 cal rifle? In short, I don't... but what the hell business of that is yours? I also don't NEED a 400 h.p. Mustang or a 4000 square foot house, but that's one of the things that makes the U.S. great... we're allowed to have things for reasons other than just because we NEED them(for the moment, anyways).

Even the anti-gun nuts admit, there are literally millions and millions and millions and millions and millions of legally owned firearms in the United States... yet, relatively speaking, the number of deaths related to them is almost non-existant. More people die choking on a Wendy's fat burger every year than are shot by a law abiding citizen with a legally owned firearm... no?

I'm now 31, been shooting since I was 6, owned guns my entire adult life, and have never once endangered you or anyone else, no? You concede that, and yet STILL continue to push for tighter laws refusing to admit the criminals, whom are already in violation of at least a few of the 41,000 some odd laws we ALREADY have on the books regulating the second amendment will be completely unaffected by your laws.
reply report
1. 60
  Randy Godwinposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I agree with your opinion concerning our own soldiers being turned against us. But I'm okay with the present gun laws, if they are enforced properly. No matter what set the Arizona shooter off, he should not have been able to buy a gun with his obvious mental problems.
  
  He had caused much concern to many people and this should have been on his background check for the firearm application. but I live in Gergia and the laws may be different in Arizona.
  reply report
  60
  shynslyposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  That much I can definitly agree with ... I can't help but to think somewhere along the way the ball got dropped. I could be wrong, but it seems like if the present laws had just been enforced properly, Loughner wouldn't have been able to (legally) purchase that gun. Either pisspoor reporting on his mental condition, or a failure by the FBI to catch it on the background check.
  
  Ultimately, it wouldn't have mattered. He was a nut, and if he was determined enough, he could have just as easily paid a visit to his friendly neighborhood crack dealer and bought the same gun illegally.
  reply report
  60
  Randy Godwinposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I guess we have a more responsible class of crack dealers here in Georgia.
  reply report
2. 77
  Castlepalomaposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  shynsly
  
  I not against anything, just not for hand guns because they are design to kill people not to kill animals. Being a creative harmless artist and you being a former soldier makes our style some what apart. Sorry, if the troops do not kill enough or much more than a million in Iraqi. Too bad the Armed Forces have turn on to its own people and they may have go as far as lethal force, I wish us harmless people could help.
  
  On the other hand, Hey!!! what do I care
  
  America kicks me out of their country because I refuse to promote war and weapons...I say go further than guns; give every American nuclear missile kit for Christmas for they are the only one that have used them.
  
  American are the greatest drugs users too, take all the drugs you want until your eye pop out. What do care if American is too obese killing themselves greater than tobacco and salvation combined. Make many more laws because American Christian just don’t have enough laws and 25% of the world jails is just not enough.
  
  What do I care, drive those huge cars, as American leave the larger carbon foot print on the face greater than any country on earth; you’re just not extremely happy enough. So what, if authority kill more people than criminal do, it’s American capitalism. Accept 95% of the crime as occupational.
  
  Nothing more important than firearms, screw the poor up with the energy vampires and the greedy war budget is where it’s at, don’t you think?
  
  Forget about America having 4 time greater murders than combined Western Europe. You believe the number of deaths by FIREARMS is almost non-existent in the USA, that all that matters. You must over focus your energy and take priory on regulating every kind made and as many firearms/accessories as you can, own extended cap. Magazine or a .50 cal rifle- OUW RAH
  
  I care, our modern Canadian peace tradition have been Brocken; I do care about US military bases in 200 countries.
  
  I care most of all, for the first time in human history our life expectancy is going in reverse.
  
  Other than that, carry on.
  reply report
  0
  china manposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I think you just about summed it up nicely.
  reply report
  77
  Castlepalomaposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I can't see the American great wall, yet I can feel it and so can the ones outside of it.
  reply report
3. 72
  Jeff Berndtposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  "I'd bet 98% or better would not take part in such actions knowing they may have to actually inflict bloodshed on U.S. citizens, even if they knew they were better armed and in no real danger."
  
  After Kent State? You're probably right. I can't imagine that many soldiers would want that sort of thing on their conscience.
  
  "Why do I NEED an extended cap. magazine or a .50 cal rifle? In short, I don't... but what the hell business of that is yours?"
  
  Exactly! See, this is why the people who say their fully automatic, 30-round clip assault rifles are for hunting look like fools to me. Those rifles are overkill for hunting.
  Now, say "No, this isn't for hunting. I like to shoot it, though. Why do you care, as long as I shoot safely, on a safe range?" and then the anti-gun nuts have nothing to argue against. They must fall back on "But... but... but... I don't like guns, therefore, you shouldn't have them."
  
  "I would be in favor of reinstating the requirement to get a permit so long as it was a free process to do so; "
  Well, free? I like the sentiment, but that would mean more debt or new taxes. I'd have a nominal fee, one that covers the cost of the copies and so forth. There should definitely be a test, and you should have to earn an A to get your permit. (The driver test you take when you renew your license is a joke, at least here in Michigan.) Training? Well, no training is required for your driver's license; you just have to pass the test. But most car insurance companies give you a break on your rates if you take a driver training course.
  
  What do you folks think about gun insurance? This is just off the top of my head, and I'm not sure what I think about it myself yet, but most states require car owners to have auto insurance, right? What about requiring gun owners to carry gun insurance? Anti-theft, accidental death, collision...well, not collision, obviously, but what do you think?
  reply report
  60
  Randy Godwinposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Hunters have to pass a safety course before they can get a hunting license here in Georgia. I know, it doesn't keep a person from buying a firearm, but it teaches young folks proper firearm safety and they have to pass a safety test before getting their hunting license.
  
  Something similar might help if required before anyone is permitted firearm ownership. And no, we don't need machine guns and extended round clips. Insurance? Too much insurance already, as far as I'm concerned.
  reply report
  60
  shynslyposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Thank you for you logical reply, lol. I have to admit, I've read some of your other posts, and in a lot of ways, you and I seem to be political opposites... but, at least in this regard, we seem to enjoy a degree of agreement, though I'm not so sure about the insurance thing?
  
  Like I said, I'm obviously an unabashed supporter of the second amendment, and I consider it a legitimate right, but with that said, it is a right that needs to be exercised with great care, as any semi-responsible gun owner will tell you.
  reply report
  72
  Jeff Berndtposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  "in a lot of ways, you and I seem to be political opposites."
  Well, I'm all over the map. I usually vote on the "liberal" side of things, but there are a few where I fall on the "conservative" side.
  
  I don't know how keeping and bearing arms became a conservative thing, or why the liberals abandoned it. Heck, historically, it was a radical idea to let just anybody own a gun. Once upon a time, gun ownership scared the heck out of the conservatives: they wanted to make sure that they were the only ones with guns.
  
  "it is a right that needs to be exercised with great care,"
  That's absolutely true, and I wish more gun-rights advocates would say that, just as loudly as they demand their 2nd Amendment rights. Perhaps it would allay some folks' hoplophobia.
  reply report
  60
  shynslyposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Again, much agreed... personally it would be fair to say I'm very liberal, it's only my politics that are conservative. All told, I'm a huge fan of phrases such as, "Live and let live" or "To each his own".
  
  Though, in part through my "lurking and learning" here on hubpages, as my ideals in terms of politics grow and mature, I'm finding that more so than "conservative", my political views fall into a Libertarian range... though they, just like the Dems and Repubs, also hold fast to a few views I'm not so fond of.
  reply report
61
SpanStarposted 13 years ago
I have to be honest in saying I'm not sure where I stand with the issue of owning a gun. The history of America has been over flowing with violence and with each year the crimes continue to get even more horrible with what people do to other people, to the point we are now shooting babies with guns just because we're upset with someone else that tells me their is a sickness in the kinds of people who can do such a thing.

The other point is kill someone isn't as easy as tv makes it out to be and if you're someone with a Christian believe I believe it gets even hard to protect yourself when you know if you pull that trigger you will be committing a sin. Usually one doesn't kill someone then go get coffee and donuts for some people but crime programs on tv as shown me that their are some real animals here in this world and they would blink an eye when it comes killing me and you-so then what does one do?
reply report
1. 60
  shynslyposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Why on earth would you think I would kill you, unless you gave me a direct reason to? Sorry, but I have to disagree with you, if it's a question of my family or myself vs. some scumbag who's actively chosen to endanger us... moral dillemas over pulling the trigger will be the last thing on my mind.
  
  In terms of the nut jobs out there that are just... not right... having a gun or not isn't going to matter much. Given that Rep. Gifford's event took place in a public parking lot, what would have stopped Loughner from just plowing his car into that same crowd of people, potentially killing or injuring even more than he did?
  
  The simple FACT is, there have always been, are now, and always WILL be violent psychos like Jared Loughner. If we take away one method of their madness, such as guns, they will just find another way to execute it. You have to make a choice, either we "just deal with it" (and the ensuing tragedies they) incite, or we reinstate the idea that potentially dangerous people can be involuntarily committed to the "nut house", unconstitutional as it may be. Even that, though, won't be fool-proof, as many people can seem "normal" for years and then just "snap". Personally, I would prefer to be armed myself, and at least have a fighting chance.
  reply report
  61
  SpanStarposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I understand your point of view and my article wasn't outlining everyone has having the ability to kill but there are those who will have a problem of taking a life even in their own defense. Killing isn't an easy thing to do as it is made to seem on tv and movie theaters, even in military training they have to work you up to appoint to where you will kill.
  reply report
  72
  tritrainposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I agree.
  
  If not guns, a knife.
  If not a pipe bomb, a car.
  If not serin gas, poisoned Tylenol.
  
  Although I think that there should be more consistent background checks and required safety training, I don't think it would have made all that much of a difference.
  
  He could have chosen many other methods to kill people there.
  
  If a person is a psychotic killer there are just too many ways in which they could kill. The difference is that a responsible citizen with a gun might have been able to limit the loss with their own defensive weapon.
  
  Bad people exist and always will.
  
  But should we allow people a way to defend themselves legally?
  reply report
  77
  Castlepalomaposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Self-Defense or Self-Destruction
  
  As many as one-half of American households have a gun. About 80 gun deaths every day, and nearly 30 children are injured or killed by firearms each day.
  
  Since most homicide in the U.S. is criminals killing other criminals. What data was used to compare deaths from break-ins, home-invasions? Out of 500 gun death break-ins per year, about 2/3rd of the criminal took the gun from the owner and uses it against them
  
  The majority of gun-related deaths in the United States are suicides, and the greatest fear for American is a criminal break-in to their home. . If you are thinking of getting a gun to protect yourself, think again.
  
  If only USA register guns like Canadian do, it would be safe enough. There are more hunters in Canada than hockey players,
  reply report
60
shynslyposted 13 years ago
For whatever it's worth, people ask why someone would "need" a gun... my sincere hope is that I never do!

While I would not hesitate to pull the trigger in a defensive capacity, taking a life is not a concept I take lightly... even that of a scumbag or a psycho such as Jared Loughner.

I'd like to consider myself a fair marksman, and it would be nice to think in such a situation the opportunity would present itself to fire a "wounding" shot, but, the reality is... caught up in the heat of the moment and out of fear for missing the "bad-guy" and hitting a bystander, that's just not practical. Odds are, should I ever actually have to fire my weapon, I'll be aiming center-mass and it will result in my taking a life.

What happens after that, I can not control, but at least I... along with how ever many other potential victims... will still be ALIVE to find out.

So, as cliche as it may be, I would sincerely rather carry a gun my entire life and NEVER need it, than to need it ONE time and not have it.
reply report
1. 72
  Jeff Berndtposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  "Odds are, should I ever actually have to fire my weapon, I'll be aiming center-mass and it will result in my taking a life."
  Yes. There's no such thing as shooting to 'wing' someone. You shoot at someone, you'd best expect to kill them.
  
  I knew an idiot back in college who...well, lets just say that this guy is a great example of why lots of people want stricter gun laws.
  reply report
  77
  Castlepalomaposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  US guns: Deaths for sale, it’s obviously not all Americans are pistol loving gun-nuts, yet many USA people consider looking to live abroad over it, and I hear about it, on this side of the boarder.
  
  Handguns greatly increase the danger to themselves and their families. Every day we read about handgun-related homicides. Yet, the Violence Policy Center says there are 40 percent more suicides by handguns than homicides. Most are unaware of the handgun suicide toll because news outlets don’t publish suicide deaths.
  
  I’m peeved enough to write a note, never mad enough to get a gun. I’m Canadian, I hope to convince to your leaders we are not the 51st State. Almost anything can be used as a weapon for self defense, even mother milk on air flights, they were not design to kill,
  
  When you kill any one , something dies in your soul, just ask a few Vietnam vets.
  reply report
  60
  shynslyposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I'm more or less ignoring you, as most of your posts demonstrate your opinions are clearly "correct" and not open for any form of debate in your mind.
  
  With that said, you've made several referances to the "awful U.S. policies" and our "evil gun-loving ways", you say, "I’m Canadian, I hope to convince to your leaders we are not the 51st State..."
  
  If that's truly the case, than with all due respect, why don't you simply butt-out and mind your Canadian business... as this debate has basically zero impact on you either way?
  
  I am normally a pretty easy going guy, and I don't like allowing myself to be goaded into overly rude or pointlessly aggresive "debates"... but you have to be by far and away the angriest person I've encountered here on HubPages... and over something that doesn't even affect you, to boot.
  
  How you choose to live in your house is none of my business, likewise how your country chooses to govern itself is also none of my business... but the same courtesy should be extended either way.
  
  Try and understand something, we are not Canada. We do not want to BE Canada. We are a soviergn nation with our own culture and our own way of life, just as Canada is unto itself. I have no desire to influence politics or policy in Canada... why do you feel such a strong need to regulate us?
  reply report
  77
  Castlepalomaposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  How can I simply butt-out and mind my own Canadian business, when most of Canadain large businesses are own by America’s including entertainment and the media too.
  
  Canada has traded more with USA than all of Europe combined. Then one day, Bush and 9/11 decided Brittan was America’s best friend, because they make better War buddies. Then Canada has force to break our modern peace tradition because of really sour trading then, forces to kill poor people who never harmed a thing on Canadian soil.
  
  Anyone who was physically known me would say I never get angry, angry is not efficiency even to an army General, you just don’t like my way of thinking as forewarned.
  
  It's friendly to have conversation between two people and between two countries no matter how much you they may disagree, Guns are just not friendly tools.
  
  Canadian are too nice to tell you or anyone to butt out, yet since I have many family relatives and friends in the US, I understand
  
  Canada regulates the USA, HA AHA HHEE HA!
  reply report
2. 72
  tritrainposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Every shot that misses the target is a liability.
  
  When I target and scenario practice with my girlfriend, we practice that.
  
  "That shot (that was missed) just hit a person on a bike riding past"
  "That shot hit the old lady"
  
  All innocent bystanders.
  
  We both legally carry.
  reply report
  60
  shynslyposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Very much agreed, and that's a good strategy for training, my ole' lady and I may have to go ahead and borrow that from you, thanks for the tip.
  reply report
73
Quilligrapherposted 13 years ago
I'm not sure, Onusonus, that any of the reasons quoted from your E-mail are valid or even true. I believe that the Constitution of the United States is the most noble experiment in bottom to top governance ever attempted by civilized men. In this document, ALL rights have been reserved for the states and their citizens that are not specifically granted to the federal government.

Therefore, every American citizen has a constitutional right to own a gun except in cases where this right impinges upon the freedom of another citizen. I don’t own a gun but it is my right to do so if I so choose. I think most people would agree that gun ownership does not cause anyone to commit suicide or murder, any more than does owning or driving a car. The law already holds us responsible for how we use both. Had the assassin driven a truck into the crowd in AZ, would the topic du jour be controlling the production or ownership of pickups? I can clearly see that there are reasons to control where and how weapons are carried. But, are there any arguments favoring gun control that demonstrate how, or at what point, ownership of a gun begins to violate the rights of another citizen?
reply report
1. 77
  Castlepalomaposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I think the Constitution of the United States is noble, it's the corruption of lawyer and the greedy, not so much.
  
  A car requires a good degree of money, skills and nessiary, a gun is not nessiary power and require a 17 cent bullet to kill a judge or small girl. If you think Sodom and Gomorrah is civilized, than the USA is civilized.
  
  Do you think the mentally ill or people of drug addiction should own a gun?
  
  Fear the Castle.
  reply report
  0
  Onusonusposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  17 cents, ugh! I just heard Michael Moore say that on Rachel Maddows.
  reply report
  60
  shynslyposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Michael Moore... uhg. We should deport him to Canada.
  reply report
  77
  Castlepalomaposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Is that how it works, deport people who are not for harm?
  reply report
2. 0
  Onusonusposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I don't know why people keep bringing up that kid who shot everyone, I'm just thinking of how much guns in America have prevented invasion from other countries. I guarantee the people in China, Russia, Germany, Uganda, and Turkey all though they had inalienable rights too. I've also heard that as soon as gun control gets more stringent there have been immediate spikes in crime rates as a reprocussion.
  reply report
  77
  Castlepalomaposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  America has 5% of the world's population and half the world's war budgets.
  
  Is that offence or defence?
  
  America has 25% of all the world's jails
  
  Your Kidding me, right?
  reply report
66
Ralph Deedsposted 13 years ago
When will we ever learn? Two L.A. high school students shot when a handgun in another student's knapsack fired accidentally. A single bullet hit both students, one in the head.

Of course he had a Second Amendment right to self protection against school bullies.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41138365/ns … nd_courts/
reply report
0
Onusonusposted 13 years ago
Just bought a shot gun, bring it on!
reply report
1. 77
  Castlepalomaposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  What’s that? Some med-evil homeland security system
  reply report
2. 72
  Jeff Berndtposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  :lol:Awesome!
  reply report
0
JaxsonRaineposted 12 years ago
Best of both worlds, Re: the early discussion about guns and swiss army knives.

Swiss Army Guns

reply report
84
FatFreddysCatposted 12 years ago
Does anybody know if that "Switzerland issues every household a gun" fact is true? I don't know for sure but it *sounds* ridiculous, I wanna call B.S. on that one... do we have any Swiss Hubbers reading this who can confirm or deny?
reply report
1. 0
  JaxsonRaineposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politi … witzerland
  
  Everyone in the militia is issued a rifle. When they leave service, they can retain the rifle after the automatic function is disabled.
  
  Total gun ownership isn't know, but is estimated between 20-50%, mostly 'assault' rifles.
  reply report
  60
  undermyhatposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Not only that but shooting is a national hobby. It used to be that way here. Every weekend used to have shooting events ( of the none criminal type)
  reply report

Post a Reply

jump to first post

Necessary
HubPages Device ID	This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
Login	This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google Recaptcha	This is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
Akismet	This is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google Analytics	This is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic Pixel	This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web Services	This is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
Cloudflare	This is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted Libraries	Javascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)

Features
Google Custom Search	This is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google Maps	Some articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google Charts	This is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host API	This service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTube	Some articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Vimeo	Some articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Paypal	This is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Login	You can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Maven	This supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)

Marketing
Google AdSense	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClick	Google provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index Exchange	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Sovrn	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Ads	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad Marketplace	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexus	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Openx	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon Project	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLift	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say Media	We partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing Pixels	We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking Pixels	We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.

Statistics
Author Google Analytics	This is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
Comscore	ComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking Pixel	Some articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
Clicksco	This is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)

I'm thinking of buying a gun

Arts and Design

Autos

Books, Literature, and Writing

Business and Employment

Education and Science

Entertainment and Media

Family and Parenting

Fashion and Beauty

Food and Cooking

Games, Toys, and Hobbies

Gender and Relationships

Health

Holidays and Celebrations

Home and Garden

HubPages Tutorials and Community

Personal Finance

Pets and Animals

Politics and Social Issues

Religion and Philosophy

Sports and Recreation

Technology

Travel and Places

About Us

This website uses cookies

I'm thinking of buying a gun

Related Discussions

This website uses cookies