guns

[Matts_12GS]

While this case may determine the future of gun rights nationally, it seems that virtually no one involved,either arguing, or hearing the case, knew anything about firearms.

 

And yet I'm not entirely surprised either...

[philbytx]

 

 

Not to mention that since my employer filed an amicus brief in the case, I obviously agree with everything in that brief.

 

 

Buttkisser

[Paul_Burkett]

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

I am sure that we can get to the point of defining what the meaning of "is" is, Ala Bill C., So to quote the above, A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, and we want free states, the peoples rights to bear arms, (and legs,wohoo) will not be infringed. (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/infringed)

The peoples right to be armed, owning personal weapons and keeping them, as a militia, not hiring an army, or there would be no reason to have a militia, and this is a right of the people that is not to be violated or transgressed.

These days we have the National Guard, Army, Navy, Marines, Air Force, FBI, CIA, BATF, Swat, Police, Ralph Nader and the list goes on ad nauseum. These forces have almost every lethal weapon imaginable at their beckoned call, and I am grateful for them all, and equally glad that we can not obtain many of these same deadly weapons used to keep us free and secure as a nation. But, during the time of the writers of the constitution, these wise fore-fathers had pistols and rifles, and other than cannons, that is about the extent of their arsenal, which I think would be considered as "bearing arms".

In the early years of this nation, a state could deny the right to bear arms, but at that time these people hunted for their own food, protected their homes from animals and other people that came to do their family harm. To give you an example of this need to bear arms, last night I had to take my little dog into the back yard to let him do his thing, I always turn on the back porch light and carry a flash light to check the yard for animals, as he has been sprayed by skunks 5 times in the last two years. When I first shined the light, it fell on a rabbit, to which the dog took off after and ran it back to the back corner fence. As I continued scanning with the flashlight I saw a raccoon along the side fence, it is a 6" tall wood shadow box style fence. I went into the house and got my BB pistol, I live in a suburban area, and when I got outside again, the dog and raccoon were at odds, making growling very loudly, the raccoon was larger than my dog, but climbed up onto the fence wherein I got to within six feet of the animal and as he ran past me I shot it with my BB pistol, it yelped as it ran by, I reloaded and pursued, but was not able to get off another shot. The animal got away and I hope it never comes back. I love my dog and want to protect him.....and my wife, not in that order though.

Last week I went through over 300 rounds at a target range with a 22 and a pistol, I like guns, my grand father was a gunsmith, so I have a couple of very old guns, I don't collect or go to gun shows, I am not a "gun nut", in fact I own no more or less than George Washington when he fought for Americas Independence from England.

In summary, Outlaws will always get guns, Russia and China guarantee that, and all of the legislation and laws that politicians pass will not change that fact, we see it in the news on a regular basis. I believe that if the law enforcement agencies hands are freed to carry out the existing laws and are forced to perform their duty on all legal and illegals in this country, we will be a better nation for doing that alone.

Thank you, and good luck.

[DavidEBSmith]

How can you even type that with a straight face given your earlier comments in this thread?

 

Pot, meet kettle.

 

Show me one of my comments that was inappropriate (other than the joshing with Knappy, which there's an exemption for).

 

Even my response to the "all you liberal commie anti-gun idiots" post was fairly restrained, I thought.

 

In fact, I thought the discussion was moving on a fairly elevated plane, with insightful commentary from both sides. But pro-gun people are their own worst enemy. There's a small sliver of them that can't seem to be reasonable, and reflexively respond to any criticism of their position with personal attacks on the patriotism, morality and intelligence of their opponents. It's because of a small, vocal, visible minority that the public has a perception of gun advocates as "gun nuts".

 

The anti-gun people also have a small, vocal, visible, unreasonable minority that poisons the public perception of their position, but we know they're not armed, so they're not as scary to the general public.

[Fugu]

Show me one of my comments that was inappropriate (other than the joshing with Knappy, which there's an exemption for).

 

Shooting for sport is fun. Anti-gunners don't realize that you can appreciate the craftsmanship of a fine firearm or the skills of being a good marksman without being a sexually-deviated blood-thirsty maniac, although the vast majority of pro-gun people often seem bound and determined to reinforce that stereotype.

 

I don't see any indication in that statement that you were joking around with your friend, you said the vast majority of gun owners reinforce the stereotype.

 

In fact, I thought the discussion was moving on a fairly elevated plane

 

As did I, but the sexual deviant thing stuck in my craw.

 

It's because of a small, vocal, visible minority that the public has a perception of gun advocates as "gun nuts".

 

I beg to differ. There are many people who are so afraid of guns that if they find out you own one (or god forbid carry one) they are instantly and noticeably changed. There are people who give the impression they'd rather hear you run over puppies with a steamroller for fun than own firearms for your defense. These "anti gun nuts" will always despise people like me regardless of how we behave. There is no reasoning with them.

 

The anti-gun people also have a small, vocal, visible, unreasonable minority that poisons the public perception of their position, but we know they're not armed, so they're not as scary to the general public.

 

Right, they're not armed, their bodyguards are. I guess their lives are more important than ours. edit: that's not even the case. Dianne Feinstein for example has (or had) a concealed weapon permit in an area of California where they are unheard of for mere subjects.

 

Why do people who are afraid of guns try to use murder statistics to support that fear, but ignore the fact that less than 1/2 of 1% of violent crime in this country is committed by people who have concealed handgun licenses? Less than 1% of crime overall is attributed to us - that's including DUI, misdemeanors, etc. - everything. 1%. Yeah, we're really a group you should fear.

[Fugu]

Gura actually perpetuated that ridiculous myth about plastic handguns

 

I erred here- he was referring to earlier comments by Clement when he said what he did. Of course what he should have done was pointed out that outside the confines of Hollywood scripts they don't exist.

[Mike]

Just a general mod's note here, not responding specifically to you, Fugu. Some of the comments in this thread over the past day have been perilously close . . . nay, over . . . the line for BMWST.com.

 

Please keep it respectful. I'd hate to have to close down such an enlightening thread.

[DavidEBSmith]

I don't see any indication in that statement that you were joking around with your friend, you said the vast majority of gun owners reinforce the stereotype.

 

Nope. Read again. What I said is that the vast majority of pro-gun people act as if they were trying to reinforce false, anti-gun stereotypes. Which they do, from writing reflexive, hysterical letters-to-the-editor to acting like idiots when handling guns at Cabelas. Gun enthusiasts lack awareness of the image they are projecting to non-gun-enthusiasts. You won't convince the anti-gunners, but you need to convince the vast middle of people who don't particularly care about guns that your position is reasonable. You don't do that when hunters drunkenly shoot each other or cows or dogs (which happens every season). You don't do that with video of the president of your organization waving a gun over his head and yelling "when the government pries it out of my cold, dead hands!!" The thought going through the average guy's mind when he sees that is not "yay, constitutional rights", it's "whoa, that's really over the top."

 

There is no reasoning with them.

 

And they say the same about you because of comments like that.

 

Right, they're not armed, their bodyguards are. I guess their lives are more important than ours. edit: that's not even the case. Dianne Feinstein for example

 

Oy with the Dianne Feinstein and the Barbra Streisand and teh "liberal elite" thing. You accuse the anti-gun people of being out of touch with the majority, when really, your side is just as out of touch. Most people in this country don't own guns. Most people in this country don't care very much if you do or not.

 

If you want to get people on your side, ranting against Dianne Feinstein is counter-productive. Pro-gun people need to make a point of showing how they are responsible, mainstream citizens. How they're safety-conscious and admit that the idiot who shoots himself while cleaning his gun did a bad thing. Include in every rant about the right to self-defense how they really hope that they never have to shoot someone, instead of gloating about how they're gonna blow the sh*t out of that bad guy. People get the impression that gunners are unhealthily obsessed with shooting stuff because gunners get as excited over gun porn as other people do over people porn (and Guns & Ammo is as much gun porn as Playboy is people porn and House Beautiful is kitchen porn and Gourmet is food porn). Think about how what you're saying sounds to someone not as passionate as yourself.

 

Apropos, this article on tech fanboys, but it applies to both the pro- and anti-gun advocates:

 

On issues we're passionate about, we all tend to think our own views are essentially reasonable, Ross explains. Thus when a reporter, editor, news network, or pundit mentions the other side's arguments, it stings.

 

"If I see the world as all black and you see the world as all white and some person comes along and says it's partially black and partially white, we both are going to be unhappy," Ross says. "You think there are more facts and better facts on your side than on the other side. The very act of giving them equal weight seems like bias. Like inappropriate evenhandedness."

[Mike]

I don't see any indication in that statement that you were joking around with your friend, you said the vast majority of gun owners reinforce the stereotype.

 

 

Nope. Read again. What I said is that the vast majority of pro-gun people act as if they were trying to reinforce false, anti-gun stereotypes. . . . Gun enthusiasts lack awareness of the image they are projecting to non-gun-enthusiasts. You won't convince the anti-gunners, but you need to convince the vast middle of people who don't particularly care about guns that your position is reasonable.

 

Eebie, you cite a number of examples of things that individuals do to undermine the pro-gun argument, but I'd disagree with your statement that "the vast majority of pro-gun people act as if they were trying to reinforce false, anti-gun stereotypes." Yep, cows get shot, people write stupid letters, and occasionally some goof blows off his foot in the process of cleaning his gun. But, those incidents hardly reflect the majority of gun owners.

 

Still, while taking exception to your conclusion that counterproductive conduct is engaged in by the majority of pro-gun people, there is a perception problem.

 

In fact, it's the same sort of problem that we face as motorcyclists. The dipstick who does a two-block-long wheelie down main street is viewed as representative of all motorcyclists. The nimrod who passes on a blind curve and forces the dad with an SUV-full of kids off the road is lumped together with you and me. To the average citizen you and I are no different than a Hell's Angels badass or an intellectually impaired stunter.

 

The average gun owner--the one who keeps a shotgun in his closet because he lives on a farm, the one who uses his rifles for hunting, and even the guy or gal who packs a 9mm safely and responsibly--doesn't show up too often in these debates. And he or she certainly cruises well below the radar of the popular media. It doesn't seem entirely fair to characterize either the Hell's Angel or the drunk moron who just took out a cow with his .30-06 as being representative of a majority of the larger groups to which they belong.

 

Still, while noting my objection to your earlier conclusion, much of what you say is "on target" (pun intended). Pro-gun types need to bear in mind that the appearance of reasonableness would go a long, long way in promoting gun rights. However, I'm sure, many would argue that inaccurate, emotional invective from the opposite side of the debate makes that hard.

[philbytx]

Perhaps if those of you more heavily involved in this discussion lived in a country ( ) such as Texas or, even better, an Open Carry state, you would find that the level of invective and depth of discussion would probably consist of no more than a slightly raised eyebrow and a shake of the head .

 

You would also find that many of us living near the "51st state" consider their firearm(s)just like their car keys or wallet. And we all know that the gubmint only get's involved with either of the two aforementioned items if you are a naughty person.....and most people are not. Most folks that carry also don't dangle their car keys nor flash their wallets around. I like concealed carry....we sure don't get many home invasions or carjackings around here

 

The gun genie is out of the bottle in the U.S. and it can't be bottled up again. And, dont forget, we have the 51st state with it's wonderfully porous border so conveniently located and full of folks happy to fill U.S. demand for anything illegal.

 

Yes...perhaps my cold dead hands might be wrapped around something too!

[steveknapp]

The average gun owner--...--doesn't show up too often in these debates. And he or she certainly cruises well below the radar of the popular media.

 

And this is my concern. The extremes will dictate the path forward. With no real gray path being available. I'm forced to pick the lesser of two evils and go with the "Crazies. Which really aren't that crazy once you get to know them eh?

 

Public perception of guns is pretty bizarre. I had a friend who was nervous bringing her kids over to the house. The whole thing with Karen's friends where one of their neighbors shot himself in the hand cleaning his gun because he thought the safety was on...and this is "normal".

 

What was the bit from Freakanomics? More dangerous to have a swimming pool than a gun?

[Dave McReynolds]

I think all of us who engage in activities that are under threat would do well to respect the rights of others, who may engage in other activities that are under threat, in the hope that they will reciprocate.

 

If we assume that just because we don't care to ride a motorcycle without a helmet, smoke, use drugs, walk our dog without a leash, bowhunt, carry a gun, own a ferret, marry someone of our same sex, have an abortion, ride on highways at the speeds for which they were designed, watch porn, engage the services of a prostitute, or have carnal knowledge with a consenting sheep, it's fine if nobody else is allowed to do it either, we may find that we have few supporters when the government comes around and decides that that SUV we like to drive has just got to go.

[steveknapp]

Dave, I could not agree more.

 

I wish more did.

[Fugu]

Nope. Read again. What I said is that the vast majority of pro-gun people act as if they were trying to reinforce false, anti-gun stereotypes.

 

That is not what you said. That's what you are saying now in a transparent effort to spin your comments and to avoid issuing a simple apology for choosing your words quite poorly.

 

reflexive, hysterical letters-to-the-editor to acting like idiots when handling guns at Cabelas.

 

So, would it be fair to say these folks represent you?

 

 

Of course not. Why then do you think the gun counter morons represent me?

 

Gun enthusiasts lack awareness of the image they are projecting to non-gun-enthusiasts.

 

The bigger problem is that most gun enthusiasts are close-lipped. People don't know they're "gun nuts". Many of my best friends are, and they are good people from all walks of life who anybody would be happy to have as a neighbor, but the media pushes racist rednecks in "who farted?" hats as the image, and people buy it.

 

Gun nuts need to let their non gun nut friends in on the secret to replace that negative image. Worst case, it's like that adage about lending somebody $20. Either they pay you back and you remain friends, or you never see them again and you're better for it.

 

My image says nothing about my gun ownership. I don't have NRA stickers, Glock hats, Molon Labe T-shirts or any of that stuff. I guess maybe in that way I'm part of the problem.

 

Because of corporate policies I pretend to comply with, nobody at my office knows my thoughts on this. Aside from close friends and family pretty much nobody else I interact with daily has a clue. Maybe that's why I weigh in on it here so vociferously. Maybe more of us regular gun owners need to let it be known that we’re regular people to cancel out Ted Nugent.

 

You won't convince the anti-gunners, but you need to convince the vast middle of people who don't particularly care about guns that your position is reasonable.

 

The antis cannot be reasoned with (not that I'm any less stubborn - we are both convinced we are right). You just said yourself the middle people don't care. Those in the middle just want to be left alone, as I do. They aren't the ones pushing the crazy laws, and the middle isn't going to mobilize to support our rights on an issue they don't care about- so why do I need to win them over?

 

I'll educate anybody who wants to know about guns the best I can, but I no longer care what foaming at the mouth anti-gun nuts think. I think I’ve heard every one of their arguments. I'd rather discuss interest rates with a dog. I will not apologize for my beliefs, or for being steadfast. The difference is that I don't want to impose my way of life on anybody else.

 

You don't do that when hunters drunkenly shoot each other or cows or dogs (which happens every season).

 

There's no excuse for the behavior other than humans are flawed, but you make this out to be a major problem. It only gets talked about because the media keys on it. The number of accidental gun deaths is at an all time low in this country. Fewer than 1% of deaths, compared to 39% for motor vehicle accidents.

 

You also make it out like this is unique to firearms accidents- care to compare DUI to drunken hunting accidents?

Oy with the Dianne Feinstein and the Barbra Streisand and teh "liberal elite" thing. You accuse the anti-gun people of being out of touch with the majority, when really, your side is just as out of touch.

 

I don't care what the majority thinks, and I've never accused liberals of being out of touch with anything but reality. I don't stick my finger up to check the public opinion winds on this issue before I decide what I believe. I do not believe the majority has the right to infringe upon the freedoms of the minority.

 

Most people in this country don't own guns. Most people in this country don't care very much if you do or not.

 

I see 35-50% figures for ownership per household. I think that's under-reported (if somebody comes to my door w/ a clipboard and asks, I'm not telling them squat), but like I said, it's irrelevant.

 

As for whether most people care, I don't know. I do know that our pervasive media has done an excellent job of carrying out their agenda, and that their quest for ratings at any cost has done the rest- guaranteeing any gun crime leads, making it look like it happens more than it does. I rarely encounter anyone who says "I don't care one way or the other"- it’s a pretty polarizing issue.

 

People in several states around here have recently voted for anti-smoking laws that do ridiculous things like banning smoking at cigar lounges where adults go for the express purpose of smoking cigars. Afterwards, people shook their heads and said "I voted for WHAT?" That sort of ignorant voter is of concern. They'll vote for something titled "save the children" that's a gun ban, and they won't read it. In that way maybe those in the middle could help, but frankly I think they are too busy watching American Idol reruns to pay any attention until something impacts them directly. A ban on cable TV and guns would never pass.

 

Pro-gun people need to make a point of showing how they are responsible, mainstream citizens.

How would you suggest we improve upon fewer than 1% of accidental deaths?

 

Perhaps gun owners could volunteer to stand guard around pools to save kids from drowning, or to chauffeur the crappy drivers causing 39% of accidental deaths. Would we get a credit against our sub 1% figure for every drowning kid saved, and every pedestrian not run down by a driver on a cell phone?

 

People back over their own kids with their cars. They whore out their own children for drugs. They shake their babies to death, molest their teenagers, and neglect the elderly, yet I’m supposed to get all worked up about less than 1% having accidents because they are human and therefore fallible?

 

I think I’m going to print bumper stickers that say: LICENSE PARENTS NOT GUNS.

 

How they're safety-conscious and admit that the idiot who shoots himself while cleaning his gun did a bad thing.

 

Of course he did a bad thing. The lack of reaction you got is just like when somebody new to riding RTs tips one over. I've never tipped a bike over, but it seems to be accepted by most riders as something that happens.

 

Humans make mistakes. They make poor decisions. They are stupid. Of course we've all lived through stupid mistakes before, but the fact that gun owners didn't get all upset about one of these silly, avoidable, regrettable, inexcusable accidents is for good reason. We know it's exceedingly rare despite what the media says, so as a result we don't want to give it any more weight than it deserves by reacting strongly.

 

Get all out of breath telling a group of riders about the time your neighbor tipped over in his driveway and you'll get a similar lack of response.

 

Include in every rant about the right to self-defense how they really hope that they never have to shoot someone

 

Every rant? Nice pejorative. Gun nuts rant, anti gun nuts discuss huh?

 

I do go out of my way to explain that it's the last thing I ever want to have to do, and why, but it never seems to make a bit of a difference. Ask anybody who has trained to learn to defend themselves- avoidance is the key principle. Any instructor worth a damn pounds that home.

 

gunners get as excited over gun porn as other people do over people porn...and House Beautiful is kitchen porn and Gourmet is food porn

 

So what? I bet half the guys here know exactly when their favorite motorcycle porn shows up every month and get excited thinking about it. So what if shooting is a hobby, too? Killing is not a hobby, but shooting has been one since the first firearms.

[Dave McReynolds]

You just said yourself the middle people don't care. Those in the middle just want to be left alone, as I do. They aren't the ones pushing the crazy laws, and the middle isn't going to mobilize to support our rights on an issue they don't care about- so why do I need to win them over?

 

This is why you need to care and win them over:

 

People in several states around here have recently voted for anti-smoking laws that do ridiculous things like banning smoking at cigar lounges where adults go for the express purpose of smoking cigars. Afterwards, people shook their heads and said "I voted for WHAT?" That sort of ignorant voter is of concern. They'll vote for something titled "save the children" that's a gun ban, and they won't read it.

 

This is an example of the type of quote anti-gun people love to latch on to:

 

LICENSE PARENTS NOT GUNS

[Fugu]

This is an example of the type of quote anti-gun people love to latch on to:

 

LICENSE PARENTS NOT GUNS

 

The truth hurts.

 

The National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System (NCANDS) reported an estimated 1,490 child fatalities in 2004. This translates to a rate of 2.03 children per 100,000 children in the general population. NCANDS defines "child fatality" as the death of a child caused by an injury resulting from abuse or neglect, or where abuse or neglect was a contributing factor.

 

http://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/factsheets/fatality.cfm

 

97% of those victims were under age 12

 

 

On the contrary, 2002 data shows that for children under 14 there were only 436 fatalities due to firearms, and only 86 of them were accidental.

 

http://www.the-eggman.com/writings/death_stats.html

 

 

So, 1490 abuse deaths, 86 accidental firearm deaths, 436 total due to firearms (which includes the accidents).

 

I'm not even including abuse deaths of 12 and 13 year olds in the abuse numbers- the data breakdown wouldn't allow me to capture that.

 

So, 1054 children were killed by parental abuse without firearms, or that parental abuse was a factor in their death. Firearms were only a factor in 436 deaths total for a larger age group (included those 12 and 13 year olds).

 

So a child is 2.4 times more likely to die at the hands of their parent's abuse than from being killed with a firearm, and more than 17 times more likely to be killed by parental abuse than a firearms accident.

 

Yes, clearly the time to license and regulate parents is here. It is for the children.

 

 

edit: My goal here is not to offend any parents, simply to point out the fallacy in the argument for regulation based on accidents, and how exceedingly rare those accidents are, even when compared to something that is thankfully also very rare.

 

[Agent_Orange]

[DavidEBSmith]

So, would it be fair to say these folks represent you?

 

No, I belong to the group of people who know how to handle firearms safely. Here, I see Nagin pointing a gun at somebody, which you never do unless you want to shoot them (which I hope is not his way of getting rid of his police chief), and Kerry out shooting without hearing protection, which is foolish.

 

Or, perhaps you meant do these anti-gun people represent anti-gun people like you? Well, if you read all my posts for the third time, you'll find I haven't taken a position, either pro-gun or anti-gun. You'll find that I have stated that obviously I support the position taken by my employer in the amicus brief in Heller, which is to say that obviously I agree with all the legal arguments we've made regarding the D.C. ordinance. But I have not expressed a personal pro-gun or anti-gun opinion. In fact, the closest you'll find, removing the phrase whose misinterpretation set off the alarm bells last time, is:

 

Shooting for sport is fun. Anti-gunners don't realize that you can appreciate the craftsmanship of a fine firearm or the skills of being a good marksman without being a sexually-deviated blood-thirsty maniac. . . . EB could get into shooting for sport if (a) it wasn't so much of a hassle in the city and (b) he didn't have the willpower to resist buying expensive toys that Knappy seems to be lacking.

 

That you would interpret criticism of the pro-gun side as indicative of membership in the opposite side proves my point better than anything I could say. Both sides in the gun debate (and in the abortion debate, and in the gourmet beer debate, and in the Democratic party) have polarized themselves to believe that there are only two positions, and if you're not with us, you're against us. Both sides respond to criticism, not with reason, but with defensiveness. It's the other side that wants to impose its position on us, it's not us that want to impose our position on them. It's the other side that's unreasonable, not us. To quote:

 

but I no longer care what foaming at the mouth anti-gun nuts think. I think I’ve heard every one of their arguments. I'd rather discuss interest rates with a dog. I will not apologize for my beliefs, or for being steadfast. The difference is that I don't want to impose my way of life on anybody else.

 

Change "anti-gun" to "pro-gun" in that and it could have been said by the other side. Both pro-gunners and anti-gunner are less interested in being persuasive than they are in maintaining their self-assuredness about their own beliefs.

 

If I've spent more time criticizing the pro-gun side, perhaps it's because the pro-gun side is over-representing on this DB and the pro-gunners keep popping up like targets on a sporting clays range. If only some of the liberals like Ken or Dennis or . . . well, if some of the liberals would join in, I could go after them, too.

[Dave McReynolds]

The truth hurts.

 

Oh, I see. Under the Fugu model, if my objective as a bowhunter is to win over the vast gum-chewing public who is being told by PETA and the like how barbaric bowhunting is and how it shouldn't be allowed, then this is how I should proceed:

 

Hey middle Americans, do you understand that you are a bunch of fat, shallow, narcissistic, entitlement loving, undereducated, overpaid whiners? That those of you who are parents are mainly neglecting your kids? And those of you who aren't married are mainly shirking responsibility and moving from sexual partner to sexual partner? And some of you are in both groups at the same time?

 

And, by the way, I'm a bowhunter, and I would appreciate your support....

[Fugu]

That you would interpret criticism of the pro-gun side as indicative of membership in the opposite side proves my point better than anything I could say.

 

Walk around quacking and somebody's bound to call you a duck. It's indicative of nothing other than the fact that we don't know each other in real life and are arguing (or claiming to take for the sake of argument) contrary positions.

 

Both sides in the gun debate ... have polarized themselves to believe that there are only two positions

 

The NRA compromises all the time. That's why I don't like them.

 

When I have the winning hand, I don't offer to go halfsies on the pot with the guy with the next best hand.

 

It's the other side that wants to impose its position on us, it's not us that want to impose our position on them.

 

One side wants to remove a right. That's clear enough to me.

 

 

the pro-gunners keep popping up like targets on a sporting clays range.

 

Shame your marksmanship is so poor.

 

Maybe you'll enlighten us as to your personal position. Or are you afraid that would put the bull'seye on you?

[smiller]

well, if some of the liberals would join in

I'd like to help out but when this liberal reads the Bill of Rights he sees a clear statement that individuals have a right to possess firearms.

[Fugu]

And, by the way, I'm a bowhunter, and I would appreciate your support....

 

With a little tweaking, I could support that platform.

 

You said the anti-gun people would like to latch on to it. As for marketing techniques for the apathetic people in the middle, frankly I have no idea how you'd reach them with anything but news about Britney Spears' lack of underwear, a sporting event, or who's dancing with which stars.

 

I was just trying to make a little point about how infinitesimally small the number of accidental gun deaths is.

[steveknapp]

the pro-gunners keep popping up like targets on a sporting clays range.

 

EB, what are you doing this weekend? Do we need to head up to Eagle, WI so you can RELEARN that there are only two targets in each of the 5 rounds at n stations (5 or 10 at most places I've been).

 

In other words you've only got no more than two targets at any given time, and you really don't need to move much to hit them.

 

IPSC/USPSA is probably more like these "debates". You know what's going to pop up, but you have to shoot it all while running around.

 

Get it right!

[DavidEBSmith]

Walk around quacking and somebody's bound to call you a duck. . . . The NRA compromises all the time. . . . When I have the winning hand, I don't offer to go halfsies on the pot . . . That's clear enough to me. . . .Shame your marksmanship is so poor.

 

The dogs bark but the caravans roll on.

 

Maybe you'll enlighten us as to your personal position.

 

Still stuck on that friend/foe labeling thing?

 

Or are you afraid that would put the bull'seye on you?

 

For the pro-gunner, it always comes down to shooting something, doesn't it?

[DavidEBSmith]

Do we need to head up to Eagle, WI so you can RELEARN that there are only two targets in each of the 5 rounds at n stations

 

I know that, it's just all the walking between the stations that's so tiring, like responding to the gun nuts . . .

 

Actually, I think I found the shotgun that will help me get a decent score, although there's a bit of a license issue:

 

[steve.foote]

I just want to make it publically known, I believe in gun control. Yep, feet shoulder-width apart, nice relaxed grip, breathe naturally...

 

And, yes, I'm a gun nut. It's rumored that I might have a couple of them, or so.

[steveknapp]

I know that, it's just all the walking between the stations that's so tiring,

 

Too much sonic.

 

Seriously, let me know if you want to go.

[drdave39]

As several of you have pointd out quite well, if the arguement starts with you SHOULD (or SHOULD NOT) have guns, there is no reasoned discussion, just cherry-picking of data to support a conclusion you have already reached on an EMOTIONAL, not a logical, basis. I was trained as a biobehavioral researcher, in that you aren't supposed to have an opinion until you have reviewed and balanced all the available data. It's called "critical thinking". Let me give a few relevant examples:

 

1) Some people refuse to wear a seat belt because they heard about somebody getting trapped in a burning car. Does that hapen? Probably. But if you look at the data on car crashes, the seat belt is about 100 times more likely to save your life than it is to kill you.

2) Getting closer to home, helmet use! Some folks argue they can see and/or hear better without a helmet, that the chin bar can give you a broken neck, etc. Again, all these things are possible and probably have happened, but the hard data on fatalities of helmeted vs. helmetless riders are utterly clear- you're much safer with the helmet.

 

Now, can we do the same analysis with guns? Here is a handgun in my house. There is some probabiliy that it will save my life from an intruder. AND, there is some probability that it wil kill me or someone in my family, by accident or impulsive homicide. My frustration is that you can't seem to get the data together- what is reported is so mixed and cherry-picked it can't be interpreted in any meaningful way.

 

Keep in mind (this was the example in Freakanomics) that most people do NOT assess risk statistically, but emotionally- like the person who's afraid of flying, even though they are in far more danger driving to the airport! Still, those of us who like to operate in reality would like to have the data available...

 

In case you are wondering, I grew up shooting and took the NRA hunter's safety course when I was 10. At the present time, my feeling is that I live in a safe neighborhood, and I have a wife who has has a fiery temper (and looks really good in black)- so no guns here!

 

Dave

[HairyCannonball]

An unrestricted right to bear arms imposes that will against those who would prefer to live in a society where people don't shoot at each other or where people would prefer not to get caught in the crossfire.

 

So, Greg, have you ever actually been "caught in the crossfire"?

I ask because I live in a very gun friendly state, South Dakota, which has the highest per capita number of concealed carry permits issued, has one of the highest per capita rates of gun ownership (4th in 2002 last record I could find), over 60%, was fifth in the nation in 2005 in gun sales per capita behind Wyoming, Montana, West Virginia and Alaska, and I have yet to have any bullets go whizzing past my head. Or witness a gunfight. Or had anyone pull a gun on me. Or worry about getting shot. With our easy access to guns and the fact that the majority of the citizens here have them, should I be buying a bullet proof vest? Oh yeah, I spend considerable time in Wyoming and Montana too. Should I be more scared?

[HairyCannonball]

I seem that we have been having this discussion for a looooong time.

 

"To prohibit a citizen from wearing or carrying a war arm is an unwarranted restriction upon the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege."

-- Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878

 

To me this is good thinking. Why do we as a country continue to take away the freedoms of the many law abiding citizens to try to control the minority that cause the problem? Why not go after the problem rather than punish all for the crimes of a few.

The problem with gun ownership is not that the majority have access to them, it is that the criminal element has access. Criminalizing ownership of firearms for everyone will have very little effect on access to firearms by the criminal element. It is already illegal for a felon to have them, doesn't seem to stop them from obtaining or using them though. Nor would banning guns outright. The handgun ban in DC doesn't seem to have slowed down the rate of gun violence. Isn't it one of the highest in the nation there? We tried banning alcohol, didn't stop folks from drinking, just created a whole new crime problem. We have banned many drugs. Doesn't seem to have slowed down access to them very much. Perhaps it is time we start controlling existing crime rather than criminalizing more activities.

[tallman]

I just want to make it publically known, I believe in gun control. Yep, feet shoulder-width apart, nice relaxed grip, breathe naturally...

 

And, yes, I'm a gun nut. It's rumored that I might have a couple of them, or so.

 

Every time one of these threads comes around, I buy another gun.

Just in case.

Wouldn't want all the converts/conquest sales to buy up the supply and create artificially higher prices.

[Fugu]

Still stuck on that friend/foe labeling thing?

 

Since you have claimed that I am misconstruing your position on this matter, and since you implied that I did so because I'm such a foaming at the mouth gun nut I simply asked you to clarify where you stand.

 

If you are afraid to defend your ideas publicly, you could just say so.

[philbytx]

 

quote

Actually, I think I found the shotgun that will help me get a decent score, although there's a bit of a license issue: :

unquote

 

Not if your a criminal type Eebie

[Fugu]

As several of you have pointd out quite well, if the arguement starts with you SHOULD (or SHOULD NOT) have guns, there is no reasoned discussion

 

It's easier to start with no pre-conceived notions if you are discussing a hypothesis, or what mutual fund to invest in. This is an issue where people on both sides are following their moral compasses, and unless you expect that people will adjust those to comply with court rulings, I don’t know that starting with no opinion is a reasonable expectation.

 

I suppose some are perfectly comfortable with the court dictating all of their morals to them, but frankly I can’t identify with that idea at all.

 

Here is a handgun in my house. There is some probabiliy that it will save my life from an intruder. AND, there is some probability that it wil kill me or someone in my family, by accident or impulsive homicide.

 

No, there is zero probability that the handgun will do anything. It is inanimate. I say this not to be pedantic, but to point out that the problems we so willingly attribute to guns are problems with humans.

 

Odd, since we do not blame water and concrete for pool drownings.

 

My frustration is that you can't seem to get the data together- what is reported is so mixed and cherry-picked it can't be interpreted in any meaningful way.

 

My frustration is that the second amendment is not about crime, sporting, or hunting. We get bogged down twaddling with crime stats because our country is pretty much fat and happy. On those rare occasions where this discussion does run to the true intent of the second amendment, that conversation gets sidetracked with whether a revolution would have a snowball’s chance, which is also irrelevant. The second amendment doesn’t guarantee our rights to win.

 

my feeling is that I live in a safe neighborhood, and I have a wife who has has a fiery temper (and looks really good in black)- so no guns here!

 

That’s your choice, Dave. I just want to have the freedom to make my own.

 

By the way, I live in a safe neighborhood, too. Despite having a fence, a dog, security lights, and an alarm somebody broke into my home while my wife and I slept. She was ready to back me up if needed, and the cops showed up 5 minutes later to take a report.

[Lawman]

)- so no guns here!

 

Dave

 

Do you own many valuables and can I get your address?

[steve.foote]

)- so no guns here!

 

Dave

 

Do you own many valuables and can I get your address?

 

 

Now that's funny, I don't care who you are.

[g_frey]

Maybe a gun saved my life twice, or maybe it just saved me from a beating twice, or maybe it did nothing at all since nothing happened after my gun came out. I do know that the three days I spent in a hospital after being beat up by a street gang earlier when I did not have a gun were not good times. By the way the two members of that gang that I could identify were back out in less than two months. Underage my ass, both were bigger than I was. Both they and their friends were back harassing me and my customers in the pool hall despite a "peace bond" right after their release. Finally drove the place out of business. Oh yes I believe in the power of a gun to keep someone from being a victim. It has been over 30 years since I got that first (and last) gang beating and the scars look back at me every morning in the mirror and all because I wanted to close the pool hall on time so I could get some sleep before going to class the next morning.

[Quinn]

)- so no guns here!

 

Dave

 

Do you own many valuables and can I get your address?

 

 

You don't see a lot of homes with a "this house is a gun-free zone" sign outside. Of course, you also don't see signs that say, "I have guns so don't break in unless I'm not home and then you can get them for yourself."

 

I've reached the stage in life where a 17 year old with a baseball bat can beat the crap out of me. By living in an area where I might be armed, I benefit even if I'm not carrying.

[SageRider]

)- so no guns here!

 

Dave

 

Do you own many valuables and can I get your address?

The law...

To protect and serve....

[Lawman]

might[/u] be armed, I benefit even if I'm not carrying.

 

That speaks volumes..Thank you

[DavidEBSmith]

If you are afraid to defend your ideas publicly, you could just say so.

 

I don't think I can defend my ideas any more publicly than already have.

 

I've expressed my position. If it doesn't fit into one of your categories, that's not my problem.

[Fugu]

Hey, folks - if you read one amicus brief today, I humbly suggest you make it this one:

 

http://www.nraila.org/heller/proamicusbriefs/07-290_amicus_jpfo.pdf

 

Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership. Good people.

[Fugu]

I've expressed my position.

 

I know you said you support the amicus brief filed by your employer. I did not take that to mean that it completely encompassed your personal opinion. Is that the case?

[4wheeldog]

Maybe a gun saved my life twice, or maybe it just saved me from a beating twice, or maybe it did nothing at all since nothing happened after my gun came out. I do know that the three days I spent in a hospital after being beat up by a street gang earlier when I did not have a gun were not good times. By the way the two members of that gang that I could identify were back out in less than two months. Underage my ass, both were bigger than I was. Both they and their friends were back harassing me and my customers in the pool hall despite a "peace bond" right after their release. Finally drove the place out of business. Oh yes I believe in the power of a gun to keep someone from being a victim. It has been over 30 years since I got that first (and last) gang beating and the scars look back at me every morning in the mirror and all because I wanted to close the pool hall on time so I could get some sleep before going to class the next morning.

 

+1. Unfortunately, there is no bank for the statistics on this scenario. The classic "Clack clack" of a pump shot gun saved me from facing an armed perpetrator on a couple of occasions, and in neither case did the aggressor even see the weapon. They were gone when I opened the door. It really is preferable to avoid direct confrontation when possible.

[russell_bynum]

)- so no guns here!

 

Dave

 

Do you own many valuables and can I get your address?

 

[Matts_12GS]

The classic "Clack clack" of a pump shot gun saved me ...

 

Seems I recall a survey of lifers and hard timers (15 or more years ago so they're all on parole now... ) suggested that this sound was one of the most terrifying things to the criminal mind.

 

I forget the source, but the factoid stuck in my head.

[Wooster]

In case you are wondering, I grew up shooting and took the NRA hunter's safety course when I was 10. At the present time, my feeling is that I live in a safe neighborhood, and I have a wife who has has a fiery temper (and looks really good in black)- so no guns here!

Dave

 

Smart move; to examine one's own situation and act accordingly seems to me to be a smart move.

 

Wooster with silence

 

btw, nonlethal devices, e.g., pepper spray, can meet need for safety w/o killing anyone

[HairyCannonball]

Hey, folks - if you read one amicus brief today, I humbly suggest you make it this one:

 

http://www.nraila.org/heller/proamicusbriefs/07-290_amicus_jpfo.pdf

 

Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership. Good people.

 

Excellent. Thank you for that link.

[ghaverkamp]

So, Greg, have you ever actually been "caught in the crossfire"?

 

I've grown exhausted (as I can see Eebie has) trying to respond to people who either have no concept of the difference between taking a position and discussing a point of view or don't have the capability to see the distinction.

[HairyCannonball]

So, Greg, have you ever actually been "caught in the crossfire"?

 

I've grown exhausted (as I can see Eebie has) trying to respond to people who either have no concept of the difference between taking a position and discussing a point of view or don't have the capability to see the distinction.

I see the distinction, I was merely trying to illustrate that the position you have taken is based on a possibility that frankly isn't very likely. You could take the position that the earth is flat and discuss it all day long, but in the end you would still be wrong. Some of us on the other side of this discussion are growing tired of all the mythical scenarios proposed also.