This is the reason for me, too-not the(so far)hypothetical “thieves will target our homes if they know we have guns” reason.
I’ve never bought the “this way criminals will know which homes to break into” argument. I just think it’s a violation of privacy, nothing more.
And I agree with something BigT said: if I’m a criminal, I really am not going to target the home of someone who takes their personal safety seriously enough to make the effort to get a CCW.
I like you with a gun.
The way you shine, silver barrel in the sun.
It’s no wonder I sleep underground.
Cause I just want to be around.
I think it was that gunowners figured that the newspaper was probably liberal and this was targeted against them.
Suppose the newspaper was in Wyoming, and, after your licensing proposal took effect, it listed the households that didn’t have a gun. Then, non-gun-owners would complain.
…about your facebook friend.
I would be just as offended by that. In fact probably a little more offended. In either case it is irresponsible and offensive.
Purely hypothetical. I actually do live in Wyoming, and I don’t know one single household that doesn’t have a gun. (Maybe in Jackson, but we don’t really count them as part of us.)
The Big Sort strikes again.
I highly recommend the book tooted by my last link.
A random guy I met while hunting in NW Wyoming lent me a handgun. I thought this was odd because I was carrying a rifle. Then he told me it was for bears because there had been a couple of fatal bear attacks in the area recently. I almost went fishing when I heard that. But the fact that this guy had a spare “bear gun” to lend me made me think that Wyoming has a lot of guns/capita.
Unusual, but not impossible, I guess. If you found out that one of your friends didn’t own any weapons would you question them about it and/or think any less of them?
Back when Bush II used Concealed Carry (& some questionable absentee voting results) to beat Ann Richards for Governor, Molly Ivins suggested that those who were carrying could identify themselves. By wearing propeller beanies…
According to this, Wyoming has the highest rate of gun ownership:
Generally, yes, I’d think less of them. There are some people that can’t afford guns - I give them a pass. For the most part, I think less of people who are unwilling to acquire effective means of self defense. Gun ownership, and the carrying of guns, by the citizenship as a whole, deters crime. Individuals who shirk this civic duty are increasing my risk of being a crime victim. Also, it’s been my experience that people who don’t own guns are, more often than not, of weak mental character.*
*I can tolerate the people whose attitude is “I realize that if it came right down to it, I couldn’t defend myself. Sorry.”
I have nothing but scorn for those who think “I realize (to myself only) that if it came right down to it, I couldn’t defend myself. So I’ll try to normalize my deficiency by removing YOUR ability to defend yourself.”
A quick Wikipedia check shows there have been two fatal bear attacks since Wyoming achived statehood in 1890:
The last was June 17, 2010. Maybe this one – apparently the first since 1892 – had morphed into “a couple.”
Your quick checking skills suck, or simply support your agenda.
And why only cite fatal bear attacks, and not maulings, and those that were deterred by firearms? (I know why.)
Some people actually live in the real world.*
*My former coworker was mauled by a grizzly in the Winds, around about 2006. He lived, but his scalp was torn off. When the docs stitched it back on, it wasn’t quite straight, so his hair always had a funny part to it.
Maybe your occcasional deceitful post has morphed into more than a couple.
I missed Yellowstone attacks since Wikipedia doesn’t mention the state in case of Yellowstone attacks. Yellowstone is indeed mostly in Wyoming.
That was the 2010 attack I mentioned.
I wan’t drawing any conclusions, although, yea, I think that guns (or lightning, or ladders, or just about anything else) are more dangerous than bears are to an unarmed hiker.
If you by some chance decide to get out of snark mode, I have a question. How do they enforce a limited bear hunting season out west if you can shoot a bear whenever you want and claim it was about to maul you? Or is it that you can shoot a bear out of season, but just can’t take the carcass home?
Also, how do you know that a bear is really going to attack you? Is there a distance between you and the bear where if the bear gets inside that circle, it will be shot?
Is this gentleman from Jackson, or did he have a gun?
If you follow the Wikipedia links, you’ll see that bears attack people with and without guns.
Oh really? Did you look that up on the internet to make sure?
Yes. But bears are less dangerous to an armed hiker.
If a bear is about to attack you, or is attacking you, you shoot it. How the hell hard is that? (I know, for you guys, it is. It’s not like you can type into your Iphones “Is this bear about to attack me? Need answer fast.” We don’t have internet service in many areas, and a grizz comes faster than you can type.)
As he told me, the ranger told him “Son, I’m not saying you are stupid, but what you did was stupid. Don’t go into grizzly country without a gun, or bear spray. You are damned lucky.”
If you follow real life, instead of forming your opinion of it from the internet, you’ll see that more people live if they have a gun.
Sadly, this is just what I suspected. Everyone you are acquainted with owns a gun…because the only people you would acquaint with have to own a gun in the first place. That makes this statement of yours:
less of a reliable statistic and more of a self-commentary on your personal psychological needs.
A rather skewed opinion from someone who claims not to know anybody that doesn’t own a gun.
More people are killed and injured by accident by people they know, than are killed and injured by guns wielded defensively while committing an assault or other crime.