The gun thing is so settled that I can not understand why gun lovers are so adamant. There are guns everywhere and nobody is taking them away. I am at peace with it because I can do nothing about it. I don’t understand the love of guns. I have shot them in target practice. I also shot bb guns when I was a kid. Also bow and arrows. It never sunk in as something I wanted to dedicate my time to doing. I have always been pretty coordinated and shot Ok . It just did not grab me. If it is your thing, have at it.
Bolding mine.
From where I sit, it’s not the folks that own guns that are adamant, it’s the gun control folks.
I’ve owned or been around guns all my life. Never gave it a second thought.
The anti-gun folks are trying to impose ridiculous rules on something that the clearly no nothing about. To top it off, the anti-gun folks refuse any education about guns.
Because of this, I have become very pro 2nd amendment.
The anit-gun folks are shooting themselves in the foot.
Really? I grew up and still live in Tennessee. I’d prefer strict gun control but don’t care enough to let it influence my vote, don’t hold gun owners in any type of contempt (my dad has a handgun for protection as a truck driver, my brother in law is an avid outdoorsman, and at least one friend owns a couple guns, though I have no idea how many or what type) and never discuss guns unless someone asks my opinion, but almost any time I hear anyone talk about them in everyday life, it’s about how Obama is going to take away their guns, and he’ll only get them when they pry them from their cold, dead fingers.
That is great!!!
OK, first, disarm all the police (Secret Service, FBI, US Marshals, IRS, DEA, state police, sheriff’s deputies, local police, etc), and all of the criminals, and then come back and we can discuss your idea on a realistic level.
I think that poster was suggesting it would be good if we could move toward not having to live in fear, and in turn, have less need for firearms.
I’m a guy who knows how to shoot and enjoys it, but feels no need to own a gun. Where and how I live, the likelihood that I’d need one for defense is negligible. Having one in the house wouldn’t be a large hazard either (again, for ME), it’s just not a necessity. I appreciate that I can live this way without the urgent need for deadly force. I keep my eyes open, but generally I have no serious fears for my safety.
As was stated up-thread, I recognize that situations vary greatly. But I’ve also said in other threads on the subject that I’d rather see a different system for training and ownership of weapons. I think it should be federal, something akin to getting a private pilot’s license. If that were to happen, I’d have no problem with state-to-state carry and some other issues.
Originally Posted by Susanann
That is great!!!
OK, first, disarm all the police (Secret Service, FBI, US Marshals, IRS, DEA, state police, sheriff’s deputies, local police, etc), and all of the criminals, and then come back and we can discuss your idea on a realistic level.
I realize that.
But what I am saying, is that I wont even discuss gun control until all the police and criminals disarm for a long period of years, proving that guns are no longer needed by the citizenry.
Let me see not a single cop, FBI agent, Secret Service agent, DEA agent own or carry a gun for a period of 10 years without getting hurt, and then , and only then, can anyone seriously argue that guns really are not needed.
Obviously, if criminals and police have guns, we certainly do not want just them to be the only ones that have them. The jews in 1930’s Germany thought it was a good idea for only criminals, police, and the army to be the only ones to have guns, and we all saw how bad that turned out.
You never win here.
Although every poll of Americans requests STRONGER gun control, the NRA and advocates seem to bully their way.
I am not quite sure how they do it…and even here on the boards, I have never - in all the years - ever seen a thread about gun control NOT be swarmed with gun nuts calling me everything from a pinko-fag to a more moderate “uninformed” poster.
I am from Illinois and met one of the top seven world big game hunters when I was a kid - you should have seen his “trophies” that hung on the walls, and seen his films (on Super-8 back in the day.)
There is nothing wrong with hunters who actually shoot game (in season) and eat it.
Or people who shoot for marksmanship.
But I see absolutely no reason for people to have hand guns and an arsenal at home.
For every person who actually uses a handgun to “protect themselves”, there are hundreds of shootings at bars, robberies, domestic violence, accidental shootings, kids picking up guns and killing other kids, robberies of guns…geez, the list goes on and on!
I think ALL handguns should be banned. If you want to carry a gun, let me see that damned rifle under your arm and know not to mess with you or not to let you into my store.
Otherwise, sneaky hidden hand guns are a recipe for bi-polar, drunk, love-lorn, suicidal, serial killer whacko’s who should not be carrying a gun.
You can’t kill an intruder to your home with a rifle?! You need a hand gun? Seriously?
OK…I now lay sprawled for the gun nuts to tell me, in no uncertain terms, once again why I am infringing on their rights and that I am a pinko-fag. card-carrying, liberal asshole. Go for it. Someday, the majority will get this right, and hand guns WILL be banned!
The substantive issues in your post cannot appropriately be addressed in IMHO, but the fact that you use an extraordinary amount of vituperation and name-calling while complaining of the same is nothing short of ironic.
To address the OP: I do care, but I long for the day when I don’t have to, which is unfortunately a day that I will never see. I hope that one day people will collectively shrug and say “so what?” rather than constantly making a federal case out of it.
Non-American here:
I like guns, I’ve fired guns, and if I needed a gun I’d get one. I don’t, though, so I won’t.
Beyond that: I support gun control, including mandatory licensing, background checks and training. Guns are dangerous, and I think the government should supervise dangerous objects. Anti-gun hysteria seems ridiculous to me, though, as do limitations on things like large magazines, pistol grips and bayonet lugs.
Oh, and if I ever bought a gun, I’d buy a Glock or a Sig Saur if I could afford one, and if not, I’ll get a CZ 75 like everyone else.
My take on this is part and parcel with the right of revolution. Our entire country came about because of the perceived natural right to revolution, and it was actually written into various documents. So - how can one have the arms to conduct said revolution when all the arms belong to the government? The state run militias [national guard] belong to the government that one would perhaps want to revolt against. Granted, this sort of led to the US civil war, because the government didn’t want to let the southern states seceed, but at least they had the guns to try to revolt.
How would disarming law enforcement agencies demonstrate that private citizens don’t need guns? Even certain law enforcement agencies in Great Britain are armed.
I can understand liking guns and feeling strongly about it. But your proposition doesn’t strike me as a serious idea proposed in good faith.
What polls? cite? I’m curious.
Most anti-gun folks do not own guns. It follows that they know very little about them.
I’m from Illinois too!!!
Good, I shoot my .357 for marksmanship.
It’s excedingly hard to target shoot with a handgun, if you don’t have a handgun. You really look silly too.
Is it OK to you that I “protect myself” with my target rifle or handgun?
Originally Posted by Susanann
Let me see not a single cop, FBI agent, Secret Service agent, DEA agent own or carry a gun for a period of 10 years without getting hurt, and then , and only then, can anyone seriously argue that guns really are not needed.
My proposition is all about good faith. My proposition IS good faith.
If the police and the criminals all disarmed in America, and did so for at least 10 years, and we found that not a single police officer needed a gun, then it would give some credibility to the arguement that: "guns are not needed ".
All branches of Police in the United States would be the “good faith” gesture that could be used if one were to argue for gun control or gun prohibition.
Of course, if the police and the criminals do NOT disarm, then any discussions of gun control is, by definition: meaningless and pure fantasy
Tel aviv? You wont get any argument from me.
I have no objection to your gun control, or for that matter prohibition of guns, being imposed on Jews in other countries.
Actually, it is none of my business and not my concern if people in Tel Aviv are disarmed.
The United States Constitution and our Bill of Rights, have absolutely nothing to do with people in other countries.
Good luck with that.
Oops-too late.
What if by banning certain types of speech the city could fix certain problems, or outlawing certain newspapers?
Perhaps if the city removed the right against self-incrimination, it could lock up more dangerous criminals?
On another note, I don’t trust Justice Kennedy. I see a whole slew of 5-4 decisions the other way upholding registration, training, no open or concealed carry, and pretty much every single law other than the D.C. and Chicago total handgun bans. I hope I’m wrong, but maybe it’s time too ease back on the lawsuits until we have another vote there (if we get another vote there).
Your requirement of disarming all criminals and police before a conversation can take place is pure fantasy, and even if it weren’t, I still fail to see what bearing it might have on the subject.
I don’t mean to be rude, but… please. You’re setting up an impossible barrier to even a reasonable conversation on the subject. This is what I mean by not arguing in good faith.
What’s worse is, I’m the type of person you have a reasonable chance of making headway with. I like to shoot and don’t want guns banned, but will not raise a finger to help your cause when presented with ridiculous lines in the sand. I’m willing to listen, and I know others like me who will too, but you’re going to have to do better than that.
I think that the argument is that if the police feel a need to have guns, then there in an obvious danger in society that they need protection against: criminals. So, if the police need to protect themselves from these criminals, then why can’t Joe Six Pack protect his family the same way?
I understand that the police are pro-actively going into danger, while us regular schmoes try to stay away from it, but you can see the scenario where you are caught in the danger and might need it.
The U.S. keeps samples of smallpox in case they are needed for further study, although the disease is thought to be eradicated. Joe Six Pack probably doesn’t need to keep any on hand though.
Understand, I’m not one of the people arguing for disarming the citizenry. I just find the idea proposed earlier to be irrelevant and distracting from reasonable discussion on the subject of guns.
You’re lucky that there are so many heterosexual women (and men) with more interest in protecting your rights than you have in protecting theirs.
Denial of rights affects all of us, including those who would or could never exercise a particular right. I’m not black, but my whole society is degraded when black people are mistreated on the basis of skin color.