Originally Posted By pecos bill I think the lack of prosecution on people whose children are killed accidentally is probably because the authorities feel the parents have suffered a penalty far greater than they could ever impose. I am in total agreement with the notion of strict classroom and field training for firearm ownership. Having taken some courses myself, I can attest to how useful they are, especially when I am out in the hills and see complete idiots shooting high powered rifles like they were the Three Stooges! Why do I own guns? The thought of being unable to defend my home or self against someone who does have one. I spend time in bear country and have this thing about being eaten alive. One night I drove up on three scary punks out in the woods who were in the process of stripping down an obviously stolen vehicle. I had to stop because they were in the way. Nothing bad happened, but it easily could have, and there were a few very tense moments. I was damn glad I had my 45 Kimber with me all the same. My fathers's life was saved because he had a gun, and indirectly my life was saved as well, in a sense, I owe my very existence to a gun. I am not comfortable being completely dependent on others for every little thing in life. If the economy ever does completely tank, at least I will still have the means and know how to procure food. It may mean nothing, but I find some comfort in it. Oh, and I really think they are neat!
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan It's interesting that people I know who own guns have found themselves in situations where a gun is useful, or saved their lives, or made them feel safer just in case. Meanwhile, people I know who dislike guns have never found themselves in those sorts of situations at all or find some other method of getting through those sorts of situations. (I don't know what that means or proves, but it's kind of interesting.)
Originally Posted By Mr X Being armed doesn't necessarily mean you'll come out the winner, particularly against a hardened criminal who might even have had some experience with killing...but it certainly can serve to escalate an already bad situation in any case!
Originally Posted By hightp I see a few posts relating to getting a gun as similar to taking a drivers test. While I'm not saying it's a bad idea, in fact, it may even be a great idea, the argument kind of falls apart in comparison. Being able to get a drivers license does not preclude you from owning a car. Here in Pennsylvania, anyone can buy a car, but only need a license to drive it on the street. The other issue is, how do you take the gun test, if you don't already own the gun? You can get your learner's permit on basic information, but your permentant license would have to be on a specific piece. While there are similarities between designs, like cars, each one handles different.
Originally Posted By hightp "Well, when that law was written, we didn't have AK-47's or other semi-automatic weapons, machine guns, cop killer bullets, etc. What we had were rifles where you load the bullet, put in the powder, shoot, repeat." This was actually addressed by the Supreme Court, in the Heller decision, at least as far as modern firearms. What they said was that people could use what is in common use at the time. Therefore, semi-autos are in common use, they can be used. And, actually, at the time the Constitution was written, multiple firing guns were known, and had been demonstrated to to the Congress. True, they didn't use self contained cartridges, but the ideas were there. One rifle design had a discharge of 6-7 shots with one pull of a trigger, through the same barrel. That could even be construed as a machine gun, today.
Originally Posted By DVC_Pongo K2oonMan I have owned guns all of my life, been around them as far back as I remember, saw my dad, uncles, cousins, and myself walk into grandma's home on Thhanksgiving Day with deer blood somewhere on our clothes from getting a deer out of the woods that morning. As a young child Ive sat at the dinner table seeing a "hawg leg" hanging on dad's chair that would be going with us in the boat frog gigging after dark. Oh and I've never been in a situation where a gun saved my life. However, guns gave been such an intergral part culturally of my family for generations. It's part of us, a big part of who we are, of what we do together. All of these dumb rednecks with guns guns guns... And not a single accident, ever. I find it interesting that some people who have "never been in a situation" want to take guns away; not at all unlike your comment about gun owners having been in a "situation.". Well I've never had a gun save my life. I hope I never do. I really don't see a common ground here for EVERYONE, except to agree that we disagree and move on. K2oonMan, I know your canvas and paper and art materials cannot hurt or kill. But MY guns and those of my family WON'T ever be a threat to anyone either. Outlawing private ownership would be like taking your ability to draw and create away. Having said that, I'm all for taking weapons out of the hands of criminals and careless people. But to take EVERY weapon away is clearly throwing the baby out with the bath water.
Originally Posted By DVC_Pongo I think this issue is like others, in that it's a tiny number of bad apples in a large crop. There are careless gun owners. There are bad doctors. There are mean spirited Liberals. There are closed minded Conservatves. There are incompetant school teachers. There are corrupt cops. There are abusive nursing home staff. There are perverted priests. The list goes on forever... Of ALL the issues that divide people, this one is the one I feel the strongest about. I could talk for hours, and never be able to get most people who want to unarm American citizens even at least see why I feel this way. And then there is Labuda. She gets a pass with me. Of everyone on LP, her side of this issue is undenyably the most compelling... unless anyone else here has ever been shot that is.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***Outlawing private ownership would be like taking your ability to draw and create away.*** In fairness, I recently learned that even here in "no gun Nippon" it is possible to get a hunting license and possess firearms for recreational purposes (though admittedly a lot harder to obtain than in America). That's true in many countries, I would imagine. So if you are truly an avid sportsman or marksman that wants to do some shooting, it's not as though being an American is the only option. On the other hand, if you want a concealed firearm for "protection", then yes it does get a lot stickier in other places. But on the flip side, it's a lot more difficult for bad guys to find a piece as well...so the protection angle becomes a little tough to defend. Just sayin...
Originally Posted By DVC_Pongo I disagree.Wide sweeping bans on handguns would not reduce crime significantly here. Look at Scottland.
Originally Posted By DVC_Pongo In fact it is easy to argue that complete hand gun bans would result in increased crime.
Originally Posted By Mr X <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/1440764.stm" target="_blank">http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_...0764.stm</a> "The Centre for Defence Studies at Kings College in London, which carried out the research, said the number of crimes in which a handgun was reported increased from 2,648 in 1997/98 to 3,685 in 1999/2000. It also said there was no link between high levels of gun crime and areas where there were still high levels of lawful gun possession. Of the 20 police areas with the lowest number of legally held firearms, 10 had an above average level of gun crime. And of the 20 police areas with the highest levels of legally held guns only two had armed crime levels above the average." So, what were you saying about Scotland?
Originally Posted By Mr X No need. I just agreed with you that you brought up a good point (I guess we need an edit feature, those comments were supposed to be combined!).
Originally Posted By DVC_Pongo Huh? From your link... >>>A new study suggests the use of handguns in crime rose by 40% in the two years after the weapons were banned. The research, commissioned by the Countryside Alliance's Campaign for Shooting, has concluded that existing laws are targeting legitimate users of firearms rather than criminals.<<<
Originally Posted By DVC_Pongo I was going to say that you cannot just look at crime in which a hand gun is used... when considering banning them. You must look at ALL crime. As one example I hold that things like home invasions would sky rocket here in the US, and these kind of thugs wouldn't need to carry a gun in with them. I think there have been micro examples of breakdown in society where people have shown that mankind is the nastiest of animals when "let out of the cage," most notably Katrina. And I am basing this on my close lifelong friend, whith whom I grew up with, who left and then returned home after Katrina. Even still, Katrina looting and robbery is another example of a FEW bad APPLES... I think the people in general of New Orleans are wonderful and kind people. I think the result would have been the same anywhere. The dregs of society we have with us always.
Originally Posted By DVC_Pongo I expect to take a lot of heat from my comments on this topic. It's ok. I know it is a very hot button for some people.
