Originally Posted By mele How so? You don't think reason needs to be used when it comes to guns, just emotion? Yikes!
Originally Posted By FaMulan >>listening to the 911 recordings of a lone, unarmed old woman in her home, on the line while two thugs kicked in her door and killed her. Those screams haunt me to this day.<< And if she'd been a lone, armed old woman, do you think the results would've been any different? The most likely scenario is that they would've ended up killing her with her own gun. You can't base decisions on recordings that haunt you. That's emotion taking over something that reason needs to be in charge of.<< If one is properly trained in the proper care, feeding and use of firearms and maintains their target practice, the most likely scenario is the old woman would be alive and the intruders dead or (hopefully not) injured.
Originally Posted By LPFan22 ^^^I completely agree. Hubby has mentioned taking me to target practice a few times and I wasn't comfortable with the idea at first. But with the way the world is today... from desperate people who resort to breaking into someone's home to steal for (what they think of as) survival to someone who is either mentally unstable and snaps or someone who is completely drugged out of their mind... I'd rather have a little more peace of mind knowing I can handle a gun should I feel threatened. Especially in my own home.
Originally Posted By mousermerf Just ran across this topic in sheer midday boredom.. and just to address the premise... Most of the far left are, despite other "qualities", typically pretty decently educated, and in that mind set, relatively rational and less emotional, reactive, superstitious, god-fearing, whatever you want to call it. These are not the people who are going to get overly emotionally charged and see gun in and of itself as instant harbingers of death and destruction and child-killing things to be banished from the home. If someone reasonable wants to own a gun, then let them own a gun. I think you'll find very few people in the country opposed to that train of thought. With that, it's not a guarantee/given/right in the living/breathing/pursuit of happiness sense, so there's going to be stricter rules and as long as those rules at least appear to be outwardly reasonable to to the general populous they're going to think the ones making a stink over them are the fringe and quite possibly the enemy. Especially when those people are wrong about everything. And we mean everything else.. every single thing else.. everything. No. Even that. Yes. Yup, that too.
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy << SG, are you serious? You would trust the defense of your family, against potentially armed and deadly intruders to a can of pepper spray? >> Yes. Having been exposed to the effects of pepper spray, I can tell you that it works very well. I can also tell you that I'm much more likely to hit someone in the eyes with a stream of pepper spray than I am to hit them in the right place with a bullet.
Originally Posted By mawnck Now this is just askin' for trouble. The Hello Kitty AR-15. <a href="http://www.2dayblog.com/2008/01/24/hello-kitty-ar-15-assault-rifle/" target="_blank">http://www.2dayblog.com/2008/0...t-rifle/</a>
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< In particular, "safe storage" is a real concern I think. Although I'd never thought of the burglary angle before (that makes perfect sense!), only the fact that kids so often get their hands on weapons left unlocked. >>> That's another great reason to require safe storage. I don't think it infringes on rights much if at all. <<< One thing though, IF people are using a gun for personal defense, it doesn't make much sense to have to keep it locked up (so you have to fumble around to get it in a crisis)..although when the house is empty or the gun is otherwise unattended, definitely. >>> There are solutions that meet all of these needs, such as this one: <a href="http://www.buyasafe.com/Gun-Vault-Safe-p/gv1000std.htm" target="_blank">http://www.buyasafe.com/Gun-Va...0std.htm</a> It allows for quick entry of the combination, even in the dark, yet keeps the gun away from kids and burglars.
Originally Posted By Mr X That product looks excellent. But to continue on the path of devils' advocate, it is also rather expensive. Which begs the question, exactly what does one need to do to comply with "safe storage" laws. Would a gun in a cupboard protected by a cheap lock-and-key be enough? Or would there be a particular standard a gun owner must comply with (the higher the standard, the greater the cost of course...WHICH does begin to infringe upon the rights of low income folks right?)?
Originally Posted By SuperDry All good questions. I would think that a cheap lock and key would be enough if the purpose was to keep guns out of the hands of children. To make them burglar-resistant is always going to take more effort. <<< Or would there be a particular standard a gun owner must comply with (the higher the standard, the greater the cost of course...WHICH does begin to infringe upon the rights of low income folks right?)? >>> Yep, that's an issue. But it's an issue with a lot of things. It's just a matter of striking the right balance between individual rights and societal benefit. As far as low-income people go, that's always an issue with any sort of government mandate. I remember that when California enacted a mandatory auto insurance law, some people squawked that it was unfair to low-income people who could not afford it. Others took it even further and said that it was in fact racist, since certain minority groups tended to be poorer. But, I think that most people agree that there's a legitimate public purpose in mandatory auto insurance, and enough so that it's okay to have the law, even if a certain subset of people is rendered unable to drive because they can't afford it. Getting back to guns, I would think that safe storage for the purpose of protecting children in the house could be done relatively cheaply as you point out - a padlock would do. And, burglar-resistant storage is mostly needed only for handguns. I don't have the numbers, but I would take an educated guess that the vast majority of gun crimes in the US are committed with handguns as opposed to long guns. It's just not practical for your average hood or professional robber to carry a rifle or shotgun around with them. That being the case, perhaps there is a balance in society to be struck that says that if you not only want to be a gun owner, but specifically own a handgun, then maybe it should be incumbent on you to store it in a burglar-resistant manner. And, that doesn't have to break the bank. I'm sure you can get a simple key safe that you can bolt down somewhere for well under $50. If you want additional fancy features, such as an electronic lock with easy in-the-dark access, then you pay more. Note that I'm just having a conversation here - not presenting a researched position paper. This is after all just a discussion board.
Originally Posted By Mr X It is a discussion board, indeed. I enjoy discussions which involve different people with different takes giving their input (without the posturing that seems to happen so often), and I appreciate your interesting comments. So interesting, in fact, that I feel motivated to research the issue more and see what else I can learn. Thanks!
Originally Posted By Mr X ***I think that most people agree that there's a legitimate public purpose in mandatory auto insurance, and enough so that it's okay to have the law, even if a certain subset of people is rendered unable to drive because they can't afford it*** I would say that the auto issue is sort of a middle ground, but worthy of consideration. It's a middle ground because a) it's not a "right" per se and b) you don't HAVE to drive a car (thus you're not FORCED to buy anything if you don't want to...you just can't drive. On the gun issue, it's a specified right so it's tough to legislate any requirements (particularly requirements that could be overly burdensome to people with less income, relatively speaking). On the HEALTH CARE issue (full circle), mandating insurance is interesting (compared to cars) in that nobody can "opt out", that is to say you can chose not to own a car or be a driver but everyone is required to have insurance. I guess I'm all over the road here, but somehow the legalities and the "American-ness" of all of this is something I think very worthy of discussion. In Japan, you MUST have health insurance and there is no way to opt-out (even if you're jobless, you are required to possess the "public option", which as a self-employed type is exactly what I have...and it costs me very little but at the same time it IS a cost). So what, we're still talking about guns or something?
Originally Posted By mele Exactly, if you can't afford to properly secure the gun then you can't afford to own the gun.
Originally Posted By Mr X Well, that's where the whole "right" thing comes into play. You have the right to vote, and they've struck down poll taxes again and again for the simple fact that it doesn't matter how poor you might be..it's your right. Now, of course guns are expensive so it may seem as though you could argue "what's a little more money for secure storage?", but the counter-argument would be easy enough to make. If someone were to already possess a weapon (perhaps a family member willed it to them or something), why should they be required to shell out more money for something that's their inalienable right to possess?
Originally Posted By barboy /// a lone, unarmed old woman in her home,....... two thugs kicked in her door and killed her./// I am not sure if you are indirectly saying "if only she would have had a gun then she would likely be alive"...... if that is your basic point then I just don't see it. That woman, I would strongly bet, would have still experienced the same fate--- gun or no gun. I'm thinking that she had a better chance of shooting herself in the foot, hitting a wall or at best wounding one of the two intruders/assailants..... either way, I would strongly suspect she was done.
Originally Posted By pecos bill I would venture to guess that with a gun in hand, she would have at least stood a fighting chance, and thats a hell of a lot better than what she got. Not all older ladys are uncoordinated simpletons, which seems to be what you guys are suggesting in saying she stood no chance, armed or not.
Originally Posted By barboy ///Not all older ladys are uncoordinated simpletons/// Why sure they are---every last one one of them; they are all too terribly emotionally and physically frail to hold, point and pull was well.
