I am anti-gun (personally and for my family) so nothing would really change, for us.

I would probably jump up and down dancing with glee but I realize I am in the minority.

What will you do if pigs fly out your butt? No one in the government wants to take your guns away.

I live in gun-free country,so I don’t see there’s a problem.

They won’t, Rangie. Here’s why.

1— They dont have the civil power to stop the outraged people taking to the streets.
2— People are like babies. If you physically take something from them, they bitch.
3— That’s why it makes so much more sense to simply make bullets unavailable.

They’re working on that pesky first issue.

Fine by me.

@dpworkin you are such a pleasant fellow, you must get quite tickled with yourself. nevertheless, there has been talk about it.

@Rangie Check yer PMs

@tinyfaery Some of us who are members of a traditionally persecuted minority don’t intend to go like sheep to the slaughter next time. I am armed, and I think any Jew who is not armed is a fool. For five thousand years the Jews have come under deadly attack every 75 years or so, and we are about due.

@Rangie there has been talk about it.

Where and when?

@dpworkin Unfortunately, I tend to agree with your thoughts, though I loathe to support most comments along these lines. Most of the time people who say things lke that have emotional issues. In this case, I trust who made the statement.

I look forward to the day the government gets rid of guns.

@Rangie It is a protected right under the Constitution, and Obama specifically denied he intended to try to change anything. It has not appeared on his radar screen that I can see, even when people are staging rallies while carrying openly.

@dpworkin I certainly hope you are not about due. Well I don’t know about carrying openly, but I do preserve the right to have my gun.
Now why can’t I get an answer like the one you gave
@tinyfaery ???

Yes, this does seem to be one of the anti-Obama rallying cries that has no teeth at all, tant ps.

@janbb Wrong, but thanks for you assumption anyway.

@jaytkay http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?ID=4227

I don’t have one and neither do my parents, so it doesn’t have much of a personal effect on me, but I disagree with the idea of banning guns.

I would buy ear plugs in bulk.

I further find it ironic that you’d ask this q around the same time you asked about humanity turning into savage animals and people not realizing the value of a human life

@KatawaGrey That is very helpful, thanks.

@Simone_De_Beauvoir Really? That is exactly why I asked it. I want to be able to protect my self. duh

@Rangie Then you’d be just as savage – I’m just saying. And I didn’t know that this question was about self-defense. Do you think this debate is about self-defense?

@Rangie: Perhaps you should inquire as to why I said that. :)

I will just assume that you asked so I will tell you.

I will buy ear plugs in bulk to protect my ears from all the people complaining about their guns getting taken away.

All right, I wouldn’t actually do that. ;)

@Simone_De_Beauvoir So if someone broke into your home and was going to shoot your kids, are you going to say Oh please don’t do that, I have no way of protecting them.

@phillis http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?ID=4227

Hysterical two-year-old predictions which have not come to pass.

Which do not involve taking away legally-owned guns.

@KatawaGrey Ha! I guessed that one right :)

@Rangie None of us can answer what we would do. I don’t know how to use a gun and would fail miserably even if I had one. So whatever would happen would happen – I will not live my life in fear, I will not learn how to hurt another in this manner and I will not, under any circumstances, have a gun in this house – that’s just about the values we want to instill in our children.

For many of us on the left, Obama is distressingly conservative on issues such as gun control.

@Rangie: I would imagine that @Simone_De_Beauvoir would do the same thing that any mother would do were her children threatened: Try to kill the person attempting to hurt them regardless of bodily harm.

Also, is your gun on your person at all times? If not, I doubt a would be murderer would give you a sporting chance to run and grab it.

@Simone_De_Beauvoir Thanks for your answer. Your entitled to live your life anyway you want. And to raise you children anyway you want. Far be it from me to tell you anything that you don’t already know. bye-bye

@KatawaGrey I doubt simone would act in any violent manner, she might give her children the wrong idea. Aside from that, you doubt a lot of things you know nothing about. You have no idea how fast I can get to my gun or what a good shot I am. So, let’s not assume.

It’s not a reasonable question to ask since no one is trying to take your guns away!

@Rangie You assume about my actions so @KatawaGrey can assume yours – I said I wouldn’t hurt a person in that manner but I would protect myself and my children to the best of my abilities – I think my brains and a variety of others skills would come in handier than your gun – I find that any criminal using guns isn’t very bright

Tea bagger propaganda.

Have any of you heard of the frog and cold water? Well if you put a frog in hot water he will jump right out. But, if you put a frog in cold water and bring it to a boil, you will cook him. So are you a cold water frog or a hot water frog?

Listen closely: No one is trying to take your guns away.

@Simone_De_Beauvoir so sorry simone, I thought you said whatever would happen would happen. My mistake. I guess.

@Rangie: I didn’t assume anything about your actions. I asked if you kept your gun on you at all times. However, I did assume that a would be murderer wouldn’t let you get to your gun. If you can get to it faster than someone with a gun trained on you can pull the trigger, wow, your one fast grandmother! Good for you for keeping in such good shape! I know I wouldn’t be able to get to my gun safe, put in the combination, load the gun and shoot the guy before he shot me.

You do have a gun safe, don’t you? I mean, otherwise an unarmed robber could easily steal it from you or a young child could accidentally kill himself. But, hey, you still get to keep your gun, right? :)

@Captain_Fantasy Is that a fact or do you just think that won’t happen?

@KatawaGrey as a matter a fact I do have a gun safe. I also keep my doors locked. my your are a little smarty pants aren’t you?

Is this an actual question or were you just hoping for a chance to talk about how great your guns are and how much better you are than the rest of us idiots who choose not to own them?

@PandoraBoxx sorry, I’m not a tea bagger. I sure don’t want to have the last laugh, but hey, it is what it is.

@Rangie You don’t want to have the last laugh? Seriously? What are you, on some kind of a kick today, spreading more of your peachy joy? Geez, sometimes, I read your stuff and worry for your grandchildren.

@Rangie: As it happens, yes, my IQ is in the 98th percentile. My pants share a similar IQ. :) Thankfully, my mother spares no expense when it comes to the intelligence of my clothing.

Although my socks have trouble with basic algebra after they’ve had a few beers…

@nikipedia I never said anything about you idiots not owning guns. You said that.

Then what exactly were we supposed to take away from your bizarre frog anecdote?

@Simone_De_Beauvoir oh, defensive are we? Just asking a question. Thank you for your input. somewhat interesting.

I personally believe guns hurt more people than they help.

@nikipedia Gee, I thought that was a great way to show what is happening. I only asked which are you a cold frog or a hot frog. Not Bizzare at all. Stop and think about it. A lot of our freedoms are going in the cold water.

@Rangie I am not defensive. I just don’t get the point of this ‘discussion’ and I don’t see how anything you’re saying is indicative of wanting to have a learning experience. And I hope that none of us are ever in a place where you can later have a last laugh with your gun by your side and your heart cold as ice.

@Rachienz You are probably right. That is what they are used for when defending yourself. I would not be trying to help the person trying to harm me or my family.

@Rangie It isn’t remotely likely to happen in the USA. Far too many people support the right to bear arms, and the constitution does as well. Far from confiscating people’s guns, President Obama expanded rights by signing into law the bill that allows us to carry loaded weapons in national parks and wildlife preserves.

But you asked as a hypothetical, so let’s say some future administration decides it’s in their interest to ignore the Constitution and 220 years of case law. Right now, I don’t have a gun. My wife hates them, so out of respect for her feelings, we are not armed. If I did have one and knew full well it was legal and I was within my rights, I would refuse to willingly yield it, and thus provoke an arrest. Then I would vigorously defend my rights on Constitutional terms.

@Simone_De_Beauvoir funny how people think when they have nothing real to say. You said in the beginning you don’t have a gun, so this question doesn’t apply to you. Yet you are still here. Why is that?

What I mean is that they fall into the wrong hands more often than they are given the opportunity to protect oneself. They tend to be used in more domestic situations irrationally than in the event of an intruder.

It does seem unrealistic that a person is able to gain access to their gun and load it in enough time to use it in the way intended.

@Rangie Because people that I care about are talking

@ETpro Thank you for a well thought out answer.

I don’t own a gun and don’t like them very much but the government seizing guns, to me is a prelude to military occupation and martial law. Therefore, I would have to find a way to obtain a gun and appropriate ammunition. The next thing that will happen is likely to be very very bad.

@Simone_De_Beauvoir good, you can listen. unless you have something to contribute to my Q, other than silly nonsense.

@Ron_C You are probably right. But I don’t want to get caught without mine. And with proper training and understanding of guns, I fully intend to keep all of our guns.

@Rangie That’s not how fluther works – it is not your question to moderate

@dpworkin if that were to happen, I expect that, this time the jews would have many allies. Like I said, I don’t like guns but would certainly find one if the government took this action.

Cat fight!

@Rangie keep your gun so that I won’t have to get one.

Cheer as loud as I can!

Of course you do know who the government is, right? You and me!

@Captain_Fantasy Puhlease..I’ll let you know when a cat worthy of my fight is around

@Simone_De_Beauvoir I do believe your answers are suppose to address the Q. This a perfectly acceptable Q. You don’t happen to own a gun, so I guess you would not be able to tell us what you would do. That okay. I want to know what people that do own guns think.

Is it possible that we can self-mod? Just, oh, I dunno…..try to be civil? All I’m looking for here is effort, not necessarily perfection.

@Rangie Oh, maybe you should have stressed in your q or details that this was a gun club meeting. Yet you didn’t.

@Rangie: You did not specify that this question was directed at people who only own guns. You said “our guns” which I took to mean the guns owned by the collective american people, of which @Simone_De_Beauvoir and myself are apart.

@phillis: We tried to be civil by answering the question. @Rangie got mad that we didn’t like guns. :(

@Simone_De_Beauvoir I thought your first answer was perfect. let’s leave it at that.

Pretend you are Canadian!

I don’t own a gun and I have no firm plans to acquire one (or more). But if that became a stated aim of our government, then obviously it would be time to:

A. Change my plans and
B. Change the government. Again.

@KatawaGrey It really is not a matter of liking a gun or not. It a matter of someone trying to take it away.
It was directed to everyone, but if you don’t have a gun, obviously it doesn’t affect you. Right?

@Rangie: As I said, it does affect me. I would have to put up with a whole lot of whining from people who want to own guns. Although I suppose the only difference is that now I have to put up with people whining that their guns might be taken away.

@CyanoticWasp thanks for a decent answer. You probably don’t agree with me, and that is okay, most of these people don’t. That doesn’t bother me, I was just asking a question, looking for an answer, not people trying to cut me up, Which thankfully they didn’t.

@CyanoticWasp & @Ron_C Same here. If it came to pass that our government decided to ignore the law and round up everyone’s guns, I would make it a point to get one.

Gun laws can afftect a whole population, not just the individuals who keep them. It frightens me that large number of people are able to have guns and use them where they see fit.

You may take responsibilty with your arms but not everyone does. The fewer guns that are available to society, the fewer gun related incidents.

I don’t have any guns. I lost all of mine in a tragic boating accident. :-(

@KatawaGrey sorry you have to put up with whinning people. I don’t whine, it doesn’t help. One has to do something, which I do. I vote.

@Rangie If you really wanted answers, why do you brush off and dismiss almost every single one that doesn’t match your personal opinion? And it’s ridiculous to say that this topic doesn’t affect people who don’t own guns. Guns are not only used against people who own them.

@Rangie – I would like to personally clarify that I do not intend to “cut” anyone up. I do like to put my opinions and points across. I don’t believe differing opinions should be taken personally by others unless specific attacks occur.

@MacBean Look, if you go back and read, I think you will find I was attacked in many different ways, So I responded. Okay?

@Rachienz It is my opinion that the criminals will always have guns. I am not going to be at their disposal if I an help it.

Why is everybody ganging up on Rangie?

@Rangie – I understand that, for sure. I am of the opinion that if they weren’t manufactured, no one would have them. Sadly, this is probably an unrealistic perspective.

Shoot them. Duh

@Ron_C It is fun to gang up on an older woman?

@Rangie: Pardon me, perhaps whining was the wrong phrase. I put up with people who “worry vocally.”

Wait, so we’re not suppose to respond to you because you’re an older woman? That is a cheap shot, very cheap indeed. We are “ganging up” on you because you react nastily and sarcastically to those trying to have a conversation with you who happen to disagree and because you’re trying to tell us how we can answer questions on this site.

I don’t own a gun and I will never own a gun.

My father is a hunter, and his hunting is very important to him. It is kind of a family thing passed down from father to son. He would be very unhappy with such an arrangement. I doubt he would willingly relinquish his hunting guns and if they were forcibly taken, he’d probably be on his roof with his bow and arrows playing robin hood.

@Rangie I’m an old guy, with old values and never would gang up on a woman. By the way 67’s not that old anymore. Didn’t you hear, 60 is the new 40?

Sorry guys, I have to go shoot a liberal, oops, I mean a turkey, and cook dinner for my husband. Be back later. Carry on. Anymore the government is not you and I, it is those people in Washington. and they are talking about gun control…..

@Rangie Sorry guys, I have to go shoot a liberal, oops—oh no, that’s funny, really…be careful not to choke on that turkey.

This is the problem:
Some people are so afraid the government is coming for their guns that they refuse to believe no one is coming to take your guns.

These open carry folks really need to switch to decaf.

The last thing this country needs is a bunch of paranoid citizens bunkering down in their homes, arming themselves against their unseen enemies.

@Captain_Fantasy: I think if they stay in their homes, that would be just fine. :P

@Simone_De_Beauvoir I’m leaving too. Since I don’t have a gun to shoot a turky, I guess I just go choke a chicken.

@Ron_C Well whatever makes you less savage is fine by me ~

A question about society becoming more savage and pro-gun rhetoric. Huh? Did I miss something.

@tinyfaery you and me both

I’m confident that now we’ve finally solved this problem once and for all.

Good talk.

- The “protection” excuse is old and tired. How often do you hear of someone shooting an intruder in their house, saving their family? How often do you hear of homicides, street violence, accidental shootings and the like?

- Ain’t no one trying to take your goddamn guns.

- You have the right to fight to ensure guns aren’t taken away from you. I’ll nod in understanding as you do so. Just don’t think you’re going to go in shooting if they enforce some prohibition deal. You will lose. On many levels.

@Ron_C I find it ironic that you are proposing the youth on the thread should unquestioningly feign respect when that which you defend so willingly jokes about taking the life of another human being.

Don’t pull age as if it’s akin to pulling rank. Sir.

There’s absolutely nothing to worry about, the government isn’t coming to take your guns away. Calm down with the crazy. I’m not at all concerned about them taking mine.

It’s kind of a shame seeing some jellies who are usually good about not making gross generalizations abandon their thoughtfulness, and jumping on the ”All gun owners are evil!” bandwagon. It’s getting really tired. I’ve been a responsible gun owner for years, and I’m really sick of that mindset.

@Grisaille

Where do you live? I can tell you where you don’t live . . . Los Angeles. And I’m sure there are many other places like this drain. Where it is VERY common (i.e. almost every day) on the news someone is messed up by a criminal, killed, and very often has gangsters barging into their homes and holding them up.

@jeffgoldblumsprivatefacilities I want to understand what you’re saying. You own a gun and you say you are a responsible gun owner. Okay, I will buy that. Does it hurt you personally or emotionally when people say negative things about guns? Why is that? I don’t want to say things that hurt others because of where they are in life but I want to understand, I guess, how owning a gun makes you fallible or a victim to these comments

@Grisaille you obviously haven’t heard the George Carlin routine about the over coddled youth in this country. I am afraid I paraphrased him a little but stand by my statements.

I, personally don’t require respect from youth here or anywhere but I do expect civility. I assume that English is not your first language so I won’t correct your grammar, how is that for not “pulling rank”?

I do live in L.A. In a not so nice part of L.A. I feel very safe without a gun.

@Ron_C

You should expect civility from everyone, regardless of age.

@jeffgoldblumsprivatefacilities I have to run for tonight but I will absolutely read what you have written as soon as I get to fluther tomorrow. Thanks, in advance

I’m in the process of buying one, not because I plan to use it, but in the unlikely event Obama/Pelosi/Reid are not neutered in November, I want one under my pillow…just to kind of fondle it.

@DominicX true

@DominicX Okay, okay, so I need to be more civil. Well, I say if they dish it, I will not back down to them. I don’t care who they are or how young they are. This is not the first thread they have gang up on me. So it is what it is. And now they are privately PMing me with nasty remarks. So, what can you do.?

@Simone_De_Beauvoir It’s not that I feel hurt or victimized, I just hate it when people make generalizations about all gun owners, especially ones that are way off-base. It seems that many think that being a gun owner means I’m just a danger waiting to happen, or that I go out in the woods and shoot randomly at animals or other objects, or that I’m a redneck with a gun rack in the back of my truck. None of these things are true. I’ve seen how people have reacted when they find out that I’m a gun owner (both online and in real life), and they just seem to automatically look down on me without trying to understand how I use guns or why I have them.

In the spirit of understanding: Shooting guns has been sort of a family tradition, and a bonding experience in my family. Around age 13, my dad enrolled me in several gun safety classes before even letting me touch one. After I passed those, he took me to a designated shooting course, and taught me what he knew. We shoot clay pigeons, and nothing else. For several years, I was a competitive shooter (shooting in various tournaments), which required me to have up to date safety training. I own 3 guns (two shotguns and one rifle), and when they are in my house, they are unloaded and locked in a safe. All ammunition for them is locked in another safe in a separate location. I don’t own guns because of a feeling that I have to have them in order to protect myself, or for hunting, or any other purpose, they are just for a recreational activity. I understand the danger associated with them, and take gun safety very seriously.

I didn’t mean to sound snippy in my previous comment, it just seems that many people judge gun owners, without really taking a moment to understand. I can even see why many are nervous about the topic of guns and gun owners, (if I didn’t have experience with them, I might feel the same way). And truthfully, there are some very dangerous gun owners out there, and they scare me too. I just hope people keep an open mind and judge the individual gun owner, and not the group as a whole.

I wouldn’t mind a bit. I hate guns.

Also, a little known fact: Homeowners who are the victims of burglaries have their own guns turned against them, before they have a chance to use it themselves, more often than not. This means that owning a gun and keeping it in your house makes burglaries (etc.) more dangerous for you, not less.

@jeffgoldblumsprivatefacilities Great Answer

No_better_place_than_here

@Grisaille I have defended myself and my family with a gun. I didn’t have to shoot anyone with it, I didn’t even have to get it out of its holster. Just the fact that I yelled I had it was enough.

If you have a gun and are trained how and when to use it, you won’t have to shoot someone to successfully defend yourself.

The county I live in is half the size of Rhode Island. There are 2 deputies and a Sheriff, usually only one of them is on patrol at any given time. If I call the cops and they are on the other end of the county it is at best a 45 minute race to get to my house in good weather. I am not going to trust my life to someone that will get there in time to shove me into a body bag.

@WestRiverrat Curious.What country do you live in?

Yiiiiiiiiii-HAAA! From muh cold dead hands, boah.

@DrasticDreamer An intruder can get someone’s gun and turn it on them. But it doesn’t always happen that way. I actually did defend my home from an intruder once many years ago. I lived in a neighborhood that was sliding downhill, with some poorer, less desirable people slowly spreading from a slum into what had once been a nice area with stately old homes.

One night, there was a bunch of hooting and hollering in the street as a teenage gang ran around raising Cain, throwing rocks to break out the street lights and such. Fortunately for us, when I heard the commotion, I got my 30 cal carbine out, made sure it was at the ready, and sat down on the couch with it on my lap.

A short time later, one of the neer-do-wells broke open my front door. I leveled the rifle at him, and he smiled and said, “Oops, wrong house, sorry.” and beat a hasty retreat. The street got instantly quiet. I went to the window, and the gang had totally evaporated from sight. It was another 10 minutes before the police finally arrived..

Read @WestRiverrat‘s post incorrectly. I read country not county. My bad.

The irrational belief that the current government is determined to take away all the guns is characteristic of those prone to many kinds of right wing delusions. The sad thing thing is how many ignorant knuckle dragging Neanderthal rednecks are willing to believe and parrot such nonsense.

@Dr_Lawrence so, you are a cold water frog. that is so impressive what you wrote about the right wing delusions. Oh I see not only a cold water frog, but a lamb as well. May I ask, who is your shepherd? Personally I think for myself I believe the current politicians in office are planning to remove some of our freedoms we know today. Including gun control. So mister name caller, jump right into that cold water.

Well folks, thanks for your input. good or not, it was interesting. I did not choke on my turkey, sorry. but I live to challenge you another day. I will keep my guns at any cost.

@Dr_Lawrence
“The irrational belief that the current government is determined to take away all the guns is characteristic of those prone to many kinds of right wing delusions. The sad thing thing is how many ignorant knuckle dragging Neanderthal rednecks are willing to believe and parrot such nonsense.”

I’ve been wondering why my knuckles were sore.

I’m still wondering where all the paranoia comes from about the government taking away actual guns…...I haven’t seen any sources or articles or anything…..seriously if someone could show me something…..I’m trying really hard to give these people some leeway and take them seriously.

http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?ID=4227

@ETpro I didn’t say that homeowners who own guns can’t ever protect themselves from intruders. What I said is that it is far more likely that homeowners have their own guns turned against them. The facts speak for themselves – and they don’t bode well for homeowners with guns.

When ever anyone in the US government tries to talk sensibly about gun ownership and putting some sensible controls in place, the NRA and their knee jerk trained followers all cry ‘They’re trying to take our guns away! Quick.. start quoting the Constitution!’
I’ll just put that on my list of reasons I’ll never move back there. No body wants to take your hunting rifle away, but I think we can ALL agree that we’d like to see fewer DEATHS of human beings by guns in the US. The stats are stupidly vivid. What is WITH Americans and their killing of themselves and each other with guns??

@rangie… No points for using the NRA as a ‘source’ of information on this subject.

@DrasticDreamer And to be fair, I didn’t say that homeowners usually come out on top. I will be the first to admit I was darned lucky to have forewarning and be ready. But are you certain of the fact that homeowners are more likely to lose the battle with an intruder? Can you cite a credible source for that information?

@Blackberry In the 1930s, by FDR’s decree, the US gov’t made it illegal to own gold and confiscated all gold in private hands. Do you think that could not happen again? Not just guns, but anything.There is already a precedence for it. However, I don’t think we have such a docile public now, and there would be rioting the streets if the govt tried to take anything away from citizens. But I firmly believe a powerful secretive govt, such as we have now. would do in a minute.

@ETpro Yes, give me a moment and I’ll post links.

I don’t own a gun and I don’t think I ever will. I personally have never felt the need to own one. The U.S is really not a very dangerous place so I really don’t understand people’s infatuation with guns. If you lived in a third world country then I would understand the need to protect yourself. But how many times do you really feel threatened to the point where you need a gun here in the U.S.? Honestly, I could care less if the government interfered with our right to own guns. I would probably feel safer out in the streets knowing that I’m not going to get shot by some short tempered nut case because I cut him off on the freeway.

US Center for Disease Control: You can work the data and see, state by state, how many deaths by what ever cause including deaths by firearms.

http://wisqars.cdc.gov:8080/cdcMapFramework/

@kheredia I agree that there is a level of irrational paranoia in many who are so concerned about having a gun, or lots of guns. The thought that I am not safe without a basement full of machine guns and hand grenades is silly.

But I disagree that the government deciding to confiscate people’s guns would be a thing of no concern. For what reason would our government want to do that? The first motivation that would occur to me is they are planning to take away much more, and don’t want any interference in the agenda. I am glad that no such plans are afoot.

No guns here, I will never own a gun.

I live in a rural setting on property and I have had so many people tell me I ‘should’ keep a gun on hand. Mostly men that are hung up on the Danial Boone trip. lol

I tend to date professional types from the city and they are blown away that I live alone in the woods.

OMG woman you need a gun!

Really?

Nothing to fear out here other than the wildlife which are not at all frightening to me.

I am far too pacifist and far too bohemian to ever go the redneck route.

I believe most guns do fall into the wrong hands and probably should be taken away.

There are far more wrongful shootings in America than any other country, and thats a fact.

Watch Michael Moores ’ Bowling for Columbine.’ That doc. will set you straight right quick! lol

@ETpro Well, we all know that nobody is going to take our right to own guns. I just think some people really over do it with their love for guns and then they use the excuse of safety. I bet if they spent just one month in a country like Guatemala or El Salvador they would appreciate how safe we really are in the U.S.

@kheredia Can’t argue that. There are places like Somalia where nearly everyone has at least one AK-47. Last time I checked, it wasn’t making things very safe there.

@plethora…. confiscation of ALL gold? Really? No. It allowed retention of gold up to a certain face value and safe deposit boxes were NOT seized, as the rumour will have you think… it was basically a paper transaction done to help improve the US dollar value because it was still on the Gold Standard… Stop reading and then repeating misinformation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_6102

Perhaps it would have been better to let the currency fall and have the entire banking structure collapse and have the chaos right wingers seem to love so they can take their guns out and start shooting.

I am so glad you all feel so safe without owning a gun. However, I don’t. Is that okay? Am I not allowed to feel what I feel? I grant you all to feel safe, but you will not grant me the same.
I wonder how it is that you all know everything and you are the only one’s that are right. Where do you get all of your facts to support your suppositions.

Seriously, you need to not take this site so seriously.

@Captain_Fantasy You are so right. sorry, I feel strongly about some things. I hope I can count on you to remind me of that. Thanks

@Rangie You have every right to feel any way you want. Nobody can take that away from you, but I assure you that if you experienced the world a little more, you would realize that you’re a lot better off than you think you are.

See thats what I’m talking about.
Take a chill pill.
I’m not taking away your guns.

@Rangie I don’t see as much you bashing in this thread as you seem to. There are going to be people who disagree with your view but it would please them much less if you didn’t react. That said, in Canada it’s handguns we don’t have. There’s lots of rifles floating around- on most farms, probably.

@Rangie

I have no qualms with responsable gun owners. Just not my cup o’ tea.

In M.M.‘s ‘Bowling for Columbine’ he is very succinct in showing the stats.
Canadians have tons of guns yet only a couple of homicides a year and virtually no accidental shootings. Many countries such as Great Briton manage just fine without firearms, even though a few incidents do occur.

America IS a violent country, and the thing about guns is they are DEADLY!

Cheap ass 22’s loaded with K-mart bullets killed & crippled dozens of innocent children at Columbine.

There is NO EXCUSE for the gross NEGLECT & ABUSE of weapons in this country!

No more wolves and indians to fight, isn’t it about time we give up our wild west mentality?

FFS you old folks are grumpy.

@ETpro

Charles C. Branas, PhD, Associate Professor of Epidemiology in Biostatistics and Epidemiology, University of Pennsylvania – School of Medicine, states:

“Overall, Branas’s study found that people who carried guns were 4.5 times as likely to be shot and 4.2 times as likely to get killed compared with unarmed citizens. When the team looked at shootings in which victims had a chance to defend themselves, their odds of getting shot were even higher.”

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17922-carrying-a-gun-increases-risk-of-get-shot-and-killed.html

http://www.med.upenn.edu/apps/faculty/index.php/g275/p18132

American Journal of Public Health: http://ajph.aphapublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/AJPH.2008.143099v1
———————————————————————————————————————

“The issue of “home defense” or protection against intruders or assailants may well be misrepresented. A study of 626 shootings in or around a residence in three U.S. cities revealed that, for every time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides (Kellermann et al, 1998). Over 50% of all households in the U.S. admit to having firearms (Nelson et al, 1987). In another study, regardless of storage practice, type of gun, or number of firearms in the home, having a gun in the home was associated with an increased risk of firearm homicide and suicide in the home (Dahlberg, Ikeda and Kresnow, 2004). Persons who own a gun and who engage in abuse of intimate partners such as a spouse are more likely to use a gun to threaten their intimate partner. (Rothman et al, 2005). Individuals in possession of a gun at the time of an assault are 4.46 times more likely to be shot in the assault than persons not in possession (Branas et al, 2009). It would appear that, rather than being used for defense, most of these weapons inflict injuries on the owners and their families.”

http://library.med.utah.edu/WebPath/TUTORIAL/GUNS/GUNSTAT.html

http://faculty.jhsph.edu/default.cfm?faculty_id=739
http://www.researchprofiles.collexis.com/jhu/expert.asp?u_id=970
———————————————————————————————————————-

And, just for fun:

Children Killed by Guns
How many children are killed by guns is a complicated question. The answer depends on a number of factors, including age range, and whether homicide, suicide and/or unintentional-injuries are included in the figure. If the age range is 0–19 years, and homicide, suicide, and unintentional injuries are included, then the total firearms-related deaths for 2006 is 3,218 . This is equivalent to nearly 9 deaths per day, a figure commonly used by journalists. The 3,142 firearms-related deaths for age group 0–19 breaks down to 154 unintentional, 763 suicides, and 2,225 homicides, 42 for which the intent could not be determined, and 34 due to legal intervention. Viewed by age group, 63 of the total firearms-related deaths were of children under 5-years-old, 346 were children 5–14 years old, and 2,809 were 15–19 years old.

http://www.nsc.org/news_resources/Resources/res_stats_services/Pages/FrequentlyAskedQuestions.aspx#question12

@coloma I don’t know about Canada having tons of guns. I don’t know anyone with a gun- by that I mean rifle. There are hunters, trappers and farmers, ranchers but I don’t personally know.

@DrasticDreamer Thanks for the research on it. I did some checking of my own, and came up with the same answer. Your overall chance of dying a violent death is increased if you have a gun in your home, and even more if you carry it in public. This assumes that domestic violence and suicides are included in the statistics, not just incidents between a homeowner and an intruder.

Applause for @DrasticDreamer. Nothing like some facts to settle an argument. <3

I thank all of you for being so NICE to me. have a good day. bye

@faye

Maybe ‘tons’ was overkill ( no pun intended, lol )

M.M. interviewed a number of Canadian gun owners and law enforcement and it was remarkable how few homicide and other gun related deaths there were.
Also how hardly anyone locked their doors too.

My house is never locked and it is a wonderful amenity of my lifestyle that I am grateful for.

@ETpro No problem. And yes, compiling these kinds of statistics isn’t an easy thing to do, because there are many, many variables. Taking a black and white stance when referring to statistics, as of now, is iffy – no matter how one personally feels – simply because of all the variables.

That said, I personally feel that with the provided research (that is truly as scientific as possible) and one’s own research, it isn’t hard to come to a conclusion that guns = bad. Taking into consideration how many children die from guns (regardless of how) is enough to make me feel this way.

Now… I’m off to finish reading a long anthropology essay for school, before I pass out at my computer! :)

@nikipedia Thank you, Phenomenal Lady. (I think that’s my new name for you!) <3

@Coloma By M.M. do you mean his Bowling for Columbine? I need to watch that again. I often forget to lock my doors, so far has been fine. There are a lot of dogs, and it’s an old neighborhood- too far off the beaten path for crooks, I guess. I would be afraid I’d shoot someone who was trying to help not hurt me. I did have a mean old pipewrench under my pillow when I was younger. Don’t know where that is now.

Hide ‘em until the rioting starts.
Not every gun is registered; in Missouri, at least, black-powder firearms are totally untraceable. Seize one armory…

@DrasticDreamer (clap clap clap) I’m applauding your inclusion of New Scientist magazine… and the rest. Good stuff.

Bowling for Columbine contains several factual errors.

I encourage you to read John Lott’s book More Guns, Less Crime.

@faye

Yes, Bowling for Columbine.
Haha, a pipewrench, you killer you!;-)

I am sorry I ruffled so many feathers. I am sorry you can’t accept my conservative opinions. So once you get rid of all of us conservatives, who will you gang bang? Oh well, I guess there is alway an unsuspecting newbee coming along. Have fun, but not at my expense. You have to admit, I did get things going. It certainly was not boring, with all the name calling and can’t wait to post your response to that wicked old woman. Hey, have fun, more power to all of you. Thank all of you that supported me, I love you. Personally, I have more important things to do in my life. bye-bye. I am checking out.

@WestRiverrat

I’m sorry, I can’t help but laugh with a title like that. Hmmm…would that be like more donuts less fat? lol

Is anybody else getting a case of the giggles over the irony that people have a hard enough time keeping civil while talking about gun control? The reason people want guns is to protect themselves from people who won’t employ self control. People say the bad stuff doesn’t exist to the degree the news broadcasts it, and I happen to agree with them. But I don’t forget that it only takes ONE person who sees no value in using self-control to put you or people you love in the fucking ground.

Lest we look through the wrong end of the scope, let’s not forget that the 2nd Amendment IS a right. Those are MY rights, and frankly, I don’t want them fucked with. Even if I agreed that no one wants to take away guns, any talk to “amend” ANY amendments is a threat to every one of us. We MUST discuss it as a united people, not like rabid dogs at each other’s throats. We have plenty of smarts between us to figure this stuff out. Divide and conquer is the oldest trick in the book, aside from prostitution. So is distraction.

I suggest not that we not live in a perpetual state of paranoia, but that we pay attention.

Look what happens when we don’t. When you hear these words, this is your cue to prick your ears: It’s a matter of national security. We want safety for all Americans Now, where have I heard that before? Oh, yeah….the wire tapping laws they passed…..and another power they misused. Anybody here think that was an isolated incident? Anyone here stupid enough to think it won’t happen again? Anyone? Bueller?

Look at what happened while we were busy on 9–12-01 waving our American flags and feeling all patriotic. The Patriot Act (did they name it that as an inside joke or something?) came along and infringed on damn near every right we had…to the government’s advantage.Wait…..wire tapping was to their advantage, too…..wasn’t it? Shouldn’t it be the assholes who did the killing, who pay for 9–11-01? Wake up, people. We stomped George the Third’s ass all the way back to England for a hell of a lot less.

Funny, I ain’t laughing anymore.

I am just sharing my personal dislike of guns, not talking about the government confiscating them all.

The less government the better, the less guns the better , and I do find that books title to be funny…really! :-)

I adhere to no political affiliations, am liberally liberal and conservatively conservative depending on the isse.

They may take all of my guns, oh wait, I don’t have any.

What will you do if people seriously debunk all conspiracy theories and expose anti-government polemics?

@mattbrowne sigh -wouldn’t it be loverly!

@cazzie Well aware that citizens were allowed to keep a little gold, “little”, being the key word. Whatever was owned over “a little” was taken. And, No, safe deposit boxes were not searched. For all practical purposes, except for some professions, like dentists, all good was absconded. Certainly, official reasons were put forth. As they would be for anything the govt wanted to do. I don’t even own a gun. But no I want me 2nd amendment rights taken away…NO

Canuck here and I like the way that we do things.

@jeffgoldblumsprivatefacilities thank you for your answer, GA – I certainly don’t think that gun owners are randomly hunting all the time or any such thing and I understand how it can be a bonding thing for a family, certainly (just not for my family). thanks again
@nikipedia you would think that facts would really settle an argument but alas…that’s not how some people roll
@Rangie ‘gang bang’? maybe you should start using different expressions and really you did nothing controversial or revolutionary, sorry to burst your bubble.

I would be Thrilled!!! There are a million and one ways to defend yourself (both personally and politically) without guns. Guns only kill.

@Coloma Actually John Lott supported your position before he started researching his book. He was doing a study on Florida’s gun laws and expected to see increases in crimes and violence.

The NRA actually opposed his study before he published it.

“What usually happens when people without guns stand up to people with guns.”

Ok I just realized I never did answer the OPs Question.

I would be very concerned. The second amendment is there to ensure that the people will have the means to overthrow the government if the government ever ceased to do the will of the people.

The people that signed the Declaration of Independance and the people that signed the initial Constitution, believed that you could only get good government if we the people have the means to overthrow the government when it goes bad.

We lost the ability to overthrow the government by force a long time ago, though our legal possession of firearms at least slows the process of our growing oppression down.

@WestRiverrat I do not know how one can read into the Constitution the idea that the Founders wanted an armed public as a check on the government. Perhaps that was in their mains: However the fact that it speaks of a “well regulated militia” and that the Constitution itself assigns the final authority over State Militias to the President leaves me wondering if that is what they envisioned. Do you have any background material that would support your contention?

@ETpro I could give you at least three links that include feature-length documentaries that cover this thoroughly. The trouble is, people go ballistic (hehehe) and respond to the same extreme they claim the documentaries do . When I give them they aren’t intended to incite stampedes. Ruminating over what they have to say is certainly not a waste of time, however. Let me know if you want them.

@ETpro… Wasn’t one of the States,... Like Vermont, taking a vote on secession?

I tip my Canadian hat to you @DrasticDreamer. What a well articulated statement!

It seems to me, that there are those that are active in preserving our freedoms, which don’t come free. And those that are inactive and just wait and see, and when a freedom is lost, that is when the inactive start whinnying, only one problem….It’s too late then.

@Rangie I think the distinction might be that we all have different definitions of what our “freedoms” entail. These come pretty close to it for me.

@janbb That is what counts.

@janbb I think your world freedoms are beautiful, but quite unattainable. There is too much knowledge of arms today. So it is somewhat idealistic to ever count on such a thing. Realistically speaking, it will never happen. We need to stand up to protect what we do have. Now, not someday.

@phillis I would certainly like to give any written material a fair hearing. I don’t have a working sound system on my machine, so videos are no help, but any links to written info would be appreciated.

@cazzie There has been talk in Vermont od secession for several years. There are candidates running on a secessionist platform. However, it would be no more legal than when the Southern States did it and far less lasting. I take it as just another sign the inmates are more and more often running the asylum.

@ETpro I think it makes an interesting political point, though. I’m sure they’re not completely serious about the actual move, but it goes to test rules governing Federal control over States rights. ALWAYS an issue that bothered me and really stuffs your court systems up. The individual States are becoming SOOO different (we’re seeing how polarised now with the adopted terms ‘Blue State’ vs ‘Red State’) that the term ‘United’ can only be used loosely. Perhaps the US will become more like Europe in way never expected.

@cazzie Perhaps, and that’s a prospect I do not cherish.

@ETpro I don’t know if @cazzie is wrong or if the “europeanization” of the U.S. is such a bad thing. It is the same principle as breaking up too big to fail banks.

I have always believed that the intelligence of an organization is inverse to the number of people in that organization. 300 million allow for a great loss of intelligence. I don’t see splitting with places like Texas and Arizona as a really big loss.

@phillis “We stomped George the Third’s ass all the way back to England for a hell of a lot less.” That is what really worries me. I have no problem with gun owners or even with the NRA (at least until they get rabid). What really worries me it the fact that the “Patriot Act” was not immediately repealed and that the perpetrators of the act were not punished for a gross infringement of the constitution.

I find it difficult to believe that all of these “Tea Party” patriots would spend time an money rallying against Health Care and not even mentioning the constitutionally devastating Patriot act. Of course, their corporate sponsors are more concerned with corporate freedom than the that of the citizens.

I imagine that it wouldn’t be difficult to hide a cache of weapons, say out in the woods. Preferably near something large and ferrous.

I thought about this question the other night. I think that if the US government ever actually demands citizens turn over their firearms, it would only be after some pretty major (and pretty convenient) catastrophes. And by that time, it will already be too late to do anything so you might as well give them what they want, go home, and get yourself and your family ready for the “survival camps” or whatever they end up calling them. This is so futile it’s not worth worrying about. And there’s always the chance everything will be just fine. Just fine. . . Regardless, it’s not productive to spend time worrying about it.

@Ron_C Even Europe is moving away from the concept of a collection of tiny nation states. I don’t think there is much that would be immediately better in the USA if we split into 50 little nation states. THere would be constant bickering and likely wars over water rights, pollution blowing with the prevailing winds and what have you. A natural disaster like Katrina would devastate a state like Louisiana for multiple generations after the storm. Travel and trade would grind to a screeching halt as border crossings would be set up, interstate traffic taxed, and passports demanded. Having 50 little nation states would absolutely ensure that we would do nothing about pollution and climate change till the sky literally fell on our heads.

I think this persistent meme that “Government is not the solution to the problem, government is the problem.” is destroying the core of American excellence. We can’t do anything about many of our most serious problems now because everyone has become convinced that government fails at everything it does. Oh, except that they have somehow managed to keep thousands of alien abductions and millions of alien encounter witnesses completely secret for 50 years while they study and fly the saucers they have hidden in area 51.

Rangie saying “gangbang” = best laugh I’ve had all day.

@ETpro… it would be ironic, wouldn’t it? That the EU was created to unify the separate countries of Europe, so they could work more collectively on those things you mention… Consumer safety, Pollution, Security, Aid,,, etc…

And then, a bit further down the road, the ‘United’ States separates itself to resemble more sovereign individual States, with a loose Central Body… Just like the EU….hmmm

We were watching an old movie set in the 80’s in Europe and there were BORDER checks and stamps in the passports… we laughed.

@cazzie “Welcome to Arizona. Papers, please.”

@ETpro I agree that the states shouldn’t separate into tiny countries. Just imaging Alabama or Mississippi going it alone. Scary thought. Reagan is probably our most successful president because he started this business of privatizing government and saying that government could not do anything well. Bush, J.R. put the finishing touches on it and the republicans seem intent on insuring that the government never gets back to the greatness it had when we won WWII. The Tea Party is just the right wing of the republican party that seems intent in the final break up of the country.

It is ironic, in a way. Lincoln was a Republican that created a strong union, 150 later it seems intent on bringing back the Confederacy.

@Ron_C Sad but true. It is certainly no longer the party of Lincoln, or Teddy Roosevelt, or Eisenhower.

@ETpro And the Democrats are no longer the party of FDR, Truman, or Kennedy.

@Nullo You won’t get any argument from me on that. Too much cow-towing to the corporate masters who fund both sides.

I would bury them like you. It’s sad that many of you here, (usually the thinkers) fear guns, their imposition has a purpose. This purpose, whether agreed with or not, is the survival against foreign and domestic people. I know for a fact that if no American had a weapon to defend with, and the Russians came to town and ravaged us for some unknown reason; we would be eating our shins for how deep our feet would have gone from shunning the potential. You wear a seatbelt because there is a potential that you can get into an accident. Not your fault. You look both ways when crossing the street because of the potential. You READ HISTORY, so that it may not repeat and when the potential does arrive, you are well prepared. We are in no time of peace and if you haven’t noticed, as a soldier (i always advertise), by the looks of it, there is no sign ahead. I’m sorry.

@Nullo you are correct, we saw that during the health care debate. It seems that there is no need for a left and right party. The democrats seem fully capable of being on the right and wrong side of an issue completely without the help of the Republicans.

The supreme court just verified that corporations have as many rights as real people.. We are now, officially owned and operated but international corporations. Don’t expect to keep your current rights and liberties. That decision put the final nail in democracies coffin. Ironically the Tea Party has little to say about that.

They won’t get mine, but nobody is seriously trying to. This is just more sideshow for the stupid and uniformed to keep them from focusing on the real issues.

@Ron_C Isn’t that interesting. The one thing the real Tea Party in Boston Harbor in December 16, 1773 was the marriage between King George’s government and what was a that time the world’s largest, most profitable and powerful company, The British East India Company. And the something-for-nothing crowd that makes up so much of today’s Tea Party isn’t the least concerned with the Supreme Court handing the largest corporations of today supreme political power. The handlers that pull their strings don’t want them thinking about that issue. The handlers want government of the people, by the corporations and for the corporations; and they are using the directing the populist rage of the Tea Partiers to get it.

@ETpro today’s tea party is the polar opposite of the original one. Their stupidity, ignorance and gullibility is astounding.

@Ron_C @ETpro – Roger THAT and that is the real issue of our time. The corporate co-opting of our Democracy encompasses the rights of privacy, workers rights, voter’s rights, freedom of speech, property rights, the right to petition the government—and all civil rights that have been fought hard for with blood, defended with blood, and now being whittled away by a one-party system while the majority of Americans sit semi-comatose in front of their TVs, while the rest enthusiastically absorb the angry, divisive, corporate-subsidized crap from scum like Beck, Limbaugh, Malkin, Bachmann, et al

@Espiritus_Corvus So we all agree, now what. The Tea Party exists, what do we have to counteract them.

The teabaggers are orphaned whackos. They are not a threat. The threat lies in comatose America. We have a generation, it seems, whose only experience with democracy is the voting process for American Idol.

I believe there will be a cathartic moment, but I am not a soothsayer. I am surprised people haven’t united and fought back by this point. 13 million homes will be foreclosed upon in the next few years as the treasury is robbed. Jobs are disappearing at a steady rate of 450,000 per month. The US has 13% more homeless children than last year. In my state, 38% of the homeless are employed full time ~ the US average is 14%. You have a media that is reporting that things are getting better against all economic indicators. The wars are draining us, but you hear very little about them in the media. As you know, there are state and federal laws being passed daily that are replacing Civil Rights with Corporate Rights. There is resistance out there but the groups that get the press are the ones supported by the same corporate rats that are carving away at the Democracy. The model I’m looking at is Argentina just before their economic reset. Their middle class all but disappeared in the last few years. Their evolution into hell looks a lot like ours.

I have my ear to the ground, but I’m a little busy right now preparing for the tsunami of shit hovering 110 miles off my beach thanks to the good people of BP. When your vote no longer counts, when there are no longer any viable choices for candidates, when the voice of the people is no longer heard, what do they finally resort to? Let me ask you, my friend—any suggestions?

@Espiritus_Corvus I’m pretty liberal but my one suggestion to liberals is don’t be too dismissive of the NRA.

Who dismisses them? Over the years, the liberal gun laws for which the NRA have successfully lobbied have resulted in our streets being flooded with guns. They, by no means, have made this country safer to live in. Once great supporters of the NRA, many state Associations of Chiefs of Police have come out against them. Another example of an organization going too far. They do offer excellent gun safety, marksmanship and maintenance courses, but they are supported financially by the huge American small arms and ammo industry for whom they work to benefit in their lobbying efforts—not the shopkeeper or cab driver who takes the bullet.

Having said all that, I think people would be surprised at how many liberals are gun owners. Over the years, right wing propagandists have done a dangerous disservice to the dittoheads.by creating the image of the “liberal wimp.” Those that have bought into that could be setting themselves up for a tragic surprise.

@Espiritus_Corvus Pardon my poorly worded way of suggesting that the liberals who own guns are probably on to something.

Yeah… all I need is a gun to show that I’m NOT a liberal wimp. not

Has anyone ever considered the fact that it’s easier to justify inhumane acts upon populations where firearms are prevalent during violent states of emergency? Not that we should give up the right to own guns. It’s just something to think about.

@zophu I don’t accept that as a fact. It seems to me governments the world over have violently suppressed their own populations when they felt the need, and they did so most often where the population had little or no means to resist. Hitler killed 10,000,000 of his own people and they were mostly unarmed. Stalin doubled Hitler’s brutality. Chairman Mao likely slaughtered 50,000 of his unarmed citizens. If a goodly portion of the 1 billion people in China had been armed, I wonder if his regieme would have supported his lunacy.

Some here have pointed out that the many guns in America don’t render it a safer state than those with very strict gun laws. I agree that having a nation bristling with arms doesn’t make for a safer street at night. In Somalia, there are more AK-47s than people, and that is about as dangerous a place as you can find on Earth. But there is some comfort, as the corporatocracy looms, in knowing that the American people can be an intractable lot when pushed too far, and that many are armed and knowledgeable in how to use their weapons.

We should be just as concerned about other amendments that are being violated, not just the 2nd. What scares me even more is the outright violation of the 10th amendment by the FDA, USDA and FTC telling us we can’t drink raw milk, treat cancer/other illnesses our own way, and the many poisons put into our foods. Wheres the outrage there? Pretty soon farmers markets will be banned. This sounds like more political propaganda than a legit concern about the constitution. A democrat takes office and magically the tea party and NRA advocates pop up out of nowhere. We should be concerned about the ENTIRE constitution, not just 1 or 2 amendments. Both republicans and democrats have failed miserabely in this department. The government isn’t going to get our weapons before all of our other freedoms are taken away first, they have been doing this very well without taking anybodies weapons and I would have to say you are pretty blind to not be able to see this.

Oops, @ETpro above should have written 50,000,000 for Chairman Mao’s killing spree, not 50,000. Too late to edit.

@ETpro

“30 UNARMED CIVILIANS KILLED IN RIOT”
“30 CIVILIANS KILLED IN RIOT, ILLEGAL WEAPON CACHES FOUND”

@zophu My totals (and I left out a bunch of government butchery, just hit the top 3):

80 million unarmed civilians killed by their own government without having committed any crime.

You respond with 30 people. Let’s at least play in the same ball park. My ball game is going on an the park where the numbers are in the 100 million range and these are all real numbers, real events, links available.

ETpro… so… you want to compare the government where you live with the government of say…. the Sudan? And use that as justification to own firearms of every sort with no restrictions. Hmmmm… pretty loose logic there.

Firearm regulations and restrictions are to keep the ‘bad guys’ from getting a weapon that makes it really easy to kill people. If you’re a good guy, who wants to own a gun responsibly, you’ve got nothing to worry about. But, if there is a man with a history of armed robbery, spouse abuse, drug dealing, serious mental illness…. well, can’t we agree that these people should NOT own a weapon that makes it easy to kill people?

The country I live in has a proper armed, civilian militia. They are volunteers who are vetted for suitability. It’s a bit like an armed Civil Defence department. They don’t have automatic weapons and loads of pistols to show off to friends. They have standard army issue guns, and probably a hunting rifle or two, like many many people here. They have meetings and they train, but it’s not their government they fear because we have a democracy. They remember being invaded by Germany and being ill prepared. The likelihood of something like that ever happening again is remote beyond thinking about, almost, but the mantra, ‘Never Again’ is still heard.

There are many threats to health, happiness and freedom. Restrictions to gun ownership in the USA is not one of them. What passes for ‘food’ on the grocery shelves in the US is a bigger threat. What passes for an education system in the US is a bigger threat. What passes for ‘fair and balanced’ news media broadcasts is a bigger threat.

@cazzie You must have come in late on the discussion. I am in no way an advocate of unrestricted ownership of firearms. My list of butchery of relatively unarmed civilian populations was provided as a rebuttal to @zophu‘s statement, Has anyone ever considered the fact that it’s easier to justify inhumane acts upon populations where firearms are prevalent during violent states of emergency?

I had previously stated that Somalia is a perfect example of the danger inherent in unrestricted firearm ownership. There are more AK-47s in the country than people, and it is one of the most dangerous places on Earth.

@ETpro ooops. Yeah, I think I missed out on the middle bit. I completely read that wrong. I thought someone was trying to justify a well armed civilian population as a deterrent to a government that would kill vast numbers of it’s own people. Sorry. Massacres happen, unarmed population or not.

@ETpro I never said that the prevalence of guns would make it more or less likely for inhumane acts to be performed on a population. I just said it’s easier to make them seem justified when there are guns lying about. I don’t know where this deathtoll competition started.

The key to protecting our gun rights is by supporting the entire constitution in which both republicans and democrats have not done. You can’t just cherry pick at certain amendments and then just magically expect your right to gun ownership to be protected.

@zophu Maybe it is easier to justify them, but the fact remains that all the great slaughters of civilian populations by their own government have not been justified by that. It’s never happened.

@zophu That’s spin that you’re smelling. Makes headlines juicier, alters public perception of actual events.
Journalists will, of course, insist that they’re unbiased. Fact is, they are and don’t realize it because they are.

Perhaps the best way to ensure that guns will be only in the hands of lawbreakers is to make owning a gun against the law.

I prefer gun ownership along the lines of what it is – open, and heavily regulated (although I would prefer more regulatory procedures).

How did that depressed 15 year old kid in Wisconsin get two handguns? Not regulated enough in my opinion.

How do underage children end up getting into car accidents while under the influence?

The fact that a dangerous item can be used by an unintended person resulting in tragic consequences doesn’t mean that the regulation has failed. I agree that there should be more (as I said)...but no amount of regulation renders an unsafe thing “safe.”

I can say that kids here in Norway can’t get their parent’s handguns. Why? Because they’re only used at shooting ranges and the guns are under lock and key and alarm there and NOT in the home. More regulation. Cars are required for transport. What are handguns for, really? They are to kill another person, full stop.

Who’s been saying less regulation in these recent posts?

@cazzie it’s not “the regulations” that work in Norway so much as it is people’s willingness to follow them. You can’t really believe that in the USA it’s really “everything goes”, can you? We have plenty of regulations, laws, rules and policies regarding all kinds of weapons. Really, we’re up to our eyeballs in regulation. ‘Regulation’ in the form of ‘more law’ is useless.

But if people elect not to follow the regulations, what then? All the idealism in the world won’t stop someone who has a gun and wants to use it to harm you.

What works is the 95% or more of responsible gun owners and users who do as you describe: they keep their weapons in safe places, locked and controlled and away from kids and the mentally incompetent and unstable; they use them at controlled ranges or in responsible hunting and they transport them safely. The problem is that law doesn’t prevent people from doing things that they shouldn’t, and it never will.

And handguns do a lot more than kill other people, too. For most robbers all they have to do is ‘show’ the weapon to achieve their aim of robbery. And for many people trying to defend themselves all they need to do is show the weapon to have a planned or attempted attack or robbery be called off.

No… you’re not up to your eyeballs in regulation when it comes to guns. You really have no idea if that’s what you think.

What comes to mind is a quote that says something about prying it out of my cold, dead hands.

@Skaggfacemutt He’s dead now. Save to pry the gun away from the crazy man.

*safe