What the hell, gun people!?!

[TooPatient]

From our Declaration of Independence:
(For anyone who is interested, you should read the whole text! It is quite good: Declaration of Independence

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.



The 2nd Amendment (full text & history )

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed

Definition of militia (n)

mi·li·tia
[ mə líshə ]

1.soldiers who are also civilians: an army of soldiers who are civilians but take military training and can serve full-time during emergencies
2.reserve military force: a reserve army that is not part of the regular armed forces but can be called up in an emergency
3.unauthorized quasi-military group: an unauthorized group of people who arm themselves and conduct quasi-military training

ETA: I saw your edit, and I understand the point you're trying to make. But I think there's a very big difference in the type of weapons manufactured today and the type of violence in our society vs. the time of the framers. I don't think our founding fathers believed you needed an AK-47 to protect your home and family, if that's your interpretation of the 2nd amendment.

1 -- Most of the gun owners I know have training comparable to those in the military. A good chunk of them are current or former military (or reserves). (see #2 also)

2 -- Most of the owners I know are willing should there be a need and stay in touch with officials who are aware of the willingness should there be need.

3 -- There is nothing in our Constitution saying civilians can't be trained. A responsible owner takes classes and those classes try to prepare you for real-world defense situations so that you are prepared and know how to handle yourself.


An AK-47 is more accurate than a handgun even at 7 yards. Fewer shots if you need to protect yourself means less chance of accidentally injuring someone other than the criminal.
With specialized ammunition, you can stop a criminal with fewer shots and have it less likely to penetrate a wall (potentially injuring someone outside your home). I won't go into the details here, but there are special rounds designed for this.
For camping, you can't beat 20 rounds in an AK for protection from a bear. (the right AK with the right rounds of course!)

If you're looking at potential to cause injury in a "mass killing" event, the older rifles are actually more dangerous that way. There is no waiting period. They are CHEAP (one of mine was only $60) and ammunition is easy to get. The rounds they use are VERY powerful and can make it through doors/walls easily and still have enough power to kill people. Most allow you to load multiple rounds and for a practiced person they can be shot pretty quickly.

BTW, a standard round from an AK will (in general) do substantially less damage than a single round from a rifle from the time of the Constitution (and certainly those soon after!). An AK round will make a neat hole through a block of wood and get stuck. A round from a Mosin or 1903 Springfield will cause a poof of sawdust as the block crumbles. (just to mention the ones I have personally used -- at a range in a carefully controlled physics project)
If you're talking damage to a human, this is the difference between treating a gunshot and having an entire limb shattered and un-recoverable. (look at the injuries of the Revolutionary War and the Civil War )



ETA:
My physics project was great!
If you've seen the pictures of a block of wood with a bullet stuck inside in a physics book, that is what I did.
All completed on a range at 150 yards with high berms on three sides. The block of wood was massive (6"x6"x3ft) and held as a pendulum on an 8ft tall frame built entirely of wood. We were the only people at the range during actual testing with very strict safety policies in place.
Oh -- the equations in the book actually work in real life!

 

[dragonfly411]

Woke up this morning to another public/school shooting in the States. It's become so routine, no one on a thread about guns has posted about it, nor was it the subject of any of the news/updates on my FB feed. What a mess things have become.

It was not a public school shooting. People were shot NEAR a school. Not the same.

 

[dragonfly411]

Hi,

Ksingers point about the changes in the types of buyers who go to gun shows is just another interest group protecting itself against its fear, which seems to be the Gov't. mainly. I used to think of those people as the crazies, but now that we know that our gov't has surveillance on all of us, perhaps they are justified. I see America as such a changing society today, where no one can agree on much.
For a democracy to stand it needs consensus on most issues or at the very least a set of rules one plays by. I really think it is crumbling, and with so much disagreement in the society, many look to protect themselves the best way they can think of. Guns are it for many. I think this is a bad thing, but I myself am looking to feel protected, both from the criminals and the gov't. So I have decided on an Uzi, or an AK47. Its on my Christmas list. Then I will feel safe. I am willing to take a safety course.


Annette

You need an Uzi to protect yourself from the government? What do you see them doing to you that you would have to shoot off multiple rounds of bullets?

I dunno about an Uzi, but I know many people who have AK47s and feel much better because of it. And can we be 100% sure of what will happen in the future? I just read an article about a young girl who was "accidentally" shot to death for seeking help at a private home. She was unarmed.

What was your point in mentioning this? Are you saying she was shot by the police?

Lovesvintage - Yes, I apologize, I should clarify that. She was shot by the police. It also happened in my county last fall. Police fatally shot a mentally challenged and unarmed man because he walked towards them. I'm just pointing out we don't know FOR SURE what will happen.

 

[dragonfly411]

Hi,

Ksingers point about the changes in the types of buyers who go to gun shows is just another interest group protecting itself against its fear, which seems to be the Gov't. mainly. I used to think of those people as the crazies, but now that we know that our gov't has surveillance on all of us, perhaps they are justified. I see America as such a changing society today, where no one can agree on much.
For a democracy to stand it needs consensus on most issues or at the very least a set of rules one plays by. I really think it is crumbling, and with so much disagreement in the society, many look to protect themselves the best way they can think of. Guns are it for many. I think this is a bad thing, but I myself am looking to feel protected, both from the criminals and the gov't. So I have decided on an Uzi, or an AK47. Its on my Christmas list. Then I will feel safe. I am willing to take a safety course.


Annette

You need an Uzi to protect yourself from the government? What do you see them doing to you that you would have to shoot off multiple rounds of bullets?

I dunno about an Uzi, but I know many people who have AK47s and feel much better because of it. And can we be 100% sure of what will happen in the future? I just read an article about a young girl who was "accidentally" shot to death for seeking help at a private home. She was unarmed.

What was your point in mentioning this? Are you saying she was shot by the police?

The person who shot her thought she was breaking in. I think this was a tragedy...

Are we talking about the same story? The news report I heard on the radio said she was shot by police? My apologies if I have the details wrong...

 

[TooPatient]

I want to thank you and TooPatient for allowing me to try to put myself in the shoes of a responsible gunowners. I have learned a lot. For one, I would crouch in a corner and cry a scream no one would want to hear out of complete terror if a group of people had guns outside my restaurant, but there are people out there that trust that someone with a deadly weapon will not accidentally or purposefully shoot them. I am assuming this is because they have been exposed to responsible gun owners before.

First off, the diversity in the U.S is unlike most other countries. Every city/county/state feels entirely different than the next (and has wildly different laws) and my perspective is limited from the like thinking people I tend to surround myself with which tend to not be gun owners so thank you for your perspectives.

I think responsible gun owners are (rightfully) getting defensive when someone brings up gun safety or laws that restrict access to guns. That's because you and huge vast majority of gun owners give guns the respect they deserve. Nobody (by this I mean 99%) of the population wants to take that away from responsible gun owners.

But does anyone not see what a combination of every citizen owning a gun and fearing that every other person has a gun & intends to do harm brings? A lot of dead loved ones. What if you shot the drunk guy at your door at 5am? Would he deserve that for being drunk and stupid? A stupid mistake costs you your life and forever alters the lives of everyone he has touched. Or is this (as it already has) going to be common place thinking? You accidentally or stupidly make me scared and you pay the ultimate price?

For the gun owners out there, is there some sort of admission that guns can cause harm (intentionally or not) and a willingness for them to be regulated (background checks, types of guns you can buy, no online sales, no private sales, etc...) for the general safety of all? There is no the government shall not restrict the right to "driving a car, drinking alcohol, etc..." in the constitution so this means there can be laws in place for people to do these activities but restrict the harm to others and themselves in the process. Or is every new law going to be fear that if you let this very good gun safety law pass, there will be another one that is unreasonable or entirely make access to guns illegal?

My mother has a fear of guns despite growing up around my grandfather who is a responsible owner. She had some very bad experiences with my father and is still uncomfortable with guns because of them.

I think who you've been around is a BIG factor in your comfort or discomfort with guns. If all I'd been around was my father and his friends, I'd be terrified of guns and people who wanted to own them. I have gotten to see responsible ownership and have gone from being "okay" with people having guns (so long as I never had to see them) to being quite comfortable with a group of 30+ armed people or seeing someone open carry (even those I don't know).

For me it is not the mere presence of a gun or even what type of gun it is that causes comfort or discomfort. The PERSON who has the gun is where I am comfortable or not. In general, I tend to feel just as comfortable with a person having a gun as I do with them not having a gun. The sort of person who looks uncomfortable, twitchy, tries to follow me, etc is going to leave me uncomfortable even if they don't visibly have a gun.

It is sad that so many people are not responsible. I do believe the vast majority of owners are responsible but it is the irresponsible ones who make the news.

Re: the bolded --
Guns can not cause harm. Improper handling by a person can cause unintentional harm. Using them for defense can cause "harm" (but I see your family living and a criminal dying as NOT bad).
A gun on its own will not cause harm. It takes a person to have anything happen. Irresponsible people showing off for friends or carrying improperly can cause harm (both injuries and increased fears).
As to the regulations for safety, I posted on that a page or two back. There are things that would be okay.


Your example of the person at the door being shot accidentally is a good one.
We had a woman trying to break into our house last summer (2012). I never once laid a hand on a gun while she was there. I called the police and my family gathered in a locked room as we planned in such a situation. We waited there for the police to show up. Had she made it into the house, I was prepared to arm myself but would not have taken any further action unless she managed to get into the locked room with us.
This same sort of thing has happened to several other people I know. They have similar plans and acted similarly.

Yes, an accident could occur but having a plan ahead of time means you don't have to figure it out as you go in a highly stressful moment. Responsible owners take classes and are encouraged to have such plans in place to prevent accidents.

 

[dragonfly411]

I want to thank you and TooPatient for allowing me to try to put myself in the shoes of a responsible gunowners. I have learned a lot. For one, I would crouch in a corner and cry a scream no one would want to hear out of complete terror if a group of people had guns outside my restaurant, but there are people out there that trust that someone with a deadly weapon will not accidentally or purposefully shoot them. I am assuming this is because they have been exposed to responsible gun owners before.

First off, the diversity in the U.S is unlike most other countries. Every city/county/state feels entirely different than the next (and has wildly different laws) and my perspective is limited from the like thinking people I tend to surround myself with which tend to not be gun owners so thank you for your perspectives.

I think responsible gun owners are (rightfully) getting defensive when someone brings up gun safety or laws that restrict access to guns. That's because you and huge vast majority of gun owners give guns the respect they deserve. Nobody (by this I mean 99%) of the population wants to take that away from responsible gun owners.

But does anyone not see what a combination of every citizen owning a gun and fearing that every other person has a gun & intends to do harm brings? A lot of dead loved ones. What if you shot the drunk guy at your door at 5am? Would he deserve that for being drunk and stupid? A stupid mistake costs you your life and forever alters the lives of everyone he has touched. Or is this (as it already has) going to be common place thinking? You accidentally or stupidly make me scared and you pay the ultimate price?

For the gun owners out there, is there some sort of admission that guns can cause harm (intentionally or not) and a willingness for them to be regulated (background checks, types of guns you can buy, no online sales, no private sales, etc...) for the general safety of all? There is no the government shall not restrict the right to "driving a car, drinking alcohol, etc..." in the constitution so this means there can be laws in place for people to do these activities but restrict the harm to others and themselves in the process. Or is every new law going to be fear that if you let this very good gun safety law pass, there will be another one that is unreasonable or entirely make access to guns illegal?

My mother has a fear of guns despite growing up around my grandfather who is a responsible owner. She had some very bad experiences with my father and is still uncomfortable with guns because of them.

I think who you've been around is a BIG factor in your comfort or discomfort with guns. If all I'd been around was my father and his friends, I'd be terrified of guns and people who wanted to own them. I have gotten to see responsible ownership and have gone from being "okay" with people having guns (so long as I never had to see them) to being quite comfortable with a group of 30+ armed people or seeing someone open carry (even those I don't know).

For me it is not the mere presence of a gun or even what type of gun it is that causes comfort or discomfort. The PERSON who has the gun is where I am comfortable or not. In general, I tend to feel just as comfortable with a person having a gun as I do with them not having a gun. The sort of person who looks uncomfortable, twitchy, tries to follow me, etc is going to leave me uncomfortable even if they don't visibly have a gun.

It is sad that so many people are not responsible. I do believe the vast majority of owners are responsible but it is the irresponsible ones who make the news.

Re: the bolded --
Guns can not cause harm. Improper handling by a person can cause unintentional harm. Using them for defense can cause "harm" (but I see your family living and a criminal dying as NOT bad).
A gun on its own will not cause harm. It takes a person to have anything happen. Irresponsible people showing off for friends or carrying improperly can cause harm (both injuries and increased fears).
As to the regulations for safety, I posted on that a page or two back. There are things that would be okay.


Your example of the person at the door being shot accidentally is a good one.
We had a woman trying to break into our house last summer (2012). I never once laid a hand on a gun while she was there. I called the police and my family gathered in a locked room as we planned in such a situation. We waited there for the police to show up. Had she made it into the house, I was prepared to arm myself but would not have taken any further action unless she managed to get into the locked room with us.
This same sort of thing has happened to several other people I know. They have similar plans and acted similarly.

Yes, an accident could occur but having a plan ahead of time means you don't have to figure it out as you go in a highly stressful moment. Responsible owners take classes and are encouraged to have such plans in place to prevent accidents.

I both agree and disagree with the first part of this statement. I think you can be influenced in other ways too in terms of comfort with guns. I never worried about them until I took my hunter's safety course. Now I will literally chew SO out if he even jokes about playing with guns. It's silly, really, but they show you the most scary, worst case scenario videos ever. Same with driving, which is why I'm also a nervous driver.

 

[ksinger]

I just read an article about a young girl who was "accidentally" shot to death for seeking help at a private home. She was unarmed.

She *was* unarmed, but the homeowner didn't know that until after the event.

What he did know was this: there was a person he didn't know on his porch......in *Detroit* (not Mayberry).......at 3:30 a.m.

Have you ever been in a situation where someone was trying to get into your house in the wee morning hours that you didn't know? I have. About 3-4 years ago, I woke up at 4:50 a.m. to the sound of someone trying to come into the front door of my house. From my 2nd story bedroom window that looks down on the front door, I saw a man in his late 20s/early 30s had my storm door open and was trying to open the front door.

Like the total idiot I am, I flung the window open and asked "what the eff are you doing at my front door at 5 a.m.?" Turns out the guy was drunk off his a$$; I suspect he was meaning to access a house behind mine and likely ended up on the wrong street. He mumbled an apology and staggered off.

My heart raced for just more than an hour after that, part of which was spent thinking how incredibly stupid I'd been to do what I'd done.

I live in a reasonably safe small city (not Mayberry-sized but definitely Mayberry feel)--nowhere near like Detroit - and I was scared s@#$less in that moment.

I want to thank you and TooPatient for allowing me to try to put myself in the shoes of a responsible gunowners. I have learned a lot. For one, I would crouch in a corner and cry a scream no one would want to hear out of complete terror if a group of people had guns outside my restaurant, but there are people out there that trust that someone with a deadly weapon will not accidentally or purposefully shoot them. I am assuming this is because they have been exposed to responsible gun owners before.

First off, the diversity in the U.S is unlike most other countries. Every city/county/state feels entirely different than the next (and has wildly different laws) and my perspective is limited from the like thinking people I tend to surround myself with which tend to not be gun owners so thank you for your perspectives.

I think responsible gun owners are (rightfully) getting defensive when someone brings up gun safety or laws that restrict access to guns. That's because you and huge vast majority of gun owners give guns the respect they deserve. Nobody (by this I mean 99%) of the population wants to take that away from responsible gun owners.

But does anyone not see what a combination of every citizen owning a gun and fearing that every other person has a gun & intends to do harm brings? A lot of dead loved ones. What if you shot the drunk guy at your door at 5am? Would he deserve that for being drunk and stupid? A stupid mistake costs you your life and forever alters the lives of everyone he has touched. Or is this (as it already has) going to be common place thinking? You accidentally or stupidly make me scared and you pay the ultimate price?

For the gun owners out there, is there some sort of admission that guns can cause harm (intentionally or not) and a willingness for them to be regulated (background checks, types of guns you can buy, no online sales, no private sales, etc...) for the general safety of all? There is no the government shall not restrict the right to "driving a car, drinking alcohol, etc..." in the constitution so this means there can be laws in place for people to do these activities but restrict the harm to others and themselves in the process. Or is every new law going to be fear that if you let this very good gun safety law pass, there will be another one that is unreasonable or entirely make access to guns illegal?

Yes, there IS this willingness. But people like me and my husband are not the ones screaming the loudest. The 2nd Amendment black helicopter paranoics ARE. (And yes, I realize I probably just offended someone. Oh well.) I have to fly but hope I'll have time to come back and discuss further...

 

[nkarma]

I want to thank you and TooPatient for allowing me to try to put myself in the shoes of a responsible gunowners. I have learned a lot. For one, I would crouch in a corner and cry a scream no one would want to hear out of complete terror if a group of people had guns outside my restaurant, but there are people out there that trust that someone with a deadly weapon will not accidentally or purposefully shoot them. I am assuming this is because they have been exposed to responsible gun owners before.

First off, the diversity in the U.S is unlike most other countries. Every city/county/state feels entirely different than the next (and has wildly different laws) and my perspective is limited from the like thinking people I tend to surround myself with which tend to not be gun owners so thank you for your perspectives.

I think responsible gun owners are (rightfully) getting defensive when someone brings up gun safety or laws that restrict access to guns. That's because you and huge vast majority of gun owners give guns the respect they deserve. Nobody (by this I mean 99%) of the population wants to take that away from responsible gun owners.

But does anyone not see what a combination of every citizen owning a gun and fearing that every other person has a gun & intends to do harm brings? A lot of dead loved ones. What if you shot the drunk guy at your door at 5am? Would he deserve that for being drunk and stupid? A stupid mistake costs you your life and forever alters the lives of everyone he has touched. Or is this (as it already has) going to be common place thinking? You accidentally or stupidly make me scared and you pay the ultimate price?

For the gun owners out there, is there some sort of admission that guns can cause harm (intentionally or not) and a willingness for them to be regulated (background checks, types of guns you can buy, no online sales, no private sales, etc...) for the general safety of all? There is no the government shall not restrict the right to "driving a car, drinking alcohol, etc..." in the constitution so this means there can be laws in place for people to do these activities but restrict the harm to others and themselves in the process. Or is every new law going to be fear that if you let this very good gun safety law pass, there will be another one that is unreasonable or entirely make access to guns illegal?

My mother has a fear of guns despite growing up around my grandfather who is a responsible owner. She had some very bad experiences with my father and is still uncomfortable with guns because of them.

I think who you've been around is a BIG factor in your comfort or discomfort with guns. If all I'd been around was my father and his friends, I'd be terrified of guns and people who wanted to own them. I have gotten to see responsible ownership and have gone from being "okay" with people having guns (so long as I never had to see them) to being quite comfortable with a group of 30+ armed people or seeing someone open carry (even those I don't know).

For me it is not the mere presence of a gun or even what type of gun it is that causes comfort or discomfort. The PERSON who has the gun is where I am comfortable or not. In general, I tend to feel just as comfortable with a person having a gun as I do with them not having a gun. The sort of person who looks uncomfortable, twitchy, tries to follow me, etc is going to leave me uncomfortable even if they don't visibly have a gun.

It is sad that so many people are not responsible. I do believe the vast majority of owners are responsible but it is the irresponsible ones who make the news.

Re: the bolded --
Guns can not cause harm. Improper handling by a person can cause unintentional harm. Using them for defense can cause "harm" (but I see your family living and a criminal dying as NOT bad).
A gun on its own will not cause harm. It takes a person to have anything happen. Irresponsible people showing off for friends or carrying improperly can cause harm (both injuries and increased fears).
As to the regulations for safety, I posted on that a page or two back. There are things that would be okay.


Your example of the person at the door being shot accidentally is a good one.
We had a woman trying to break into our house last summer (2012). I never once laid a hand on a gun while she was there. I called the police and my family gathered in a locked room as we planned in such a situation. We waited there for the police to show up. Had she made it into the house, I was prepared to arm myself but would not have taken any further action unless she managed to get into the locked room with us.
This same sort of thing has happened to several other people I know. They have similar plans and acted similarly.

Yes, an accident could occur but having a plan ahead of time means you don't have to figure it out as you go in a highly stressful moment. Responsible owners take classes and are encouraged to have such plans in place to prevent accidents.

Of course the gun itself doesn't do anything. Neither do cars until anyone drives them except for the random thing another poster posted. But you have to admit hundreds of thousands of people die by being shot by a gun. My question was more do you think they are properly regulated currently? In that the hundreds of thousands are a reasonable number of deaths? No judgement if you do!

It's hard to compare guns to anything else in society because their sole purpose is to kill or harm someone. But there are things that have other causes like cars, airplanes, etc...that have lots of restrictions on who can operate them, how they can be operated, when, etc.. Should laws be put into place that though inconvenient for most people (like speed limits, drinking ages, alcohol sales, etc...) that are necessary for the safety of society as a whole? Do you get my meaning?

In general I like your stories about the safe gun owners you know and trust. My question is though, what about the ones you don't? If your husband gets killed by an irresponsible gun owner, would you think differently? Or is it just bad shit happens sometimes and guns don't kill people, people kill people? You see what they can do....how do we stop people or use them inappropriately? Or are they just collateral damage to protect people's rights?

 

[TooPatient]

I want to thank you and TooPatient for allowing me to try to put myself in the shoes of a responsible gunowners. I have learned a lot. For one, I would crouch in a corner and cry a scream no one would want to hear out of complete terror if a group of people had guns outside my restaurant, but there are people out there that trust that someone with a deadly weapon will not accidentally or purposefully shoot them. I am assuming this is because they have been exposed to responsible gun owners before.

First off, the diversity in the U.S is unlike most other countries. Every city/county/state feels entirely different than the next (and has wildly different laws) and my perspective is limited from the like thinking people I tend to surround myself with which tend to not be gun owners so thank you for your perspectives.

I think responsible gun owners are (rightfully) getting defensive when someone brings up gun safety or laws that restrict access to guns. That's because you and huge vast majority of gun owners give guns the respect they deserve. Nobody (by this I mean 99%) of the population wants to take that away from responsible gun owners.

But does anyone not see what a combination of every citizen owning a gun and fearing that every other person has a gun & intends to do harm brings? A lot of dead loved ones. What if you shot the drunk guy at your door at 5am? Would he deserve that for being drunk and stupid? A stupid mistake costs you your life and forever alters the lives of everyone he has touched. Or is this (as it already has) going to be common place thinking? You accidentally or stupidly make me scared and you pay the ultimate price?

For the gun owners out there, is there some sort of admission that guns can cause harm (intentionally or not) and a willingness for them to be regulated (background checks, types of guns you can buy, no online sales, no private sales, etc...) for the general safety of all? There is no the government shall not restrict the right to "driving a car, drinking alcohol, etc..." in the constitution so this means there can be laws in place for people to do these activities but restrict the harm to others and themselves in the process. Or is every new law going to be fear that if you let this very good gun safety law pass, there will be another one that is unreasonable or entirely make access to guns illegal?

My mother has a fear of guns despite growing up around my grandfather who is a responsible owner. She had some very bad experiences with my father and is still uncomfortable with guns because of them.

I think who you've been around is a BIG factor in your comfort or discomfort with guns. If all I'd been around was my father and his friends, I'd be terrified of guns and people who wanted to own them. I have gotten to see responsible ownership and have gone from being "okay" with people having guns (so long as I never had to see them) to being quite comfortable with a group of 30+ armed people or seeing someone open carry (even those I don't know).

For me it is not the mere presence of a gun or even what type of gun it is that causes comfort or discomfort. The PERSON who has the gun is where I am comfortable or not. In general, I tend to feel just as comfortable with a person having a gun as I do with them not having a gun. The sort of person who looks uncomfortable, twitchy, tries to follow me, etc is going to leave me uncomfortable even if they don't visibly have a gun.

It is sad that so many people are not responsible. I do believe the vast majority of owners are responsible but it is the irresponsible ones who make the news.

Re: the bolded --
Guns can not cause harm. Improper handling by a person can cause unintentional harm. Using them for defense can cause "harm" (but I see your family living and a criminal dying as NOT bad).
A gun on its own will not cause harm. It takes a person to have anything happen. Irresponsible people showing off for friends or carrying improperly can cause harm (both injuries and increased fears).
As to the regulations for safety, I posted on that a page or two back. There are things that would be okay.


Your example of the person at the door being shot accidentally is a good one.
We had a woman trying to break into our house last summer (2012). I never once laid a hand on a gun while she was there. I called the police and my family gathered in a locked room as we planned in such a situation. We waited there for the police to show up. Had she made it into the house, I was prepared to arm myself but would not have taken any further action unless she managed to get into the locked room with us.
This same sort of thing has happened to several other people I know. They have similar plans and acted similarly.

Yes, an accident could occur but having a plan ahead of time means you don't have to figure it out as you go in a highly stressful moment. Responsible owners take classes and are encouraged to have such plans in place to prevent accidents.

Of course the gun itself doesn't do anything. Neither do cars until anyone drives them except for the random thing another poster posted. But you have to admit hundreds of thousands of people die by being shot by a gun. My question was more do you think they are properly regulated currently? In that the hundreds of thousands are a reasonable number of deaths? No judgement if you do!

It's hard to compare guns to anything else in society because their sole purpose is to kill or harm someone. But there are things that have other causes like cars, airplanes, etc...that have lots of restrictions on who can operate them, how they can be operated, when, etc.. Should laws be put into place that though inconvenient for most people (like speed limits, drinking ages, alcohol sales, etc...) that are necessary for the safety of society as a whole? Do you get my meaning?

In general I like your stories about the safe gun owners you know and trust. My question is though, what about the ones you don't? If your husband gets killed by an irresponsible gun owner, would you think differently? Or is it just bad shit happens sometimes and guns don't kill people, people kill people? You see what they can do....how do we stop people or use them inappropriately? Or are they just collateral damage to protect people's rights?

There are too many deaths involving guns.
I think there are also too many deaths involving knives and other weapons too, but those are a bit more difficult to talk about regulations as you can't exactly ban good kitchen knives.

So, sticking with deaths involving guns, I do think we need to work to bring that number way down. I think this needs to be done carefully with a combination of things starting with education (LOTS of education) on safety including proper range safety, proper carry techniques and proper storage.

There also needs to be some way to better record mental illnesses that may make a person unsafe with a gun. I don't think, necessarily, that a mental illness should mean a person can't own a gun but I do think that there are some mental illnesses that make people unsafe with such things and others that need to be looked at to be sure they are given access in a safe way. (I'm thinking here people who may have had "depression" for a length of time in their past -- that shouldn't disqualify a person but maybe someone who is currently being treated for severe depression is best not having access to a gun without someone judging their mood for the day)

I think most problems CAN be fixed through education. If a person realized what could happen if they sold a gun to a friend and that friend gave it to a family member as a gift and somewhere down the line a person was killed with that gun, I suspect most people would voluntarily conduct all sales through an FFL including background (and hopefully mental health) checks.

Same with kids and other people getting guns from unsecure storage in homes. If people were educated better, I suspect more people would put much more effort into secure storage in their homes.

Suicides are also a big part of that number. Finding a way to help those people would be great!
I think this needs to include giving options to terminally ill people.
I think it also needs to include updating curriculums in schools to be realistic and helpful-- unless it is just the one ditzy counselor who said to not tell a parent if a friend is suicidal...

Teaching kids from a young age that guns are NOT toys would also be good. Water guns, nerf-guns, and all these other things make guns look fun. They may be fun to shoot at a range, but they are NOT for playing with.

 

[smitcompton]

Hi,

I must apologize for my tongue-in cheek reply. I do not plan to get an Uzi or AK47 any time soon. I am not a gun owner, but have come to understand why people want one. Everything said above the UZI I meant, everything after was an exaggerated comment.


Sorry,
Annette

 

[Karl_K]

There is 100% proof that a working mental health system would have prevented the Sandy Hook shooting.
His family was trying to get him help and the system failed and failed badly.
I know many families who have went through the same nightmare trying to get help for loved ones.
No, it didn't turn into a mass shooting but it did end in suicide.
Sometimes it turns outwards and you get mass killings.
In almost all the other mass shootings there was a a good chance a working mental health system would have helped prevent them also.

Anyone heard about the school shooting in ND?
Nope? Didn't think so. Cant even find the details online anymore.
Man in the middle of divorce with a history of mental health issues showed up at a school pulled out a stolen gun and yelled he was going to kill. BANG! Shooter dead from one shot from a rifle fired by a parent picking up their child.

 

[OreoRosies86]

Isn't it statistically true that those who carry handguns for protection are more likely to have it turned against them? I feel as though I heard that somewhere. Off to research

 

[packrat]

I think we can find statistics to fit any argument at any point in time, really.

And Karl, that's true. The stories like that are never talked about in the media.

 

[Karl_K]

Isn't it statistically true that those who carry handguns for protection are more likely to have it turned against them? I feel as though I heard that somewhere. Off to research

That was a "study" paid for by an anti-gun group by an anti-gun professor.
It has been discredited by the Lott study and many other researchers. A formerly anti-gun researcher who changed his mind when he saw the evidence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/More_Guns,_Less_Crime

 

[OreoRosies86]

I think we can find statistics to fit any argument at any point in time, really.

And Karl, that's true. The stories like that are never talked about in the media.

Sure, just like anecdotal accounts of gun use. I am still interested in knowing that statistic though, at the moment statistics are helping me put together an opinion.

 

[Karl_K]

I think we can find statistics to fit any argument at any point in time, really.

And Karl, that's true. The stories like that are never talked about in the media.

Yes on both counts.
The good things cops and gun owners do also get rarely reported while the bad gets splashed all over the news.
Which is why no one should form an opinion based on news accounts and do their own research.

 

[OreoRosies86]

Isn't it statistically true that those who carry handguns for protection are more likely to have it turned against them? I feel as though I heard that somewhere. Off to research

That was a "study" paid for by an anti-gun group by an anti-gun professor.
It has been discredited by the Lott study and many other researchers. A formerly anti-gun researcher who changed his mind when he saw the evidence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/More_Guns,_Less_Crime

So we're going to ignore the oppositional research?

 

[Karl_K]

Isn't it statistically true that those who carry handguns for protection are more likely to have it turned against them? I feel as though I heard that somewhere. Off to research

That was a "study" paid for by an anti-gun group by an anti-gun professor.
It has been discredited by the Lott study and many other researchers. A formerly anti-gun researcher who changed his mind when he saw the evidence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/More_Guns,_Less_Crime

So we're going to ignore the oppositional research?

Not ignore, just look behind the research and not accept it blindly.

 

[OreoRosies86]

Isn't it statistically true that those who carry handguns for protection are more likely to have it turned against them? I feel as though I heard that somewhere. Off to research

That was a "study" paid for by an anti-gun group by an anti-gun professor.
It has been discredited by the Lott study and many other researchers. A formerly anti-gun researcher who changed his mind when he saw the evidence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/More_Guns,_Less_Crime

So we're going to ignore the oppositional research?

Not ignore, just look behind the research and not accept it blindly.

Which is why the research I am seeking is of the more unbiased, statistically driven, peer reviewed variety

 

[aljdewey]

And, this was the porch. http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/prosecutors-mull-charges-detroit-porch-shooting-20876268 I assumed after reading the above comment, that the victim was inside of a screened porch?? There was no screened porch. She was outside his house when he shot her. He, the homeowner, appears to have been a law-abiding citizen before this. But, of course, we don't need to worry about law-abiding citizens, and it was Detroit after all, so of course it's reasonable to shoot first and ask questions later!

And, I still don't understand how this supports the proposition that we cannot be 100% sure what will happen in the future and many people have AK47s and feel much better because of it. I know this was not your point, ALJ, but just trying to understand the original post that introduced this unfortunate event and misuse of a firearm, by an otherwise presumably law-abiding citizen.

First a quick disclaimer - again, this discussion seems to have mushroomed from "mass killings" to now widely include any instance of killing with any kind of weapon. That's really a whole other discussion.

Answering the specifics above, I'm not sure I understand why you're pointing out the porch being open or closed. (When I read the story, I presumed it was an open porch). Does it being an open porch make it more safe or make it harder for a potential intruder to breach the entrance? Open on closed, the porch is also on his property, which someone unknown is now on in the middle of the night.

Detroit isn't just any city; it leads the nation as the top-ranked city for *violent* crime for four consecutive years. This occurred at 3:30 a.m. It's clear from your sarcastic tone above that you think these factors shouldn't be relevant, but I can only say they would be to me.

I'm not making assumptions as to whether or not his actions were reasonable; I'm saying I can understand why he felt fearful.

Here's what he did know in that moment: 1) it's the middle of the night, 2) I live in a city that leads the nation in violent crime, 3) There is a stranger banging on my door, and 4) I feel in danger. (I'm guessing he'd also be thinking "I don't know what's going to happen if I answer it, and I don't know what's going to happen if I don't.)

Here's what he didn't know in that moment: he did not know she was 19. He did not know she had been in a car accident. He did not know she was seeking assistance.

This is a tragic event by all accounts, but is this honestly the foundation for gun reform? There are tens of millions of gun owners, and stories like this one are in the handfuls. Is that really the problem gun reform is trying to solve? I don't think it is. This type of event is needle in the haystack; it's not the core problem that gun reform is trying to resolve such as Newtown, the Navy Yard, Aurora, etc.

I'm glad you at least acknowledged that it was not my expressed viewpoint that owning AK-47s somehow make people feel better.

I really can't state this enough: I agree there is a call to action, and that some kind of reform is needed. I remain wholly unconvinced that the proposed actions will actually resolve the stated problem.

 

[aljdewey]

Why are you focusing on the mental health aspect of this issue when you have clearly read and quoted that only 11% of these shootings involved people who had prior mental health issues.

Simple math: 89% of the rest of killers did not have prior mental health issues.

Can we please move on from this subject? The statistics have proven you wrong. To continue to call mass killings a mental health issue is stigmatizing and harmful.[/quote]

I'm sorry it's troublesome to you that I don't see it from your end, but I don't because our defintions of 'mass killings' diverge.

Throughout this thread, I have defined 'mass killing events' as instances like Newtown, Navy Yard, Aurora, etc, where the shooters do not know their victims. Those are the events I'm referring to when I say mass killings.

Domestic violence, which this report has included as mass killings, is a horse of a whole other color. It's inclusion in this does artificially skew the 89%, and that's fine.

I'm talking about rampage events where the shooters don't know their victims. And quite frankly, mental health issues are *already* stigmatizing and harmful, which is precisely why more people aren't getting the help they need before they go on a rampage.

If the energy that's being currently invested into squabbling about what types of equipment to ban, etc. were reapplied to helping people get access to emotional health resources without the stigma and drama attached to it, I think it could be transformative. Do I think it will stop all crime? No. Do I think it will stop all shooting? No. I don't think *anything* will completely eradicate violence - it's been around since man roamed the earth.

But I do think that if seeking emotional treatment became as socially acceptable as going to a dentist to treat a cavity or going to a cardiologist to treat an irregular heart rhythm, it would be transformative.

 

[aljdewey]

I think responsible gun owners are (rightfully) getting defensive when someone brings up gun safety or laws that restrict access to guns. That's because you and huge vast majority of gun owners give guns the respect they deserve. Nobody (by this I mean 99%) of the population wants to take that away from responsible gun owners.

I agree with you, and that's why I struggle with some of the proposed solutions--because that's all they will achieve. If I were to see proposed restrictions that actually would reach the root of the problem, I'd be 100% behind them.

What if you shot the drunk guy at your door at 5am? Would he deserve that for being drunk and stupid? A stupid mistake costs you your life and forever alters the lives of everyone he has touched.

I've already noted in this thread that I do not own any guns, but let's go through the what-if-I-did exercise for purposes of answering your question. Let's also do the other side of the "what if"....what if the guy at my door had not been a drunk guy? What if he was someone trying to break into my house? Had he been someone seriously intent on harming me, I'd have barely had time to dial the numbers 9-1-1 before he got in and made it up the stairs, and I would be trapped in the bedroom with no way out. Even if the police in my town could get here in two minutes, it would be too late if he had ANY manner of fatal weapons (not just guns).

I truly do not think anyone 'deserves' to die for a stupid mistake, but if I have to err on the side of preserving my life or risking having my life ended, I'm on the staying alive side.

For the gun owners out there, is there some sort of admission that guns can cause harm (intentionally or not) and a willingness for them to be regulated (background checks, types of guns you can buy, no online sales, no private sales, etc...) for the general safety of all? There is no the government shall not restrict the right to "driving a car, drinking alcohol, etc..." in the constitution so this means there can be laws in place for people to do these activities but restrict the harm to others and themselves in the process. Or is every new law going to be fear that if you let this very good gun safety law pass, there will be another one that is unreasonable or entirely make access to guns illegal?

I can't speak for other states, but I live in one of the two states with the most restrictive gun laws already. Background checks are required; online retail sales must be transacted through a state-licensed dealer and registered. Private sales are also required to be reported/registered with the state. You cannot sell more than 4 firearms through private sales annually. Safety course completion is a requirement to obtaining a license; as is completing an interview with local law enforcement. There are all manners of requirements for how they are secured as well (gun safe or trigger lock required).

As a non-owner, it's possible that I am more amenable to some of those proposed changes than owners themselves would be; I don't know. But I do know that most of the 'types of weapons' proposals don't seem nearly as impactful to me. If I don't want a high-capacity gun in the wrong hands, then I honestly don't want *any* gun in the wrong hands. That's why I identify so strongly with the "who can have them or have access to them" piece of the equation; it makes far more logical sense to me and appears to target the problem directly.

 

[aljdewey]

For me it is not the mere presence of a gun or even what type of gun it is that causes comfort or discomfort. The PERSON who has the gun is where I am comfortable or not. In general, I tend to feel just as comfortable with a person having a gun as I do with them not having a gun. The sort of person who looks uncomfortable, twitchy, tries to follow me, etc is going to leave me uncomfortable even if they don't visibly have a gun.

1000% this. Couldn't have said it better.

Guns can not cause harm. Improper handling by a person can cause unintentional harm. Using them for defense can cause "harm" (but I see your family living and a criminal dying as NOT bad).
A gun on its own will not cause harm. It takes a person to have anything happen.

Again, 1000% agree.

Your example of the person at the door being shot accidentally is a good one.
We had a woman trying to break into our house last summer (2012). I never once laid a hand on a gun while she was there. I called the police and my family gathered in a locked room as we planned in such a situation. We waited there for the police to show up. Had she made it into the house, I was prepared to arm myself but would not have taken any further action unless she managed to get into the locked room with us.
This same sort of thing has happened to several other people I know. They have similar plans and acted similarly.

Yes, an accident could occur but having a plan ahead of time means you don't have to figure it out as you go in a highly stressful moment. Responsible owners take classes and are encouraged to have such plans in place to prevent accidents.

Fully agreed.

 

[LibbyLA]

I've read most of the posts and am surprised that I did not see anyone mention going to high school back when there were (gasp!!!) plenty of guns in school. Yep, back in the day, many of the pickup trucks in the parking lot had gun racks in the back window and there were guns (gasp!!!) visible in the gun racks. And the trucks probably weren't locked because no one locked their vehicles back in the 1970s. High school boys often went hunting before or after class. Some schools even had rifle teams and the members hauled their rifles through the hallways and kept them in their lockers. (No rifle team at my school, but definitely hunters.)

There weren't any mass shootings in schools even though there were many "evil" guns on the school grounds, accessible by the teenagers that owned them, no less.

Gun-free zones just mean that there are easy pickings for the criminals who disregard the laws anyway. Only law-abiding people pay attention to the law and the criminal knows he has a great chance at doing maximum damage without immediate consequences because he doesn't have to worry about encountering anyone who's armed until the police arrive. The shooter deliberately choose "soft" targets to maximize the damage they do. They don't attack the police station, the gun store, or the location National Guard armory.

Many of you who are of the "guns are evil" school probably interact almost every day with people who are carrying a concealed gun legally. You just aren't aware of it because the guns are concealed and the people are just average, everyday, law-abiding citizens who just happen to carry a firearm.

As for guns being designed to kill or harm, killing or harming can also mean self-defense, where harming someone or something prevents YOU, yourself, from being harmed or killed. Doesn't matter whether it's a criminal trying to rape, rob, or kill you or a wild hog determined to do you in.

Gun ownership has increased, the number of people with concealed carry permits has increased, crime rates have decreased. Places with tough gun laws like Chicago and Washington, DC, have high murder rates. Here in Louisiana, which does have fairly liberal gun laws, New Orleans and Baton Rouge have high murder rates, but in Baton Rouge, there are very safe areas of the city and there are very dangerous areas of the city. Most of the gun deaths are of people of a particular culture (drugs, gangs, etc.). IOW, it's the criminals killing people, not the thousands of law-abiding gun owners, with or without carry permits.

The argument that the founders couldn't foresee the types of weapons that are available now are missing the point that the founders thought that the citizens should be able to have the same weapons that the government had. Gun technology changes and citizens should still be able to have weapons that are at least somewhat comparable to what the government has.

If you don't like guns and don't want to have them around you, that's your prerogative. But please don't presume to tell me what guns and ammunition I can or can't have when you've never shot one and know next to nothing about them except the scary stuff you've read.

 

[aljdewey]

Of course the gun itself doesn't do anything. Neither do cars until anyone drives them except for the random thing another poster posted. But you have to admit hundreds of thousands of people die by being shot by a gun. My question was more do you think they are properly regulated currently? In that the hundreds of thousands are a reasonable number of deaths? No judgement if you do!

A quick clarification: Hundreds of thousands of people die at their own hands or at the hands of others......using guns. The people who die are being shot by *people* - themselves or others. I don't think anyone would agree that's a 'reasonable number', but before I get on board with a call to action, I want to logically believe the proposed changes can or will truly reach the problem.

It's hard to compare guns to anything else in society because their sole purpose is to kill or harm someone.

I know this isn't going to be popular, but I disagree. Guns can be incredibly purposeful in preventing death/violence. If the man coming into my house that morning had entered and I'd had a gun pointing at him, I'm pretty sure he would have decided to take a pass and leave. Guns can also be used for sport.

If your husband gets killed by an irresponsible gun owner, would you think differently? Or is it just bad shit happens sometimes and guns don't kill people, people kill people? You see what they can do....how do we stop people or use them inappropriately? Or are they just collateral damage to protect people's rights?

I wouldn't be happy to lose my husband under any circumstances, of course. I don't think we can ever "stop" bad things from happening; I think with the right measures, we can successfully limit them.

 

[movie zombie]

thank you, LibbyLA!

 

[Dancing Fire]

I do agree with Alj and Libby LA...

 

[movie zombie]

I do agree with Alj and Libby LA...

OMG, it can't be true! DF and I agree on something! the world is coming to an end, I tell you!

 

[justginger]

People seem to be discussing mental health as an 'us or them' situation. It is not a means to determine appropriateness of owning a weapon, unless you favor very tight control (which I undoubtedly do). 1 in 3 people are clinically depressed in their lifetime. How in the world would you sort out those people with violent depression (who lie) versus those with fleeting, situational depression? It would be a nightmare to determine who is mentally ill 'enough' to necessitate blocking purchase, and for how long. And know what? If they're mentally ill, they'll STEAL the gun from someone who is able to purchase...someone too lazy to lock up their firearms properly. For that reason alone, I think unannounced home visits to registered owners is not only appropriate, but necessary. If you can be randomly pulled over and breathylzed to ensure you are operating your vehicle within the law, I think you should be just as randomly accountable for the weapon you choose to keep within society.

Sandy Hook killer was mentally imbalanced, family was trying to seek help? Mother decides to take the kid SHOOTING! Result? Mother killed with her own gun, plus deaths of elementary school children. And current regulations are fine.

 

[justginger]

Guns' other purposes, alj, are still death. Or the threat of it. A side effect may be that it conveys protection, but that effect is due to the fact that it is made to kill and thus is feared. Guns were made to murder, animals or humans, full stop. A guillotine was made to kill as well - if you use it to make fruit salad, that doesn't negate its chief purpose. Same with a Molotov cocktail. I can use one to light my fireplace, but it was concocted to cause harm, and thus citizens possessing it is inappropriate in my opinion.