I SWEAR this is not a 'flamebait' post, it is a serious question...

[Ferretherder]

...that I would like to ask ALL gun owners - yes, even the RESPONSIBLE, LAW ABIDING gun owners on this discussion board.

First, I feel that I must preface the question with a little info regarding the 'questioner'...

...I am not CURRENTLY a gun owner, but, in the past, I DID own a gun, on several different occasions. I was absolutely fascinated with Civil War era muzzelloading rifles and post war era cartridge arms like 45-70 'trapdoor' Springfields, and the like. Fascinated with the whole ritual of preparation and execution of loading and firing the old 58 caliber 'Zouaves' and 'Enfields' and such. I was never a hunter, but I loved plinking away at various targets, and, as I said, the whole prep and maintenance of the weapons.

OK, for no special reason, I got over that fascination, and, currently, don't own - or want - any guns. Just wanted to let you know a little bit about WHO is posing this particular question...

...and here it is.

I have heard MANY people say, both on this discussion board and in public conversation, that they own firearms ONLY because they feel they HAVE TO - because the bad guys HAVE their guns, and won't hesitate to use them - to protect themselves and their loved ones. My question is a very hypothetical one, meaning that, I don't for an instant think the scenario could ever be reality, but, nonetheless, here goes.

IF - in the aforementioned, very hypothetical scenario - ALL guns could be taken from 'the bad guys', and it could be totally, and most assuredly, guaranteed that they could never get their hands on another firearm, of any type, would you, as a law-abiding citizen, gun owner agree to turn over your guns to the authorities, seeing as there was no need to counter the threat of gun violence any longer?

Just a question, from someone who HAS owned a gun or two in the past.

[sendero]

1. I live in the country..

.... I actually USE my guns. No, I am not interested, particularly since your "hypothetical" of removing all guns is completely, utterly and decisively impossible.

If this country agreed politically that we were going to "all give up their guns" you would still have literally millions of them on the street and imported daily.

I am open to reasonable reforms of gun ownership laws. I think there should be no such thing as a "private sale", all sales should go through the normal background checks. I have no problem banning "assault" weapons and hi-cap magazines. Beyond those things, I don't see much more that is likely to happen.

[peacebird]

3. We also live in the country and use our guns for when there is a need to protect our animals

We believe there should be comon sense reforms such as banning mega clips, assault rifles, and bullet piercing guns and ammo.

[Cosmocat]

5. There you go

That is it, that is he common sense things that most people want ...

That being said, with the most radicalized and extreme party control we have seen in our history in the House of Representives, there is almost literally no chance of ANYTHING being passed into law regarding fire arm regulation.

"I am open to reasonable reforms of gun ownership laws. I think there should be no such thing as a "private sale", all sales should go through the normal background checks. I have no problem banning "assault" weapons and hi-cap magazines. Beyond those things, I don't see much more that is likely to happen."

[baldguy]

2. "Law abiding citizens" need guns for protection from criminals.

Criminals get guns from "law abiding citizens".

[Jenoch]

27. Only about 10% to 15% of guns

used in crime are stolen from law-abiding gun owners. While that is too many, and I believe guns in the home should be locked up, the biggest source of guns for criminals is straw purchases. I believe we need to both enforce the federal laws against straw purchases that are already on the books, and increase the penalties. Five years, minimum for a straw purchase with that term doubled if the gun is used in a crime.

[Coyote_Tan]

4. Nope...

First, as you know, the premise could never happen.

Second, I use 'em.

Third, if I saw someone getting beaten with a pipe or stabbed I'd prefer to have it with me.

[cherokeeprogressive]

6. Nnnnnnope

[ileus]

7. Are "the bad guys" known to only attack with firearms?

are "the bad guys" of equal strength and numbers and capabilities as my wife or I?

Can you guarantee that the bad guys would never try to attack my wife, kids, or attempt a home invasion? Will the bad buys magically stop being bad guys if you take their firearms away? Is it the firearm that makes them bad guys?



Then of course the fact that the bulk of my collection is from my GF and Father I'd still rather keep family heirlooms in the family, not someone elses.

[Robb]

11. I guarantee you something.

As I noted elsewhere, in 2013, you MIGHT have to defend yourself from a home invader.

If nothing changes, 80-some-odd preschoolers WILL die from gun violence in this country. WILL. Absolutely.

How many kids' lives is your hypothetical worth each year?

[Lizzie Poppet]

14. MY guns will kill precisely zero preschoolers next year or any other year.

Tens of millions of gun owners can say the same thing, confident that the chance of needing their guns for defense might be remote, but it's astronomically more likely than their guns harming a preschooler. You make a good argument for proper gun security, though...

[Robb]

16. I'm certain Nancy Lanza thought the same thing.

Everyone else is the problem, right? Your guns are special, magic.

[Lizzie Poppet]

17. You struggled in math, didn't you?

Probability...it's not for everyone.

Pity you had to resort to condescension...I'd have been happy to discuss this in a civil manner. Instead, you get a little tit-for-tat...and now welcome to ignore.

[Robb]

19. The math argument still allows all those kids to die.

You find the numbers acceptable. I do not.

Collateral damage in the battle for your right to feed your paranoia, right?

[socialist_n_TN]

31. Actually YOU were the one who said that your guns would kill..........

precisely zero school children next year. You can't know that. If your gun is stolen you don't know how many school children, and others, will be killed next year with your gun.

[Lizzie Poppet]

33. As I said to another poster....

...perhaps you'd be happier with "a very marginally greater than zero chance of killing preschoolers." In informal conversation, it's not unreasonable to refer to such a probability as "zero." I shouldn't have added the "precisely," particularly when it would hardly be a surprise that people would leap on that. Ah, well...live and learn.

But I stand by the actual point: the chance of my firearms (and those of the overwhelming majority of the tens of millions if American gun owners) of killing preschoolers is astronomically remote. To claim that I am endangering preschoolers by possessing them is a stretch worthy of Plastic Man.

FWIW, any of my firearms that is not in my immediate possession is always locked in a gun safe. I'm an advocate of making such measures required by law, and of harshly punishing anyone whose inadequate security measures allow their guns to fall into the hands of prohibited persons. Harsher still if one of those guns is used to harm another.

[kestrel91316]

26. You can't guarantee that your guns won't harm anyone.

Unless they are locked up tight in a tamperPROOF gun safe 24/7/365.

I suspect they aren't.

Magical thinking kills.

[Lizzie Poppet]

29. Would you prefer "astronomically low but marginally greater than zero probability?"

When a probability is sufficiently low, it's not unreasonable to refer to it in casual conversation as "zero."

I think I'll simply ignore your pointless, condescending aside about "magical thinking," save for a chuckle at how ironic I find it to be. Call it a mulligan.

[Politicub]

22. Not this shit again

But but but a can of tuna can be a weapon - even if it's not open.

And one time this guy went into a school and placed banana peels everywhere. Chaos!

I dropped a bottle of water on my foot and it rolled under the sofa! Deadly!

[ileus]

34. So your argument is criminals are only a danger when armed with a gun?

[Politicub]

35. I think second amendment extremists are a menace to society for more

reasons than gun ownership.

They seem rigid in thier thinking and closed minded about finding solutions. They nitpick and constantly look for loopholes or reasons why good policy proposals won't solve gun issues.

They bray on and on with the same tired and discredited arguments. They split hairs on what constitutes an assault weapon. Unless they're doorknob stupid, they are purposefully trying to muddy the water.

Most of them are conservative in their values and support organizations like the NRA who in turn use their money to finance candidates who are hostile to civil rights and progress.

So fuck these silly arguments like "so your argument is whatever." I think criminals can be a danger whether they own a gun or not. But if they own and use a gun in the commission of a crime then the impact to the innocent is magnified.

[Festivito]

8. 1. Guns are fun to fire. 2. Foreign invasion? 3. Then, your "IF" is ridiculous and after 1 and 2.

1. Driving a car is fun, but we need license, training and health checks. Plus we cannot drive if we are mentally disabled.

2. You didn't say you'd keep bad people from abroad from getting guns. Plus I like our own government to be a little afraid of us. Yes, government has the army, but that army might not fire on civilians even if ordered and they can't kill us all while subjugating us.

3. As well, how long till one of those bad people steal a few guns -- really?

So, no.

[jmg257]

9. With gun murder after mass gun murder, all the perceived needs

Last edited Mon Dec 24, 2012, 11:12 AM - Edit history (1)

I have about owning guns just don't seeem as imperative.

If guns were outlawed in such a way to severly reduced the number of guns in circulation (not all that hard), in such a way to ensure confidence that it has/is being done, I would give up those determined by the people to be illegal. Besides NOT REALLY needing them, I would not take the risk of being in conflict with the law.

[The Straight Story]

10. I think it is more like abortion

No one's business why you do it as long as no one gets hurt.

[Crepuscular]

12. No

The potential for using guns is an added benefit, not the primary reason that I own firearms, so to answer the OP's question, no I would not be willing to give up my guns if guns were taken from "the bad guys".

[Lizzie Poppet]

13. I would not. Here's why:

The typical violent criminal is a young-ish male. He is statistically likely, therefore, to be significantly larger and stronger than I am (I'm a 110lb woman). He doesn't need a gun to be a grave danger to me if he's so inclined. A gun just extends his range...and range is more important to me than to him (I can't let him get close enough to grab me). A firearm is not only the most effective practical method of stopping an assault in terms of likelihood of taking the assailant down, it's also got significantly greater range than things like pepper spray, tasers, and so forth.

If the hypothetical scenario instead posited the elimination of the inclination some humans have of assaulting others, I'd give up my guns. But if that came to pass, I wouldn't need to.

Excellent question, btw...thought-provoking.

[WinkyDink]

15. There are no "bad guys"; there are only "good guys" who BECOME "bad guys."

[Lizzie Poppet]

18. Um...that's self-contradictory.

If good guys become bad guys, then obviously there are bad guys.

[WinkyDink]

23. No, because the "argument" is "Keep guns away from the bad guys." And they would be identified HOW??

[Lizzie Poppet]

25. That's another matter entirely.

I'm just pointing out that your headline is an implied contradiction, that's all.

[Cleita]

20. I have owned in the past too, not the antique guns you owned, but I knew people who did

and who had the same fascination you did for the process. I lost interest in shooting too. I never though felt a need to have a gun for protection. I worked as a bartender in the past and was robbed twice. I feel having a gun to shoot back with would only have escalated the situation and caused more injuries. Better to get a good security system and common sense precautions in to begin with. Lobby your local city hall for better police protection so that there is quicker response where you live. That's what keeps you safe not a gun.

[oldhippie]

21. So the police and military keep their guns?

History shows they become the "bad guys" sometimes also, you know.

[WinkyDink]

24. And private gun ownership did what, in those instances (unless you aren't speaking of the U.S.)?

[PD Turk]

28. I own a Trapdoor Springfield

....1873 model infantry rifle. I also own a few SAA Colt revolvers from the 1870s, and some authentic lever action Winchesters as well as some modern reproductions. I bought the antiques in the early/mid 80s for a fraction of what they are worth today. I love lever action rifles and single action revolvers, "cowboy guns" so to speak. My collection resides in a well camouflaged. secure gun safe.

I also own a few more modern pieces, a Colt 1911A1, M1 Garand, Ruger Mini 30, a Ruger 10-22 and a couple pump shotguns.

I have one high capacity magazine each for the Mini 30 and the 10-22. If there is a magazine ban, I would have no problem turning them in for retail price, it's not that big a deal to me. As for the rest of my collection, I think I'd rather keep them. They aren't hurting anybody and from what I've seen, they aren't exactly the weapons of choice of mass murderers and thugs these days. Should the 2a be repealed, I'd give them up for fair collector value but not a penny less.

[tularetom]

30. Absolutely not

I too am a collector of old firearms. I have several original percussion Hawken and Kentucky rifles, an 1851 Colt Navy revolver, an 1858 Remington Army, an 1873 Colt SAA, A trapdoor Springfield, and a few others. I have spent countless hours restoring these guns and I'm fascination with the mechanical genius that went into the production of guns like these in the mid 19th century. Some of these guns have not been fired by me.

My wife is a collector of old quilts and she has a collection valued probably in six figures. There is no way in hell she'd ever give these up. I feel the same about my collection.

I have other guns that I rely upon for defense of my home and property including livestock. I'd be reluctant to give these up until you guarantee me that I would never have to deal with coyotes killing my lambs, chickens etc.

[flvegan]

32. How are all guns taken from "the bad guys" to begin with?

Same way all the drugs have been?

Besides, in the instance of a home invasion (which Florida is somewhat famous for), guns aren't the only worry.

So, um no.

[Ferretherder]

36. I DID say 'hypothetical situation', did I not?

And yes, I DO realize that it is a completely unrealistic scenario - which I ALSO SAID - but, the question was meant more as a 'thought experiment', if you will. I promise I'm not trying to be condescending, just trying to give everyone a little better idea as to what I meant in the first place. And please don't think this is directed at you, in particular, flvegan!

Guys, I know that there is no way to identify who WOULD or WOULDN'T use a gun to commit a crime(the bad guys), and who would only use them responsibly(everyone else). Let me try this one...

Would there EVER be a reason you would agree to part with your gun(s), if that reason could be guaranteed to lead to, at least, the near elimination of gun violence in our world?

Look, I realize that, with my lack of interest in guns, now, my question is a little like a very strict vegan asking meat-eaters if 'there were ANY scenario that would cause them to give up eating meat' - I get that. Still, I was just wondering - is it a fascination with guns, or do you feel that gun ownership is a right that cannot be compromised, in any fashion?

[flvegan]

47. Okay, good questions.

Your first: would there ever be a reason that I'd agree to part with my guns. I don't need the qualifiers as the answer is and always will be no. That is, until it became unlawful to have them. I abide by the law in these regards and would turn them in if the law required I do so.

Your second: is it a fascination with guns or do I feel that gun ownership is a right, etc etc. Neither. I have no fascination with guns. I sleep next to two of them, but that's not due to some "relationship" with them as asked. Gun ownership is a "right" so to speak, based on certain criteria, so what I "feel" doesn't matter. I'm allowed to have them as a lawful citizen and I do. I don't own them because it's a right, but because I live in a violent society. I don't believe in violence with a gun any more than I do with a fork. But I'd bring a predator's violence into harmony real quick if they come into my house.

For the record, I own three guns. None of them have a capacity of more than 10 rounds.

[rrneck]

37. Well...

How long do you think it would take this guy to beat you to death? Or at least put you in the hospital long enough to destroy your life?

[Adsos Letter]

44. +1000

[CTyankee]

38. Here are some ideas of sensible regulation from Norway...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Norway

[guardian]

39. Yes those Norwegian gun laws are very effective

At Least 80 Dead in Norway Shooting

OSLO — A lone political extremist bombed the government center here on Friday, killing 7 people, the police said, before heading to an island summer camp for young members of the governing Labor Party and killing at least 80 people.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/23/world/europe/23oslo.html



Oh. And for those of you anti gun people who say "just call 911" ... it took an hour and a half before the police showed up.

[CTyankee]

40. Yes, this was an extreme outlier, that is true. He was a dedicated plotter who went to

extraordinary lengths to circumvent their laws. And evidently, he had the time and resources to spend on his demented project.

How many of these attacks were there before and how many after, guardian? How many in one year, 5 years? How many over 20 years? What is the murder rate, compared to the U.S.?

If you can't come up with anything better than an extreme outlier, then you haven't got a very good case, if one at all. Especially given the record between the two countries. You want to talk about that? I didn't think so...

I suggest you give it up.

[CTyankee]

41. And while we're at it, buddy, where are YOUR ideas for cleaning up this obvious problem we have

with guns?

I didn't see you coming forward with any suggestions.

What do YOU think should be done?

[Posteritatis]

42. Some hypotheticals are too hypothetical to warrant much attention. (nt)

[Adsos Letter]

43. +1 We gotta deal with reality on this issue.

[Ferretherder]

45. THIS........

...is REALITY.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2012/12/15/what-makes-americas-gun-culture-totally-unique-in-the-world-as-demonstrated-in-four-charts/

[Adsos Letter]

46. Yes, it is. And I believe the hypothetical Posteritatis referred to

Last edited Tue Dec 25, 2012, 10:50 PM - Edit history (1)

is this statement you made:

"...ALL guns could be taken from 'the bad guys', and it could be totally, and most assuredly, guaranteed that they could never get their hands on another firearm, of any type..."

How would you go about that?

EDITED TO ADD: for clarity: The "reality" I'm speaking of is the reality that this gun control debate will most likely never include a belief by most gun owners (or non-gun owners even) that illegal firearms can be kept out of the hands of all bad guys.

That doesn't mean we don't need to do something about gun violence in our country. It means we have to be realistic about the conditions under which this debate will take place. That also includes the gun violence that occurs in our country on a daily basis.
It is just as unrealistic for gun owners to ignore/explain away the daily gun violence as it is for gun control advocates to expect "the bad guys" never to be able to access illegal guns. Or to remain a real threat even without guns, for that matter.