Gun Control & RKBA
Related: About this forumI'm sick and tired of being stereotyped as a bad guy just because I own a firearm!
OMG HE HAS A GUN HE MUST BE BAD!
Let's call the cops on him!!!
He will kill at any moment!
well, actually, no I won't.
Don't lump me in with people who kill and actually ARE ASSHOLES!
I am not one of them and don't appreciate being stereotyped!
annabanana
(52,791 posts)It's dragging it around with you to Starbucks and other 'non-hunting' environments that bugs me.
Response to annabanana (Reply #1)
CrispyQ This message was self-deleted by its author.
GalaxyHunter
(271 posts)But I didn't do it! and I am a responsible gun owner. But now that I said that you automatically think I am lying because you are only responsible until you lash out!
So aren't we all responsible humans until we do something bad?
CrispyQ
(36,561 posts)denverbill
(11,489 posts)Like the LEO who left his gun in the bathroom. Or the man playing with his gun with his child who shot him in the head. Or the gun safety course instructor who shot his student. Or the thousands of other 'accidents' that happen every year. Or the guy who left a gun laying around where his child could find it.
Every one of those people was a 'responsible' gun owner right up until the moment they shot someone or left their gun laying around. Many of us don't appreciate 'responsible' gun owners who feel the need to pack heat everywhere they go, because we know that eventually, one of these 'responsible' gun owners will inevitably 'accidentally' fire their gun and kill somebody, and the more 'responsible' gun owners packing heat, the more often the inevitable will happen.
The only 'responsible' gun owners to me are the ones who leave their guns at home, in a safe, and only get them out to hunt, target shoot, ward off burglars, or join the militia. 'Responsible' gun owners don't carry concealed to church ,the movies, bars, or anywhere else.
bunnies
(15,859 posts)GalaxyHunter
(271 posts)denverbill
(11,489 posts)Does that pretty much sum it up?
GalaxyHunter
(271 posts)until I fuck up, I'm responsible. same as you.
denverbill
(11,489 posts)The moment you leave the house with a gun to go to work, shop, whatever, you put everyone around you at an increased risk of being shot, either accidentally or on purpose.
It's like me carrying around a little bottle of nitroglycerin and claiming until I drop it and kill everyone in a 30 yard radius, I'm a responsible explosives owner. Sorry, once you fuck up, it's too late. A responsible explosives owner would keep the explosives locked up, away from people, and only get it out when needed.
You can keep typing 'until I fuck up, I'm responsible' all day long, but you aren't going to convince anyone here. You can convince yourself you are being responsible by carrying your gun everywhere, but most DUers and most Americans would disagree.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)So, let's say he's carrying concealed, and has a valid license?
Is he being 'irresponsible'?
Squinch
(51,084 posts)GalaxyHunter
(271 posts)Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)prohibit cars, alcohol, prescription drugs, charity, government, free speech...
When are you going to do something about all the irresponsible muggers, rapists and violent cretins who won't keep it inside their homes?
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Those other products have non-killing uses. A car is a method of transportation first, which may be miss-used and kill someone.
Guns are for killing or simulated killing (aka target shooting).
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)Near as I can tell anybody who says they need a drink is probably the last person who needs a drink. Yet, the misuse and abuse of alcohol has a devastating effect on tens of millions of lives every year. Violence, domestic violence, suicide, sexual assault, drunk driving, accidents, innumerable pathologies. And for what? Anything useful?
On the other hand the potential to kill does have legitimate uses since self-defense is an inherent human right.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)The fact that a gun was used for self-defense doesn't make it a non-killing device. The way it works for self-defense is to kill. It's just a justified killing.
As for alcohol, humanity has a very, very, very, very, very long history of using mind-altering substances. Alcohol is the current socially-acceptable one. But again it's a mind-altering substance that can inadvertently cause death. It's not specifically designed to kill.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)But that's not a bad thing. The only bad thing in a legitimate case of self-defense is the initiating act of aggression. Anything the would-be victim does in defense is good and necessary even if that results in the death of the aggressor.
Humanity also has a very, very, very, very, very long history of needing to defend itself.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Whether a gun is used for good or evil, it is still a killing machine.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)jeff47
(26,549 posts)denverbill
(11,489 posts)Because if I can't carry my little bottle of nitroglycerin everywhere I go and demand that everyone call me responsible, then we lived in a goddamned police state.
When are you going to do something about all the irresponsible muggers, rapists and violent cretins who won't keep it inside their homes?
Arrest them and throw them in jail.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)When?
denverbill
(11,489 posts)Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)Why isn't carrying a penis equal to rape? Only 7% of rapes involve an attacker with a gun. I'll wager the percentage of rapes involving a penis is significantly higher.
In your lurid fantasy someone has to actually commit a crime...except when they carry a gun. Then the mere state of being (armed) is outlawed, without regard to intention.
And I'm sure of a woman was attacked by a would-be rapist and she defended herself with a gun you would have her incarcerated as well. You'd destroy her family, send her to prison, financially ruin her with a trial. See that a felony conviction dogged her existence for the rest of her years denying her job opportunities. All for having the temerity for actively resisting a penis-carrier.
Where do you stand on "My body, my choice"? I'll bet you defend a woman's right to an abortion after she's been sexually assaulted. Why is she not entitled to choose to assert control over her body before she's assaulted? Or is she only allowed to control her body after the penis-carrier has finished and left again?
denverbill
(11,489 posts)Word for word.
Go ahead and have the last word on this conversation.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)Why did you list carrying a gun along with rape as a reason to arrest and put people in jail?
denverbill
(11,489 posts)If they are not yet convicted felons, then they are just responsible gun owners.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)then I accept that I grossly misunderstood you and I owe you an apology for that. I would add that I agree with arresting convicted felons who carry guns when it is illegal for them to do so.
Sadly, gun carrying felons aside, the other crimes you listed usually require a victim. I would like to see those who might be targeted feel sufficiently empowered to defend themselves.
rrneck
(17,671 posts)What solution do you have when they are actually doing them?
denverbill
(11,489 posts)Especially if the bad guy has a gun.
rrneck
(17,671 posts)GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)Bay Boy
(1,689 posts)Is that stereotyping too?
GalaxyHunter
(271 posts)I wouldn't say i'm sensitive, I would say that I don't like being called something i'm not.
Dawgs
(14,755 posts)oneshooter
(8,614 posts)Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)I don't think anybody has stereotyped me (other than maybe as a generic jackass for reasons unrelated to gun ownership), so I really don't quite get what you're talking about.
GalaxyHunter
(271 posts)Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)I live in a rural area. None of my guns are loaded; the shells aren't even in the same room as the guns. None of my guns is even where I could get at it quickly, since I don't see any need for that. I haven't hunted much in the last few years, but haven't excluded the possibility, particularly if my loved ones end up needing food after a hypothetical collapse of the economy and/or political structure. There are deer, pheasant, turkey, etc. all over my property. Also occasional black bear.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)GalaxyHunter
(271 posts)I only expect to have the cops calls on me while I have my gun is because I used it.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)GalaxyHunter
(271 posts)this is the internet.
Whatever anyone says doesn't change what I can and cannot do because I follow the law and the law is on my side.
I'm fine with them being rude because it will come back to bite them one day.
bowens43
(16,064 posts)GalaxyHunter
(271 posts)get everyone to accept me? fuck that.
if you have a problem with me owning and carrying a gun, then the problem is with you.
atreides1
(16,110 posts)Why is that the "right thing" to do?
GalaxyHunter
(271 posts)so just be good and get rid of your gun so others aren't afraid!
Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)You can't even hit those straw men you keep setting up.
GalaxyHunter
(271 posts)why should I do the "right" thing and give up my gun so someone else can be happy!
... You would also tell Rosa Parks to get to the back of the bus just because other people wanted it that way.
Gotcha.
Squinch
(51,084 posts)Thinking a guy is an asshole when he parades around the ground outside of a grade school showing his gun is exactly the same thing as denying a race the right to work, live and get an education.
And, yeah, we get it. Its because of your libertee.
HALO141
(911 posts)as predictable as the inevitable "penis" quip.
thucythucy
(8,132 posts)is the guy comparing himself to Rosa Parks because he's been criticized on a chat board.
You don't see that argument as being at least somewhat absurd? Not to mention, self-glorifying?
Rights are rights. If one of them makes you "uncomfortable" that doesn't make it any less important.
thucythucy
(8,132 posts)experiencing an aversion to gunners on a chatboard is experiencing the same degree of oppression as being physically, legally denied his or her rights to vote, to ride the bus where he wants to, to piss and shit in the same place as the majority, to go to quality schools, to live outside a ghetto, etc. etc. And we all know that supporting gun rights in a chatroom on the internet today requires the same degree of physical courage as opposing Jim Crow laws in the south in the 1950s.
Talk about an absurd position. What's next, gunners on DU as victims of genocide?
Squinch
(51,084 posts)HALO141
(911 posts)"Those who care don't matter and those who matter don't care." Anyone who's going to take that stance isn't worth knowing anyway so fuck 'em.
Squinch
(51,084 posts)gun owners for regulations that will prevent the assholes you speak about from mowing people down.
Which means that we have good reason to fear that you might be one of those who kill, and most of you "law abiding" gun owners are doing nothing to reduce those reasons.
SO... you get what you get.
Support the much needed regulation of your hobby, and you will get something else. Till then, sorry. I see you in Starbucks, or JC Penney, sporting your gun to "educate" me, I'm going to assume you are a supreme and unredeemable asshole.
GalaxyHunter
(271 posts)so they stop hating me and people like me?
yeah...that sounds just great.
Squinch
(51,084 posts)HALO141
(911 posts)"...regulations that will prevent the assholes you speak about from mowing people down."
Which regulations are you referring to? If all of the thousands of laws already on the books haven't had any measurable effect on crime then, by all means, lets just heap on some more ineffective bullshit laws.
The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.
Your "much needed regulation" would not only result in the death of my "hobby" but would redefine the phrase, "American Citizen" and irreparably degrade the relationship I, as well as millions of other gun owners, have with my government. Not only will I NOT support the regulation you exalt but I will actively work to oust politicians who promote such regulations and support those who labor in the service of liberty.
Squinch
(51,084 posts)HALO141
(911 posts)Didn't think so.
Squinch
(51,084 posts)Straw Man
(6,627 posts)jeff47
(26,549 posts)After all, murders and rapes still happen, so clearly those laws serve no purpose.
Sensible gun regulations would include things like a background check, and far more mental health reporting to populate that background check. For example, the "interesting" history of the Navy Yard shooter should have prevented him from purchasing a gun - hearing voices and such. But he was not covered by laws because he never appeared before a judge to be ruled legally insane.
We should fix that. We should also require all guns to be locked somehow if there's anyone in the house that can't pass a background check, such as a minor. "OMG! STORMTROOPERS BURSTING INTO OUR HOMES TO CHECK OUR GUN LOCKS!!!" No, you'll just get to "enjoy" a penalty if that minor or non-passing individual is found with your gun.
Won't stop all shootings. But will improve the current terrible situation.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)yet the VA did not do anything. Rhode Island police notified the Navy and his employer, yet they did not pull his security clearance?
While black swan events like this are tragic and they make the news, it took over 30 years, at least the shooting anyway not counting the mass murder via arson, for the death toll to catch up to one year of gang warfare in Chicago or murders of all means in UK every year.
While most of us, including me, support UBCs there are some things that one has to keep in mind:
Supporting something does not mean any lame proposal put together by out of state lobbyists who are also NYC employees.
most "street guns" are purchased from drug dealers and fences where theft is the ultimate source.
licensing and registration didn't prevent Port Author, nor have their semi auto ban kept semi and full auto weapons out of the hands of waring biker gangs.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Reagan's butchering of the mental health system means you have to be an imminent threat to actually get committed. They just don't have room.
So if he had been waving around a gun while talking about voices, he could have been committed. He wasn't. So he wasn't committed.
IIRC, he did get some mental health care, and what I would like is a mechanism for that psychiatrist/psychologist to "flag" a person in the background check system. Details on how that happens and what it means and how it goes away would have to be worked out.
Hence my other example, where more guns have to be locked up.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)we also have a Federal system of 50 semi autonomous states and several territories. Each can do something and work with the feds to make medical privacy laws NICS compatible. But that isn't unique to the US. A few years ago, a schizophrenic killed a bunch of people in a Dutch mall. Even though he spent months in a hospital, Dutch law prevented the agency responsible for processing gun licenses from knowing that, according to DUer Euromutt
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alphen_aan_den_Rijn_shopping_mall_shooting
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x401308
scroll down to reply 95. Early reports was that he was using an automatic weapon, machine gun. As usual, early reports are wrong. It turned out to be a semi auto.
He filed a police report complaining about people sending microwaves. Cops told the Navy, who didn't tell the Defense Security Service, who contracted out to some for profit company who did Snowden's BGC.
Yes people should lock up their guns. The 1930s roving gangs got most of their BARs and Thompsons from national guard armories that had poor security back then. Dillinger stole his from the police department he broke out of.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Yes, and having some way for mental health professionals to flag a person as dangerous would have to work with that. That's why I'm only talking about this idea in the broadest sense - a fair amount of time and effort is going to be required to work out the details.
Hence the need for a law allowing such reporting.
And then brought before a judge, where he could be declared legally insane. That was my point - the current system flags people only if they are in such an extreme situation.
Probably wouldn't have been a felony.
Which still would not have prevented him from buying a gun. Hence the need for the change I was talking about.
HALO141
(911 posts)But we shouldn't require every penis to be serial numbered and registered, either. That would do as much to prevent rape as registration would to prevent crimes with firearms.
You people throw around the word "sensible" as if you think you're fooling somebody. What you really mean is, "just a little more" and you won't ever stop until you've finally gotten what you really want - An absolute ban.
The shooter in the Navy Yard PASSED his background check. Stop pretending they don't exist. As for the mental health records, I'm forced to wonder if that shooter would have even sought treatment if he knew it would void his 2A rights. Would you also support a reasonable mechanism for restoring someone's "mentally stable" status once they're over their temporary bout of depression or whatever? It should be an automatic process that doesn't cost someone tens of thousands of dollars and take years to accomplish. Frankly, I doubt any such psychiatrist would be willing to sign off on such a thing out of liability concerns over what might happen in the future.
I'm a fan of locking up one's guns. I've spent thousands of dollars on safes and I think everyone should store their weapons responsibly. I don't understand why anyone would leave themselves vulnerable to theft. The problem is that such laws are impossible to enforce and some people just don't think such a thing could happen to them. If they're worried that their guns might get stolen then they're not going to worry about getting hit with a rap for improper storage.
Finally, the situation is not as "terrible" as you seem to think. Though mass shootings have remained level, firearm homicides have declined by 50% over the last 20 years according to the FBI's 2012 numbers. The media's constant exploitation makes things look a lot worse than they are.
jmg257
(11,996 posts)Last edited Fri Sep 27, 2013, 12:45 PM - Edit history (1)
reduce illegal sales & transfers, and help get more illegal guns off the street.
Jenoch
(7,720 posts)jmg257
(11,996 posts)and complicating criminal's access to them.
Less illegal guns, less criminals with guns, less gun crimes.
Jenoch
(7,720 posts)Why do you think a criminal is going to register their guns. There are millions of guns in circulation right now. There is no shortage and there won't be, even with registration.
jmg257
(11,996 posts)I don't think a criminal will register his guns. (though a few may indeed try)
I do think someone who wants to tranfer that criminal 'his' gun will not do so if that gun has been registered to him at the initial point(s) of sale/acquisition. Less straw purchases. A lot less illegal transfers - which are apparently a big percentage/source of crime guns. Easier to track ownership. A sure deterent to those inclined to buy lots of guns at once (currently w/o registration), only to move them illegally into that market.
I do think that guns that aren't legal, i.e. aren't registered, will be MUCH more easily identified by the police, making removing them from circulation that much simpler. NY does this all the time, CA more and more. Attrition. Less illegal guns. Harder to keep, more expensive to acquire, easier to be charged with possession, lack of registration another charge to levy, illegal guns and possessors and sources easier to identify...surely a deterent to possession and use.
HALO141
(911 posts)Step 1) Collect Underwear
Step 3) Profit!
It all makes perfect sense.
jmg257
(11,996 posts)HALO141
(911 posts)It highlights a disconnect in the idea that because "A," there will be "Z." "b, c, d, e..." is an assumption that is not based on fact or even a logical process. It's just assumed that if "A" then "Z". This models the presumptive process that registration = fewer guns in the wrong hands. How, exactly, does it do that? After costing tons of money and yielding no benefits, Canada finally scrapped theirs.
On the other hand, what it DOES do is provide just one more step on the road to a total ban. In the absence of any evidence that any gun control laws have had a measurable effect on crime, the argument from the pro-control side is that we just haven't gone far enough. What we need is, "X." They say "X" is just "common sense." Really? That's what they said LAST TIME. And when "X" doesn't work they'll jump up and down and scream that we need to do "Y" and that "Y" is just "common sense!" They've been playing this game since 1934 (at least) and have yet to demonstrate any positive results. Well fuck them. I'm not willing to go any further down that road and there are millions of other gun owners who feel the same way. I really couldn't care less what you think of me or what names you call me or what snarky remarks you throw my way. I don't need or want your approval. You're mad at me because you feel vulnerable. Well that's your problem. The solution to your problem does not lie in making me as vulnerable as you are. Your time would be better spent learning how not to be vulnerable in the first place.
c ya.
jmg257
(11,996 posts)Last edited Mon Sep 30, 2013, 09:15 PM - Edit history (1)
I don't really think much of you at all...why would I???
And why would I feel vulnerable?? What stretch of imagination are you making to come up with the notion that I am (or feel) any more vulnerable then you, or just about anyone else??? I am quite sure I am alot less vulnerable then most. I actually feel pretty good about my capabilities, my problems (or lack there of), and of course usually feel ok about the way I spend my time.
Except for responding to this nonsense, I guess.
Talk about a disconnect of ideas....
Here's a remark for you...
Bye.
thucythucy
(8,132 posts)I've read on DU from gun lovers that, when considering the tens of thouands of deaths each year, and the multiple mass killings, and the thounsands upon thousands of gun related injuries, we should ALSO consider all the crimes prevented by gun ownership which don't make the news.
By the same token, shouldn't we consider all the mass killings and individual deaths and stupid accidents that might have been prevented by background checks and other reasonable gun laws? Mass killings and deaths and accidents we'll never hear about, because, thankfully, they didn't happen?
Also, just for the record, do you support assholes with guns parading in front of elementary schools, frightening children, parents and teachers, because it's "their right" to open carry?
HALO141
(911 posts)is why some people are acting out so violently in the first place.
thucythucy
(8,132 posts)the means by which so many are able to become so lethal, so fast.
The one doesn't preclude the other.
rrneck
(17,671 posts)This is a liberal/progressive website. Conventional wisdom dictates a dislike for guns and their owners here. There are good reasons for the existence of that attitude, although perhaps not for its persistence.
coldmountain
(802 posts)GalaxyHunter
(271 posts)so I would look just like you in a crowd.
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)gun owners. The fact that gun owners fight attempts to limit gun ownership invites the shit given you by others.
I think that if there was a gun group that was large and said " yea I really don't need a semi automatic and yea there are more words in the 2nd Amendment than Right to bear arms
maybe you might get some love
notadmblnd
(23,720 posts)I'm not talking about taking it in the woods and hunting with one (no one is going to see you there and call you a bad guy). I'm talking about carrying it in public for everyone to see.
Jenoch
(7,720 posts)a link to a letter to the editor to the Minneapolis newspaper that said all hunters should be sterilized.
Squinch
(51,084 posts)Jenoch
(7,720 posts)The OP feels as if people thinks he is a bad person because he owns guns.
notadmblnd then wrote:
"I'm not talking about taking it in the woods and hunting with one (no one is going to see you there and call you a bad guy)."
Then I replied with the fact that somebody on DU believes hunters should be sterilized.
Please tell me you can figure this out, if not, read it a few more times.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Such a delicate flower clearly needs protection.
You're going to have to explain your reply to me. How do you get to the conclusion you have reached from those two posts? I did not write a single thing about myself.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)and you're clinging to it to show just how horribly put upon you are by all those mean people in the world.
Why, it's clearly as bad as Selma!!
So it's not particularly surprising you're interested in owning a gun to protect yourself, if you are so threatened by a mean Internet comment.
Jenoch
(7,720 posts)comprehension. I wrote nothing in this thread that directly pertains to me. I was pointing out a thread that was contradictory to what someone else posted. I have never written a post here suggesting I felt threatened.
I have never purchased a gun for self protection.
What's your deal? Why don't you respond to posts on what has been written rather than assuming facts not in evidence?
Squinch
(51,084 posts)And as you said yourself, it was someone in Minneapolis who said it, not someone on DU.
Jenoch
(7,720 posts)spin
(17,493 posts)I am willing to use it to stop an attacker who intends to put me in the hospital for an extended stay or six feet and and has the capacity to do so. I have no desire to kill another person in legitimate self defense but unfortunately that could happen.
I would have to be a total fool to carry a firearm for self defense if I was unwilling to shoot someone with it when there was no other choice. The attacker would simply take it from me and kill me with my own weapon.
I could also point out that owning a firearm for home defense if you are unwilling to shoot a violent intruder is also foolish.
Now of course you will probably think that I am a bloodthirsty gun nut looking for a chance to kill another person. That would be totally false.
Let's say I'm walking down a street and my situational awareness fails me. I find myself confronted by a mugger who demands I turn over my wallet. If he appeared to be rational, sane and in control of his emotions, I would simply give him my wallet. I can replace my money, credit cards and ID. It may be very difficult to replace my health and impossible to rise from the dead and return to my life. However if I have good reason to suspect that the person confronting me intends to hurt or kill me no matter what I do, I will use my handgun to try to stop him. Realistically I don't have much to lose in that situation.
notadmblnd
(23,720 posts)Yours is concealed so it is a different thing.
I think people that open carry in public are saying that they are people who would indeed kill.
spin
(17,493 posts)Florida is fairly hot during much of the year so people generally wear light clothing. This makes concealing a medium or full sized handgun difficult. Most of the people I know who carry on a regular basis tend to carry very compact firearms.
If open carry were passed, it would be easier to carry a full sized handgun. I probably would continue to carry concealed as I have no desire to intimidate anyone or to scare some person who is afraid of firearms and those who carry them. I doubt that open carry will ever pass in Florida because it would scare off the tourists.
In some states open carry is common and few people are disturbed by it. If I lived in one of these states, I might decide to open carry.
LonePirate
(13,441 posts)Do the irresponsible ones have a glow in their eyes? Criminals often hide their weapons so it's not a CC issue.
If I am walking home with my candy and tea, how do I know you are not a Stand Your Ground person looking to prove your courage?
Do I need to hire a security firm whenever I wish to take a stroll? I know I would feel much safer if the person walking towards me definitely did not have a gun regardless of how many gun owners claim they are responsible.
enki23
(7,791 posts)You know the stereotype I don't like? The one that says people in favor of commonsense gun laws are evil gun grabbers who just want to completely take away your super fun hobby of launching projectiles at things forever and ever and ever by drafting reasonable restrictions on time/place/manner/types of allowed projectile launchers. "What do you mean I'm only allowed to have a projectile launcher that only allows me to launch 20 projectiles before changing one magazine/thingy out for another magazine/thingy? The constitution says I'm allowed up to 169. That's number of original colonies/states squared, you FUCKING NAZI FASCIST ANARCHIST DICTATOR COMMIES!!!"
While we're at it, you know what's even dumber than that stupid fucking laws that focus on cosmetic shit the gun prima donas like to play dress up with but are almost entirely incidental to the actual job of projectile flinging? The scumbag dorks who like to play dress up with fucking guns. They may be right on the constitutionality of their sick little hobby (regarding the cosmetic shit), but holy shit... they're about as legitimately fucking creepy as an adult baby walking around at an elementary school book fair.
Fact is, if you're obsessed with instruments of death, you're probably a creep. That's usually a safe bet.
Squinch
(51,084 posts)thereismore
(13,326 posts)spin
(17,493 posts)I also see no problem with limiting magazine size to 5 rounds when hunting game such as deer which is the law in most states.
oneshooter
(8,614 posts)gopiscrap
(23,768 posts)HockeyMom
(14,337 posts)Once you decide to walk around outside in public then expect what you get because it is then when OTHER PEOPLE'S rights are affected.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)GalaxyHunter
(271 posts)ileus
(15,396 posts)I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that it's my duty to protect the lives of my family and I, wherever we may roam.
I will continue to carry, safety first, willing victim later.
HockeyMom
(14,337 posts)you have no duty to protect your adult spouse. I have said that one to my gunner husband for 40 years. I will CHOOSE my own form of protection, and that for me, does not include a gun, or pepper spray, or mace. Actually, as an ADULT female, I resent that male attitude patronizing to say the least.
ileus
(15,396 posts)I'll do what is necessary to keep her safe if it's within my means. I'm sure you won't mind...
She's my #1 interest from now until one of us dies....I will do my best to make sure she doesn't die prematurely at the hands of anyone, anywhere. That includes protecting her when we're together it's my job, it's what she expects from me. What you don't expect from me doesn't matter to her.
Side Note:
Once she started carrying her 642 she donated her old kimber pepper spray to me, I carry it at work. She wrote the CHP rules and gave the inservice on firearms and other weapons at her work so she's able to carry there.
Prophet 451
(9,796 posts)I'm sure you're a responsible gun owner. If I lived in the States and was mentally well, I probably would be too (I'm British and mentally ill). I don't want guns to be banned and I don't think it would do much good if they were (handguns were entirely banned here in 1997 but our murder rate is still roughly the same). But I also resent being branded a "gun grabber" simply for advocating a few sensible reforms (none of which are unique to me so I won't waste your time with them).
Here's the thing though. This is a liberal/progressive site. Liberals/progressives tend (as a very broad generalisation) to be for stricter gun control. This is also the internet, where the loudest and most emotive voice tends to carry the day. And the US has recently suffered several tragedies where firearms were involved. So yeah, people on the internet paint with too broad a brush, happens all the time. Maybe, as liberals, we should be a bit more thoughtful with what we say. Probably we should and if we were chatting about this in, say, a pub, I'm sure we would be. But this is the internet. And the illusion of anonymity, an audience and no repercussions means that people often act like pricks (see Penny Arcade's "GIFT" .
And finally, a lot of your fellow gun owners are against even the most logical regulation of firearms. Is it fair to stereotype you based on that? Of course not. But people do stereotype. Everyone does to some extent, all the time. We pretty much have to stereotype to some extent just to get through the day and it's an automatic part of our psychological make-up (see Social Identity Theory but note this is a subconscious process that can be overridden by conscious thought). Again, should we, as liberals, be better than that? Absolutely. But the fact is, we're often not (you should see some of the stereotypes I get over something as inconsequential as being a wrestling fan). Fair? No, but we do it anyway.
You don't like being considered a bad guy, don't be a bad guy and rest secure in the knowledge that they're either not referring to you or not being accurate if they do.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)Who gives a shit what simpletons think? The bad opinion of people I don't respect is irrelevant to me.
But yeah...I understand. It's absurd to be irrationally stereotyped.
ileus
(15,396 posts)You're not scared of LEO's because you're in the "right"
You could be forced into defending yourself and/or family, but that's saving lives not killing.
You my friend are progressive in everything, including personal safety.
GalaxyHunter
(271 posts)NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)all gone.
Squinch
(51,084 posts)Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)that is so interwoven with owning a gun that I can not separate the two any longer.
I am to the point where I believe that anti-gunners are simultaneously Male Chauvinist Pigs and this goes double when another Woman starts telling me what to do.