Do you own a gun?

[survivor999]

Poll question: Do you own a gun?

Do you own or plan to buy a gun? If you can, please eleborate on why (self-defense? What else is there?).

[MrSlayer]

1. Yes, several.

Why?

[Wonk]

5. I'll second your "why?" nt

[survivor999]

20. Why any poll?

To find out. :)

[Wonk]

165. re: why THIS poll, invariably they turn into proselytizing and flaming.

You're far from the first to have the bright idea to start a gun poll in GD.

[survivor999]

169. Apparently,

Nobody is proselytizing and flaming in THIS poll.

[Wonk]

174. No proselytizing? Read again. No flaming? (deleted message). nt

[Wonk]

426. I forgot to mention, they also go on forever until eventually locked. nt

[pooja]

2. I don't want to own something I don't know how to use. It is more

dangerous for me to have a weapon that I don't know how to use. I'd be better off with a kitchen knife, at least I know how to use that.

[slackmaster]

106. A big kitchen knife makes an excellent self-defense weapon

I recommend that you get trained in edged weapons. I did. It was very interesting and taught me some good techniques, as well as legal and moral aspects of the use of deadly force.

I recently acquired a modern replica of a Greek Hoplite short sword, 22" blade. I've been drilling with that. It would be extremely effective against an unarmed assailant, or someone with a shorter-bladed knife.

I carry a folding Buck utility knife most of the time. It's handy for many things, including potential self-defense.

[evirus]

382. man thats got to effect the moral of some...

would be robber, pulling a friggen short sword on him.... so old school.

[slackmaster]

411. I hope I never have to use it, but look on perp's face would be priceless

If the situation arises I will be trained and ready.

[Posteritatis]

452. A friend of mine bought a katana awhile back

Something of an impulse purchase - a friend of his was moving, lacked the space and wanted to offload the thing for cheap, so he got it for $reasonable instead of $ohsweetjesusmywalletno. So he went over there, picked that up, and was walking back home. Seeing as carrying a katana through the streets would raise some eyebrows, he had his trenchcoat on and stuffed the weapon and scabbard into his belt underneath it.

He lived in a bad part of town and had to go through a worse part of town to get it, but he wasn't typically the type to worry about that - huge, frizzy-haired, imposing wall of a fellow, and the trench helped the image. This time, a bunch of guys across the street saw him, decided he was Just Some Freak who needed to be jumped. So they started shouting threats at him and stuff, to pump themselves up before they went across to go to work on him.

He turns to face them across the road, opens his trench just enough to make the katana visible, smiles sweetly, and keeps on walking home to complete silence behind him.

I seem to recall some of them recognizing him later in the street and greeting him with a polite, somewhat nervous nod and not a word or gesture more.

[Doctor Venmkan]

457. LMAO!!!!! - "There can be ONLY ONE!"

If they had still given him trouble after seeing it, he could have started tossing threats in a faux Scots accent! "I am Duncan MacLeod of the Clan MacLeod...." :D

[treestar]

246. IA with this, also I think the chances of being attacked are

too low to spend time on learning how to use a gun. The media plays it up, but it's still a rarity. It is more important to drive defensively, in terms of the odds of getting killed and how.

[RagingInMiami]

3. Two

[Monkeyman]

4. Yep but never use

Captured weapon from Nam. I use to hunt but after being the hunted never more

[ThomWV]

6. I do, my wife does, my son does, my daughter in law does

and as far as I know everyone we associate with owns guns too.

[liberal N proud]

7. No, but I know where I can get some real fast

[LiberalVoice]

57. lol nt

[Jacobin]

8. Several

so what?

[BlackVelvet04]

9. Sure....doesn't everybody?

;-)

I have one of my own and my husband has 3 or 4.

Why? We're from the rural south...it goes with the territory.

I'm a great shot, too.

[tinfoilinfor2005]

147. No.

I'm from the south too. Wouldn't dream of owning a gun or even touching one for that matter. So I guess everyone is different.:)

[ChristianLibrul]

10. What else is there?

Target shooting.

Hunting.

Collecting for investment.

Reenacting.

Competitive shooting.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

139. All BETTER reasons IMHO (with the possible exception of the 3rd one) -nt

[Endangered Specie]

190. How abouot just collecting for fun/interest?

[DireStrike]

11. Why would I want one? In case.

It's rather expensive and hazardous, so I don't have one right now, but I'd like to take a safety course and buy one eventually.

[DanCa]

12. My old man has a collection of black powder antiques on the wall

He also has a shotgun and a hand gun. Personally I wouldn't touch a gun because with the way I tremor it's not safe for me too shoot one.

[OhioChick]

13. Sure Do. n/t

[Jackpine Radical]

14. A couple shotguns, a couple pistols, a couple .22 rifles,

a deer rifle. That's about all. I used to own more. Also used to handload & shoot quite a bit, but got bored with all that. I still hunt, though.

[Union Thug]

15. Yes... a small collection

of european surplus rifles and handguns (Enfield, Mosin, SKS, etc.)

[ileus]

324. I have several, but only have ammo for 3....

I just don't shoot the others. I have several that I don't even know if they fire, (I'm sure they do)

[OnceUponTimeOnTheNet]

16. Own? Yes.

And it's no bodys bizness how many, or what kind, or why.
Have a nice weekend all!

[Bretttido]

17. I would get one, but my fiance would freak the hell out and kill me.

She HATES guns.

[ChristianLibrul]

18. I hope she uses something...

...besides a gun. That would be bad.

[Doctor Venmkan]

26. I would see this argument settled before any wedding rings were applied...

(of course, it may be no big deal if you don't LOVE guns yourself...)

Just saying that arguments on how to approach the subject of self-defense can't help a long-term relationship...!!!!!

Anyway, yes, some pistols and an "assault" :eyes: rifle...a vintage SKS carbine. Took me two days to get all the cosmoline out of that sucker! :D

PS...you could just take the advice "concealed is concealed!" ;)

[Bretttido]

31. It's okay, I don't want one that much anyways

I wouldn't have much use for it unless anarchy broke lose... :nuke:

[Selatius]

19. I'm surprised at how well-armed DUers are.

I would've figured the difference was like 60-40 or 70-30 without firearms, not something closer to 50-50.

[ChristianLibrul]

22. The other half need to understand...

...just how important being well armed will be soon. Once you're in the camp, it's too late.

[DanCa]

23. Unfortunately.

what's goods a gun when the government has tanks and missile :D

[Selatius]

29. Well, you're supposed to avoid those in a guerrilla war anyway.

The Iraqis have pretty much shown everybody how you fight if your opponent is armed with heavy armor and warplanes: Through hit-and-run tactics like ambushes and car bombs and IEDs.

[cherokeeprogressive]

46. The Iraqis have shown everybody?

I'm thinking that the North Vietnamese would be a better group of people to credit with showing the world what true guerilla warfare is all about.

[Bretttido]

47. Indeed, but jungles made it easier

[Selatius]

60. If the Iraqis had jungle canopy, we'd be losing far, far more troops

Because it allowed the enemy to get extremely close to US positions before launching ambushes.

[blonndee]

63. Yup, and I think that's why Baghdad

is particularly dangerous--too many places to hide. Urban warfare is the nightmare of traditional armies.

[slackmaster]

115. The 5.56 mm round (e.g. M16 rifle) is inadequate in that situation

That's why US troops have largely stopped using the M249 Squad Automatic Weapon and embraced the 7.62 mm M240 machine gun.

I've also seen a few pics of Marines using bolt-action Mauser rifles they've picked up. The 8 mm Mauser round is quite effective at 400 yards and beyond.

[thefamethrowa]

227. Well, it's not he cartridge...

...so much as the length of the barrel. The big problem with the SS-109/M-855 round is that the end-user typically fires it out of a 14.5" M4 carbine barrel, which doesn't give it sufficient velocity to tumble and then tear into shreds at the cannelure. Out of a 14.5" barrel, the 62 grain projectile only travels at 2400 fps, which isn't enough velocity and concomitant force to make that bullet tumble; SOCOM has started issuing 77-grain 5.56 ammunition (MatchKings, I think) to its soldiers, giving these troops a projectile that will gather much more energy in the short M4 barrel and will retain it for a much farther distance.
If soldiers are moving away from the M249, I would bet it is because they get lousy penetration against barriers, whereas the 7.62 NATO round of the M240 will go through the cement walls of Iraqi buildings with ease, especially if the end-user uses "black tip" AP ammo. Personally, it'd take something pretty significant for me to change from the 16-lb. M249 to the 27-lb M240, especially since it is impossible to fire the latter as a rifle with any controllability. And can you imagine how much a few hundred rounds of 7.62 NATO in belts must weigh? My shoulders hurt just thinking about it.

[tabasco]

114. How about the American revolutionaries?

General Giap said he learned many lessons reading about General Washington and his campaigns against the British.

Taking on the world's most powerful military and all that.

[thefamethrowa]

229. The NVA?

The NVA had tanks and airplanes equivalent or better to our own (if not in our numbers). The Vietcong, the South Vietnamese insurgents, were the guerilla force.

[rman]

239. "South Vietnamese insurgents"

Weren't they basically South Vietnamese - which would by definition make them not "insurgents"?

[LostinVA]

316. I agree -- they weren't "insurgents"

They were a native Resistance/Partisan force.

[Posteritatis]

30. Ask the Afghan mujihadeen, or the Iraqi equivalents? (nt)

[bdamomma]

36. box cutters seemed to do quite a bit a damage didn't they?

I am not trying sound sarcastic but sometimes the smallest weapon has the greatest impact.

[Jack_DeLeon]

72. but ofcourse...

the greatest of weapons is the human mind.

[The Stranger]

91. Quoting "Rambo" from "First Blood"?

An entertaining little movie, and very good for Stallone's career, although it caught sequel fever and was run into the ground.

[bdamomma]

97. some people in this regime

are not using theirs, a mind is a terrible thing to waste.

[thefamethrowa]

230. Box-cutters

They are enough when your opponents don't have guns, such as on airplanes.

[guinivere]

293. No. No guns here. I do have a box cutter though, and a couple of

fierce kitchen knives.

[wicket]

126. As the Doors said "They've got the guns but we've got the numbers..."

n/t

[Raskolnik]

151. I'd rather have both.

n/t

[wicket]

179. I do anyway

:P

[MrBenchley]

249. So how's Jim Morrison doing these days?

[sgxnk]

390. dennis leary on the biography of jim morrison

I'm drunk and nobody
I'm drunk and famous
I'm drunk and dead

Dennis Leary is pretty frigging funny

his show "no cure for cancer" is a comedic standup classic

[MrBenchley]

424. LOL!

I'm not a big Leary fan but that IS too funny. Thanks.

[Greyhound]

171. You need the small arms to acquire the enemy's larger arms to use

against them. You may also need them to eat if control is too tight to live on city resources.

[Endangered Specie]

191. who said it had to be the government...

Id be more worried about a cooky right-wing paramilitia Bubba divison, or perhaps a 'pro-life jihad squadron' coming after us.

Properly using a gun requires about 90% brain and 10% physical strength, who do you thinks gonna win in a battle of equally armed wits?

[Selatius]

224. That's my worry, a paramilitary death squad of ultra-rightwing fanatics.

Anything smelling of leftism will be shot. Slobodan Milosevic had several paramilitary units operating in the countryside to deal with dissidents. No, they weren't regular army; these units operated outside their jurisdiction.

[thefamethrowa]

232. Or El Salvador.

They hired off-duty soldiers/cops to work in the deathsquads. Funny thing is, anti-gun celebs usually hire off-duty cops as security.

[Recursion]

274. Yeah, because as Iraq taught us...

...militias primarily armed with small arms are absolutely helpless against big technologically advanced armies.

:sarcasm:

[RangerSmith]

384. but they

won't have that many fools to man them.

[MrBenchley]

299. Got paranoid?

"how important being well armed will be soon. Once you're in the camp, it's too late."
Yeah, Tim McVeigh said much the same thing...and he spent years among gun crazies without standing out from the background noise.

Besides, it's not like gun owners do anything but cheer when tyrants show up. Dick Cheney was the NRA's man of the year in 2004 and Tom Delay was the NRA's man of the year in 2005--and there's no sign that "liberal gun owners" did anything but snivel and whine whenever actual liberals noticed and jeered.

The NRA's man of the year in 2006 was Tommy Franks who pimped for the fuehrer's war....did any "liberal gun owner" do anything but piss and moan about how "unfair" it was for the rest of us to notice? Nope.

[catmother]

21. i own 2. my husband has 3. it's for self defense. i keep 1 in

my nightstand even though i have a sophisticated alarm system. i used to carry the other in my glove compartment. when we lived in new york guns were not allowed to ordinary citizens. as soon as we moved to arizona we bought our first one.

but i am for gun control. i like the brady bill but i believe one can still buy a gun at a gun show. i'm against automatic assault weapons. don't see any need unless we're at war.

on edit: my husband has a concealed carry permit.

[benEzra]

34. Not sure if you're aware of this...

I'm against automatic assault weapons. don't see any need unless we're at war.

Not sure if you're aware of this, but all automatic weapons are VERY tightly controlled by the Title 2/Class III provisions of the National Firearms Act of 1934. They are quite difficult for the average civilian to own.

The "assault weapon" bait-and-switch didn't affect military automatic weapons; it was all about restricting popular, non-automatic civilian (NFA Title 1) guns with modern styling, particularly civilian rifles and shotguns with handgrips that stick out.

My wife and I each own a couple of guns the gun-ban lobby considers "assault weapons." Depending on how many rounds your husband's handgun holds, it may fall under the "assault weapon" umbrella also.

[catmother]

37. when i say assault i'm talking about the ones you see on tv

shows about bank robberies, etc. the ones that just keep firing.

[benEzra]

48. Anything that fires continuously when the trigger is held down

is tightly controlled by the National Firearms Act. All civilian (NFA Title 1) guns fire once and only once when the trigger is pulled, and will not fire again until the trigger is released and pulled a second time.

The guns you often see in movies and such (and the ones the military uses) are restricted NFA Title 2 automatic weapons, usually configured to fire continuously when the trigger is pulled. Those typically put out around 10 rounds per second as long as the trigger is held down. These are quite difficult for most civilians to own (lots of special government paperwork required, and even a Chinese-made AK-47 copy costs $15,000 USD or so) but if you have a squeaky-clean record, are very patient, and have lots of money, you can get Federal permission to own one.

A lot of people confuse automatic NFA Title 2 guns with non-automatic NFA Title 1 guns that look similar. For example, I own a non-automatic AK-47 lookalike, but it's not a real AK-47; it's just an ordinary NFA Title 1 civilian rifle (non automatic) that looks a lot like a real AKM.

[blonndee]

50. Is yours a semi-automatic

Or just a regular rifle? Sorry if I'm not understanding the terms ("non-automatic"), but I'm not a real "gun" person, although I plan to buy a handgun soon.

Are semis legal, BTW?

[benEzra]

54. Yes. Semiautomatic means it fires once

when the trigger is pulled, and does not fire again until the trigger is released and pulled again. Most handguns work this way, as well as many small-caliber rifles like mine. A clearer term to describe this type of firearm is "self-loading" (so called because the gun ejects the empty case and cycles a new round into the chamber). Any time you see a police officer on TV firing an ordinary pistol, that's semiautomatic.


An automatic weapon, on the other hand, not only reloads itself, but it also fires itself, faster than a human being can pull the trigger. An NFA Title 2 restricted AK-47 fires about 10 rounds per second as long as the trigger is held down. When you see somebody on TV using a machinegun, or somebody in Iraq shooting a real AK-47, that's automatic fire.

[blonndee]

55. Thank you.

TV makes it seem like every criminal robbing a bank has an automatic weapon! :crazy:

[slackmaster]

111. Here in California most bank robbers use toy guns

Most of them are already convicted felons and are unable to acquire a real firearm legally.

The penalty for displaying a toy gun in a threatening manner is the same as for a real gun BTW.

[Nevernose]

69. And this is what disturbs me:

I used to work for a guy, a guy who was my friend, who was a former MP. He was the biggest gun-rights neo-con you could imagine, practically. And yet he still used to say, "They made me carry a 15 shot clip in my pistol, plus three extra rounds, plus target parctive regularly. We always figured that if we ever needed 60 rounds from a pistol, then we were doing something terribly wrong and we needed to go back to training, and we had no business being cops. When it came to actual ammo and firepower, he was a total dove.

[Greyhound]

172. I don't think it is a matter of being a dove as much as it is a matter of

being well trained and a good shot. Automatic weapons are of no practical use except in combat, they simply give the ability to kill everyone in a confined space very quickly.

Spray and pray usually gets you killed.

[thefamethrowa]

234. Shot placement.

It's key. Fifty shots that miss aren't going to take the place of one that doesn't. True gun-nuts are hardcore markspersons.

I don't know why the opponents and proponents of machineguns care so much about them, frankly. The chief reason the military uses them is because they can fire continuously for long enough to keep the opposition hiding behind their barriers, during which time the people with rifles outmaneuver and kill them. It's damned hard to hit much with the second or third shot in a burst from any machinegun firing a cartridge powerful enough to reliably kill someone with the first. The Marines blocked off the fully automatic feature from their M14s, since they favor shot placement over "spray 'n' pray" and because people can't control a full-auto M14 anyway. Soldiers with M16s/M4s use their rifles in semi-auto, saving full-auto for when they have to kill a really close target as quickly as possible, and for when they have to make enough noise to get out of an ambush.

Full-auto also helps when you are trying to hit something waaay out there, and two shots in the same place tend to perforate body armor, but that's about it.

[iverglas]

119. what's your magic charm?

i keep 1 in my nightstand even though i have a sophisticated alarm system. i used to carry the other in my glove compartment.

I guess you also have a force field that keeps your house and car from being broken into, and things stolen from them, when you're not there. Of course, if you do ... you don't need guns. Hmm.

Otherwise, I guess you just cross your fingers and hope that no bad guys do something like that and get away before the alarm company shows up. Because, I mean, bad guys would never ever be looking for guns when they break into houses and cars, and if they were they would never ever think of looking in someone's bedside table or glove box.

Wouldn't it be ironic if that happened and your gun got stolen and then you or your husband got shot with it if you happened to be in the liquor store that somebody was using it to rob? I'll bet you'd just smack your forehead and say damn, isn't it funny how life works out sometimes.

Of course, if somebody else were the one who got shot with it, they (or their husband) might not be so amused.

[EstimatedProphet]

128. So I guess you voted 'no'?

[iverglas]

140. no need to guess

Read my post in response to the opening post. It's entitled, in part, "No".

But my goodness -- are non-gun-owners the only people to be expected, or allowed, to question the completely negligent storage of firearms by their owners? To point out that their self-indulgence, self-absorption and complete lack of regard for anyone else's safety may be the necessary link in a chain leading to someone's death, or even injury or property loss? (Funny how a non-gun-owner was the only one who did though, eh?)

If not, your guess would seem to be a bit of a logical leap and a great big giant baseless assumption, I'd say.

[EstimatedProphet]

199. Jesus! Who pissed in your Wheaties?

[iverglas]

207. I wondered

-- a day later -- whether the comment had been meant light-heartedly.

If you were familiar with the dishonest tactics and unfounded scurrilous personal commentary commonly engaged in against advocates of strict firearms control in discussions of the subject here at DU, you might understand why a "guess" like yours would raise hackles.

Express concern at the number of handguns stolen from private homes (and thus circulating in criminal hands until lost, destroyed or seized in connection with a crime) --

http://ojjdp.ncjrs.org/pubs/gun_violence/sect01.html
"In 1994 (in the US), more than a quarter-million households experienced the theft of one or more firearms; nearly 600,000 guns were stolen during these burglaries."

-- and the response is likely to be some variation on "so you don't think that people have a right to defend themselves??" I always love the cute little question mark; without it, it would almost look like someone was saying something they knew to be unfounded and probably false.

There was a congregation in this thread of people of the sort who say things like that, so my reaction to your post (which, you really must admit, was a little devoid of context or content; and you posted nothing else in the thread, I think) may have been hasty. I don't know.

The fact does remain that a gun owner could very easily have posted a comment expressing dismay and disgust at the practice of leaving a firearm unsecured in a piece of furniture or a car. In fact, I would have expected a lot of those law-abidin', responsible gun owners to do just that. I try to get over my disappointment.

[Doctor Venmkan]

214. I *could* have expressed dismay, yadda yadda yadda...

but I did not because I didn't jump to the conclusion that the firearms WERE "unsecured." She didn't SAY that she had trigger locks or another security device on them. But nor did she say she DIDN'T.

I've long got over MY disappointment that a few people at DU think all gun owners are a bunch of irresponsible oafs that are LOOKING for something or someone to blast. I'm just used to it by now. :)

[iverglas]

218. ah, trigger locks

http://www.gunlockinfo.com/Pages/GUN%20LOCKS,%20GENERAL%20INFORMATION%20(A)/Gun%20Locks,%20TRIGGER%20Gun%20Locks,%20CABLE%20Gun%20Locks.htm

WILL THE USE OF A LOCK PREVENT ACCESS TO MY FIREARM?
No! Not in all cases. Similar to the use of a lock on the front door of your home, a lock is used for deterrence purposes but given time, tools and determination the lock will not prevent access in all cases. Because of this fact, the use of any firearm safety device is but one component of safe firearm storage. The use of a lock may prevent access from small children and depending on the lock may deter access from some unauthorized users, including older children and some adults. If nothing else, a good device may require additional time to disable. The extra time and effort that may be required may provide valuable time for the unauthorized user to cool off, regain their composure from a weak mental moment, re-think their intentions or become discovered in their attempts.

Now, I guess that a really, really, really stupid burglar would find a firearm in a bedroom drawer and then sit on the bed until s/he had succeeded in cracking the trigger lock.

A not quite so stupid burglar would probably put the thing in his/her pants and take it somewhere else, and then set about defeating the trigger lock.

I dunno, of course. I don't know nuttin bout guns.

[Doctor Venmkan]

294. Well, I WILL give you this:

I don't use "trigger locks" myself. This is because, I almost NEVER leave a loaded gun unattended. The one gun that is loaded is the one in my pocket or on my side any given day. The rest are locked up unloaded, and separate from the ammunition.

I did say "almost." There is one exception where I willingly separate myself from my loaded gun:

There are times some days where I leave my loaded pistol locked up in a secure and hidden vault in my vehicle. The times where I must enter a place where I am either forbidden by law to carry, or where someone has put up a "No guns allowed" sign. (And I just KNOW criminals shudder in fear after one look at those signs! But this is a topic for another time, I guess...) ;)

[MrBenchley]

248. You might recall the charmer in the gungeon

who left his gun out so a family member who ran a meth lab was able to walk off with it.. And you also recall that he was outraged that anyone would question his judgement.

Or the tombstoned pinhead who boasted that he had a loaded shotgun within easy reach of his two children, and then flew into a rage whenever anyone pointed out that he ought not to be regarded as a "responsible gun owner."

[EstimatedProphet]

332. In fewer words-yes, I was making a joke.

[Name removed]

237. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[thefamethrowa]

236. You mean during the day?

Like, when criminals don't tend to burglarize people? I'd assume (s)he is home most of the night, like most people are.

"Daylight robbery" is an idiom because the phenomenon is counterintuitive.

[iverglas]

302. gee ... and yet ...

It was broad afternoon when that guy walked into my living room and took my purse ... six months after he did in the morning and tried to do it at my dad's apartment next door ...

I guess we just have smarter criminals up here in Canada. They seem to have figured out that during the day is when many people, and in fact entire neighbourhoods, aren't home, and that this might just be a good time to undertake a leisurely investigation of their premises.

Of course, you might also be aware that "robbery" and "burglary" are two very different things -- but if not, perhaps this is where your apparent confusion arises. Think "highway robbery", and you might start to get it.

[marions ghost]

436. anybody have any statistics

on number of guns which are stolen from average homeowners (along with the TV and the jewelry?) -- I expect the number is significant.

[slackmaster]

503. I've never had an insurance company ask me about firearms

When applying for renter's or homeowner's insurance.

From that I would infer that from the financial perspective of an insurer, any increased liability (for theft or damages) resulting from presence of firearms isn't worth the effort of costing out in order to calculate a higher premium to charge to gun owners.

[Beelzebud]

24. Yes.

[jwirr]

25. I voted no but I am a 63 year old woman who used to be able to

out shoot her brothers. My family own guns, at least one or more. Several are collectors or believe we may need guns for survival: hunting.

[Retired AF Dem]

27. I have to count but I would

guess about 200. Sooner or later the floors of my house will give way to the weight of four gun safes. Do you really want to see dangerous? it is a north Alabamian driving a car.

[comradebillyboy]

28. yes and I have a concealed carry permit as well

I am a big fan of all my civil rights, second amendment included. I am a member of both the ACLU and NRA. Why because I can. Unexercized rights atrophy, just as unexercised muscles.

If you really expect the police to protect you you are engaging in wishful thinking. One of my former students was recently murdered by her boyfriend. She called 911, the neighbors called 911, the cops showed up a couple of hours after she was dead. If you are the victim of a violent crime the police will try to catch the perp, but don't think they will protect you before the fact. I am willing to defend myself, my home and my family.

[Doctor Venmkan]

33. You NAILED it...

Well....the police may or may NOT protect you before the fact...

But most of the time it'll be a moot point since they don't just appear out of thin air when someone is in danger! ;)

[Guaranteed]

90. Great, well just don't accidentally shoot someone on the street

when they ask you what time it is.

IMO, that's irresponsible gun ownership. You don't carry around a loaded gun.

[Doctor Venmkan]

101. So do the police and military practice irresponsible gun ownership?

"No, because they are TRAINED in how to handle guns."

Well, so am I. In the great state of North Carolina, besides having the permission of local law enforcement and the government to be able to carry a gun with you for self-defense, you ALSO have to take a training class. As it SHOULD be (but isn't in every state...).

My main defense is AWARENESS, as in staying OUT of potentially bad situations whenever possible. And besides a gun, I always carry another non-lethal weapon of some kind. Drawing the gun is the last and least-wanted result of any carry permit holder.

[Guaranteed]

167. It's not your job, and you don't carry it on the outside of your person,

in a holster.

Were you ever in the Boy Scouts? They teach responsible gun ownership. They teach you that the only time you ever have a loaded and ready weapon is when it is pointed down-range at your target. Carrying a loaded pistol is a danger to other people.

[sgxnk]

392. it is anybody's job

i am a cop

been in shooting

carried a gun for many years

i FULLY 100% support right to carry for civilians

the VAST majority of "line cops" (ie NOT police chiefs and other appointed administrators) support right to carry

i believe that ANYBODY who wishes to have the "job" of carrying should be able to (except for convicted felons, etc.)

i also believe the constitution mandates taht

again, most cops, guys who deal with shootings and gun stuff a lot believe in the right of civilians to carry

i have been in shootouts btw. not one was with somebody lawfully carrying a gun, of course

i also have a coworker whose life was saved by a store owner with a gun. he shot somebody who had grabbed HER copgun(tm) and would probably have shot her with it. (77% of the time cops are disarmed, the perpetrator uses the gun against them)

in a free society, we respect that citizens (not subjects) are trusted with self defense, with defense against rogue govt, and with the right to express controversial and unpopular ideas

if you don't want to carry a gun, don't

but don't deny others that fundamental right

[Recursion]

275. Not sure about the military

Even on patrol we tended to keep our weapons in condition 4 (magazine not inserted) until contact was made. I don't think cops carry in condition 3 either, but I could be wrong.

[Guaranteed]

317. And that's responsible gun ownership. nt

[Billy Ruffian]

127. Why not?

Police carry loaded guns all the time.

It's not an issue unless you're careless.

And why the insult about shooting someone for asking you what time it is?

[slackmaster]

142. Always funny to see someone telling a stranger what he or she needs

Or does not need. BGL, how on Earth could you possibly know about another DU member's circumstances? Some peoples' lives do take them into situations where it's a very good idea to carry a weapon for self-defense.

I'm not qualified to say whether or not someone needs to carry a loaded gun. I believe in allowing people to make those decisions for themselves.

[Guaranteed]

168. Carrying around a loaded weapon puts other people in danger.

I'm a civil liberties buff, but guns are not toys. The second you don't respect a gun, it kills you- or someone else. They aren't the type of thing you stick in your pocket and take with you to the mall.

[slackmaster]

242. Not if the person carrying it is sane, sober, and properly trained

I'm a civil liberties buff, but guns are not toys.

I don't believe anyone here carries such a delusion.

They aren't the type of thing you stick in your pocket and take with you to the mall.

Maybe not, but people do sometimes go to places other than malls.

[MrBenchley]

288. Unless that armed charmer MISSES

"I don't believe anyone here carries such a delusion."
Now who was that posting in this thread pretending banks in California are held up with toys? I know it will come to me in a moment.

[slackmaster]

313. If people licensed to carry guns posed a public safety problem,

You'd see it clearly in crime reports and statistics, since it's a civil right to do so in all but a handful of states.

But there are no stats. The Emperor has no clothes.

Now who was that posting in this thread pretending banks in California are held up with toys? I know it will come to me in a moment.

I'm not pretending, I said it because it's true. And I didn't say it was all bank robberies, just most. The information isn't all that hard to find. Toy guns have become part of the typical junkie bank robber's accoutrements along with phony facial hair, bad wigs, and silly hats.

[Guaranteed]

318. You should tell that to the Boy Scouts.

Tell them that the rules they teach for handling guns are just hogwash, that the statistics show that handling a loaded gun is just as safe as handling an (actually) unloaded gun or no gun at all.

What you're saying doesn't really make sense, does it?

[slackmaster]

320. So much straw flying around, so little time to respond to it all

Where have I ever said that safe gun handling was not important, or that a loaded gun wasn't potentially dangerous?

In reply #242 I specifically stated that a person carrying a weapon should be "properly trained". If I wasn't clear enough, let me be more specific here.

The outcome of proper training in firearm handling includes:

- Instinctive knowledge of the rules of safe gun handling so as to prevent negligent discharges and collateral damage,

- Ability to draw and fire the weapon in a variety of conditions,

- Knowledge of applicable laws and moral issues concerning use of deadly force, including the negative consequences that are likely even when force is perfectly justified, and

- A demonstrated ability to make shoot/no shoot decisions.

I am a strong proponent of safe gun handling. That's something I learned from an expert at age 10. But most parents aren't qualified to teach it, so I think public schools should at least teach kids how to unload the most common types of weapons.

I think the requirements for getting a concealed weapons permit should be pretty strict. But even with the mish-mash of requirements we have now among the states (and in some cases like California great inconsistency within a state), the problem you are attempting to enumerate here about here doesn't actually happen very often. When was the last time you heard of a concealed weapons permit holder accidentally shooting an innocent bystander? I can't recall any such incidents, even in Vermont or Alaska where any adult without a criminal record can carry a concealed loaded weapon without a permit.

What you're saying doesn't really make sense, does it?

What I am saying makes perfect sense. Unfortunately you have chosen to respond to things I have never said.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

433. Yes, there are stats.

According to http://webapp.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_sy.html 30,000 people are shot to death in America every year; I don't know how many are injured but I imagine it's considerably more.

Nearly all of those will be shot either by someone with a license to carry a gun or by someone whose gun comes from someone with a license to carry a gun.

If people are robbing banks with toy guns, great. That way, they're not going to shoot anyone. I care far less about bank robberies than I do about deaths. I'd want to see a statistic before I accepted that "most", though.

[slackmaster]

444. Those stats have nothing to do with the subject of this sub-thread

...Nearly all of those will be shot either by someone with a license to carry a gun or by someone whose gun comes from someone with a license to carry a gun....

Nonsense. A majority of shooting deaths in the USA are suicides. Most homicides are committed by people who aren't legally qualified to even own a gun, much less acquire a license to legally carry one concealed.

The dishonesty in this debate runs thick, from both sides.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

448. I admit I didn't know that.

However, checking on the same site indicates that it's only just true: about 16,000 of those 30,000 shooting deaths are recorded as being suicides.

However, your second point about people who aren't qualified to own a gun, while quite possibly true, isn't responding to what I said: while I admit I can't prove it, I would be very surprised indeed if most of the people who have guns illegally didn't *get* them by one means or another from people who owned them legally, or people who got them from such people, etc.

[slackmaster]

449. My point is the license holders aren't the ones doing the shootings

If allowing more people to obtain concealed-carry permits actually jeopardized public safety, that should be pretty easy to prove.

The statistics I quoted from the Texas DPS in reply #398 suggest that permit holders are less likely to commit crimes than are members of the general public. I was responding to MrBenchley's intentionally misleading citation of a Violence Policy Center paper.

[Guaranteed]

319. ...and, you forgot, doesn't make a mistake.

Which, we all know, sane, sober and properly trained people never do.

[slackmaster]

321. Let's see some statistics

People have been getting concealed weapons permits for more than 20 years in some states.

They're available to people in nearly every state.

Where are all the accidental shootings and other mistakes you are so concerned about?

[MrBenchley]

379. Let's not forget

that the entire case for handing out pistol permits like candy is based on academic fraud by a racist crackpot hired by the gun industry....

http://www.whoismaryrosh.com/

And that since a study of Texas permit holders found that they were committing crimes more frequently than the general population of Texas, the gun lobby and the GOP have been furiously passing bills to keep the public from knowing who has pistol permits and who doesn't....

[slackmaster]

398. Not much truth in that post

...the entire case for handing out pistol permits like candy is based on academic fraud ...

No, the case for using objective criteria for determining who is eligible for a concealed weapons permits is based on the concept of fairness.

...a study of Texas permit holders found that they were committing crimes more frequently than the general population of Texas...

MrBenchley has posted this chestnut several times but has never posted anything to back it up. Here is a link to the only known real data about crime rates of Texas CCW permit holders compared to the general population:

http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administration/crime_records/chl/convrates.htm

Texas CCW permit holders make up about 1% of the population, and for most crimes listed they account for well under 1% of the convictions.

[MrBenchley]

406. Slack, truth is kryptonite to you, which is why you avoid it

"MrBenchley has posted this chestnut several times but has never posted anything to back it up."
Which of course is not true....

And since you asked so nicely...

http://www.vpc.org/studies/ltk3cont.htm

"Texas CCW permit holders make up about 1% of the population, and for most crimes listed they account for well under 1% of the convictions."
Which of course, has nothing to do with what I said, and is the same horseshit by which Faux Noise determines BNaghdad is safer than Washington DC or Califronia.

[slackmaster]

408. Even you know that arrests are not the same as convictions

And if you want a measure of actual criminality in a population, conviction rates are far more meaningful than arrest rates.

I provided official conviction data from the Texas Department of Public Safety. You gave us a link to a known and often discredited propaganda-for-sale site.

Which of course, has nothing to do with what I said...

Yes MrBenchley, what you posted was completely without a factual basis: "...a study of Texas permit holders found that they were committing crimes more frequently than the general population of Texas... - Not even supported by your lame-ass VPC link.

[MrBenchley]

419. Yeah, and I never posted that before....

Truth to you is like kryptonite, slack, and being called a liar by you is an honor.

[slackmaster]

440. I've never called you a liar, MrBenchley

All I have done, very consistently, is point out inconsistencies and factual errors in your posts. You've known me long enough to have figured that out by now.

I wouldn't dream of giving you the satisfaction of being called a liar by me, and I think you know why.

[MrBenchley]

453. Yeah, ri-i-i-i-i-i-ght

You'd think after nearly five years the inadvertant comedy that slack's posts provide would lose some of their hilarity.

Yet, somehow he manages to make his ridiculous and outrageous hooey laughable, the way Wile E. Coyote can be entetaining when he catches an anvil with his skull again.

[slackmaster]

460. What's it like getting your ass handed to you on a platter almost daily?

:nuke:

[MrBenchley]

469. I'll never know...

especially not from your posts.

[slackmaster]

492. And that is the most amazing thing about you

Your complete lack of insight into the inherent hypocrisy of your behavior.

[crankybubba]

487. then go ahead and post

where slack called you a liar. I dare ya..I double dog dare ya.

[slackmaster]

493. A lot of DUers know he isn't going to be able to do that

I'd raise it to a triple dog dare.

[MrBenchley]

507. But they're all going to be like Bubba or Jody

What a dreary little fishfry that's going to be....(snicker)

[crankybubba]

509. oh you mentioned

me by name i did'nt know you cared...lets be best friends forever..xoxoxoxo


still no answers to any real questions though

[slackmaster]

510. What's this? No link to support your claim that I called you a liar?

I am shocked, SHOCKED!

[MrBenchley]

511. Yeah, that WILL be quite the gathering you're holding....

Hope everybody else is upwind.....

[Raskolnik]

515. Count me in. I'm interested to see you actually back up a claim.

But I'm not holding my breath.

[MrBenchley]

518. Yeah, it's going to be a regular Mensa meeting with slack and his chums

Hope everybody else is upwind

[Raskolnik]

519. There he is! Now maybe he can answer a simple question:

Do you feel that either of the two following statements are incorrect, and if so, why?

1) The 2nd Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms.
2) That right serves to help protect the other rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights.

[MrBenchley]

520. Yeah, it's going to be a brainiac festival....

[crankybubba]

521. can't back up you claim...

as usual...try to ignore the question and change the subject.

post where slack called you a liar...com on it should be easy to search and find it....if only it really existed. oh well maybe in benchworld(tm) it does.

[Raskolnik]

527. I apologize--I believe I've hijacked your question sub-thread

with my own question for our favorite logician.

He's such a smart guy though, he should have no trouble answering two very simple questions, right?

[Raskolnik]

522. Oops, you forgot to answer the question. That's ok, I'll ask you again

Do you feel that either of the two following statements are incorrect, and if so, why?

1) The 2nd Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms.
2) That right serves to help protect the other rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights.

[MrBenchley]

523. Did you have a question?

Feel free to ask. (snicker)

[Raskolnik]

525. Thanks for the invitation. A smart guy like you should be able to answer.

Do you feel that either of the two following statements are incorrect, and if so, why?

1) The 2nd Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms.
2) That right serves to help protect the other rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights.

[MrBenchley]

526. Don't be shy, just ask away....(snicker)

Yeah, slack's fishfry is going to be some meeting of the minds, all righty.....

[Raskolnik]

528. Ok, thanks. Since you're intellectually honest, you'll answer this time.

Do you feel that either of the two following statements are incorrect, and if so, why?

1) The 2nd Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms.
2) That right serves to help protect the other rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights.

[MrBenchley]

529. Any old question at all.....

Yeah, it's going to be quite the crowd there with slack......

[Raskolnik]

530. Just this simple question, since we're on a gun thread, not a MrB thread

Do you feel that either of the two following statements are incorrect, and if so, why?

1) The 2nd Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms.
2) That right serves to help protect the other rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights.

[MrBenchley]

531. Speak right up (snicker)

Yeah, the brainpower at slack's little do is going to be something else....(not brainpower)

[Raskolnik]

532. This is surely an honest oversight on your part, so I'll ask you again.

Do you feel that either of the two following statements are incorrect, and if so, why?

1) The 2nd Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms.
2) That right serves to help protect the other rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights.

[derby378]

537. What the hell - I'll go ahead and answer

1) Yes - but I would argue it's an individual right in service to the collective health to the nation.
2) Yes - but the other rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights also protect the Second Amendment, too.

[hpot]

145. DEA Agent shoots self in foot

A good example of irresponsible gun handling. :P

http://youtube.com/watch?v=MeGD7r6s-zU&search=DEA%20gun%20shoot%20funny

[Greyhound]

176. Carrying an unloaded gun is irresponsible.

If you don't have the will to use it without hesitation, should the situation call for it, then please DO NOT OWN ONE.

This is the reason for rule one: treat every gun as if it were loaded.

[Guaranteed]

177. There's nothing wrong with carrying, i.e. transporting, an unloaded

gun. There is something wrong with threatening someone with an unloaded gun.

But, in any case, your logic is way off. Never carry an unloaded gun, therefore always carry a loaded gun? Surely you can see the error in that, even assuming your premise is correct.

You're right about treating all guns as if they were loaded, though. But don't load them, either, and carry them.

[Greyhound]

192. I thought it would be understood by those reading this that I was not

writing about transferring your collection from the house to the storage facility, or wherever, but was replying to the previous post about threatening with an unloaded weapon. I apologize for assuming a modicum of reason where this issue is concerned.

If you chose to carry a weapon on your person for the purpose of self-defense, it should always be loaded.

[Guaranteed]

197. I didn't say anything about threatening someone with an

unloaded weapon. You brought that up.

But, you're right, that's a really bad idea, as tangential as it may be.

[Guaranteed]

178. This is why:

http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?section=local&id=4375350

An 12-year-old Queens girl splashing in a fire hydrant was fatally shot by a gunman who opened fire into a crowd of adults and kids gathered on the street to escape the stifling heat.

Eyewitness News has learned the girl, Genesis Regalado, was shot in the head and collapsed into the arms of her 14-year-old brother. She was pronounced dead at Elmhurst Hospital.

Police say three shots were fired from the car, a 1998 Nissan Ultima, that had slowed down near the kids frolicking in the sprinkler at 99th Street near 55th Avenue in the Corona section of Queens. The gunman opened fire after Ultima was splashed with water from the hydrant.

But it was not clear if the gunman was aiming at the kids - or at any one of the many adults who were nearby. It was unclear whether there were any others in the car, but witnesses said the driver was the shooter.

------


No, that's not why people "shouldn't own guns." I'm all for responsible gun ownership.

But that is most definitely why people shouldn't CARRY THEM AROUND IN PUBLIC.

IRRESPONSIBLE as HELL. All you're doing is giving yourself a chance to make the mistake of your life.

[Doctor Venmkan]

180. Ah yes, of COURSE!

Someone who keeps a squeaky-clean criminal record earns the right to carry a gun for the defense of his family...

Then just WAITS for the chance to open up in a crowd of people for NO effin; reason whatsoever! That's how it always works, after all. :sarcasm:

Please.

[Guaranteed]

181. People do stupid things when they get angry.

Yes, even people without criminal records.

NO ONE (except police/military) needs a firearm at their fingertips at all times. Leave your gun at home.

[Doctor Venmkan]

182. One word - HADITHA

The military (and police) are NOT godlike beings that-
A) will ALWAYS be right where you need them WHEN you need them
B) will NEVER act out of anger or other emotion and do something rash!

Note that nowhere was I so condescending as to suggest that people that do NOT carry a gun are irresponsible or they don't care about their families. Carrying a gun for self defense is NOT the right choice for everyone. But it IS an option that many people have. And they should be able to make the choice FOR THEMSELVES.

Since you are so distrustful of your fellow citizens, I think I'll agree 100% that you make the right choice by not carrying a gun. Since you think everyone with a Concealed Carry Permit is a serial-killer just waiting to happen...

[Greyhound]

195. Why? Are the police/military superior beings?

Do they never do stupid things? Are they immune to anger? For that matter, are they required to show up in the nick-of-time to save us from the whako du jour?

Do you really believe that living in a police state is the answer?

[Guaranteed]

196. They most certainly are NONE of those. BUT- their jobs are necessary.

It's their JOB.

[Greyhound]

202. No, it isn't and the courts have held to that for quite some time.

The police have no responsibility to protect you, and therefore, cannot be held liable when they fail to do so.

It is up to us to defend ourselves, and the right to own and possess the great equalizer, is just that, our right.

[Doctor Venmkan]

215. "what-if" time!

Say you live out in the middle of nowhere, you come home from work late one night and find a guy with a mask and a knife trying to rape your wife?

You might freeze in shock or fear, but I think the odds are less than none that you will do nothing ONLY because "it's the cop's job to protect us! He'll be here in only an hour - 45 minutes if we're lucky!"

I do not say that EVERYone needs to own a gun. But I **do** say that EVERYone should be willing and able to protect themselves and their loved ones. For me, and many others, the gun is just the best tool for us for that task.

[michreject]

211. Before I leave for work in the morning

I put my gun on. Before I go to sleep at night, I take my gun off. I carry a 3.5" 1911. It's cocked and locked. It's the safest way to carry it. I couldn't imagine carrying a unloaded gun.

[Greyhound]

194. Yes of course! The only acceptable solution to random, unprovoked

violence, is to ensure that his intended victims are completely helpless until and unless the police decide to show up. :think:

As always, the solution to the problem is for us to surrender "just a little" freedom. Yeah, that has always worked so well up to now.

[Guaranteed]

198. Again, I'm a civil liberties kind of guy. I don't consider this

surrendering even "a little" freedom. Common sense tells me that the only people who should be carrying loaded guns on our streets are cops. We live in a civilized society. Not trying to take your gun, but leave it at home.

[Greyhound]

205. OK, I think I see where you are coming from now.

The problem, as I now see it, is the misconception that "we live in a civilized society". Let me state here that I am using the inaccurate, but accepted, definition of civilized, that being "a value judgment to indicate that the person or society in question has attained a higher level of culture, a more complex system of government, and a superior set of beliefs, morals, and behaviours".

Where is the evidence for this civilization?

Our society allows, no, requires that millions of our citizens survive on the streets, utterly dependent on the generosity of strangers, and therefore, are made completely powerless to effect their environment. We exploit and abuse them with impunity, until they have the audacity to be noticed, then we criminalize and imprison them.

Half of the oppulation, women, are eternally subjugated and threatened with violence, should they choose to exercise their freedom.

We have developed, and allow to continue, a social-economic model of unbridled avarice, with no requirement of responsibility to those that make it possible, nor do we require those that profit from this model to take responsibility or make restitution for the consequences of their plundering.

We imprison more of our citizens, measured either by percentage or sheer numbers, than any other nation on earth, and the majority of them for doing nothing more than self-medicating.

We have justice, educational, and medical systems that are only accessible to those that can afford them.

Racism, sexism, ageism, religious intolerance, are all rampant and growing, with no action proposed to change this.

No, we are far from civilized.

[Jack_DeLeon]

322. So do you expect just by claiming you are a "civil liberties kind of guy"

that it somehow gives your position that people should do without certain civil liberties more credence?

That sounds awefully like something the Bush Administration would say. "I'm a freedoms kind of guy, but we need to do away with privacy, its important for our freedoms," or some such nonsense.

[iverglas]

325. "That sounds awefully like something the Bush Administration would say."

Hahahahahaha!

So do you expect just by claiming you are a "civil liberties kind of guy that it somehow gives your position that people should do without certain civil liberties more credence?

I'd say it's funny how like it sounds to a few things so oft heard in the gun dungeon.

I'm a democrat kinda guy, to paraphrase. (But you know how so many people never get the name of the party and the capitalization quite right ...)

I'm a democrat kinda guy, but Senator Fineswine wants to disarm the citizens of America. You know how it goes.

Funny, though ... that does sound like something the Bush administration would say ...

[Doctor Venmkan]

429. Yes, you *are* trying to take my gun...

As in, trying to take it from my person whenever I leave my house. Funny, I don't recall reading how criminals only prey on people when they're at home now...

Again, I find your attitude condescending to me and every other trained CCWer. But I WILL agree to never carry my gun to the mall, since you mentioned it by name before.

...of course, my mall has a "no-guns" policy that is not even posted, so they make a habit of calling the local police over to harass and threaten any poor schmuck who is "made" in there (or who open-carries). So I wrote them a letter explaining why I would never shop there again.

So, you don't have to worry about this guy carrying a gun to the mall! :)

[benEzra]

336. One can almost guarantee that the shooter didn't have a carry license

as the average person in New York City can't get a carry license unless they are ultra-wealthy and/or have lined Bloomie's pockets...

Queens is one of the relatively few jurisdictions in the United States where it is pretty much impossible for the law-abiding person to obtain a carry license. The shooter wasn't carrying legally, and odds are he didn't own the gun legally, either.

[sgxnk]

391. are u high?

care to compare "accidental" (the true term is "unintentional") firearms injuries with

car accidents

if you drive, you are clearly irresponsible (rolls eyes)

[Botany]

32. yes

2 20 gauge pumps, a .22 and a 30 - 30

So what?

BTW i support gun control and hate the NRA too.

[alfredo]

35. When I first started carrying mail on a route nicknamed

"Crack Alley" some of the young men tested me. They started giving me shit and i returned in kind. Applying some inner city survival techniques I learned in Detroit I kept my hand inside my satchel. That freaked them because they though I had my hand on my piece. They asked me if I had a gun in there. I kept asking them what do they think. They backed off.
so if people ask if I have a gun, I don't tell them. Over time some got to know me, and other knew that I knew their mom. The challenges ended and friendships grew.

My sub got shot at one day. It put a hole in my jeep. Scared the shit out of my sub. He was already PTSD from the Gulf War. He didn't need that. One of the young guys that confronted me told me who fired the shot.

The Detroit survival technique I referred to was to keep one hand in your pocket. Others would assume you have your hand on your gun.

[madeline_con]

78. Freaky story

I guess a lot of people don't realize how dangerous it is to be a mail carrier, but there's a lot of money involved.

[alfredo]

103. After the shooting I made sure everyone knew that messing

with a postal employee can bring federal charges. That's a whole different ball game than being the "guest" of the county. Except for a few thugs, I was treated well. My sub was a real right wing rascist republican. He didn't treat the customers with respect, so the shooting may not have been random. Even though he was an asshole, the incident happened on my route, to my sub, so I had to do something.

[greguganus]

235. You would think everyone knows...

...that mail carriers can "go postal on your azz"

[Behind the Aegis]

38. one.

It was a gift to my partner when he was a child. So, he still has it.

[benEzra]

39. My wife and I both own guns, for defense, recreational target shooting,

and historical interest. Neither of us hunts, but most gun owners don't.


Hers:

Glock 26 9mm defensive handgun. For defensive purposes, she uses a 15-round magazine from a Glock 19. Here's a target she fired at the range a while back; the white patches are the holes (call me an idiot for scanning the target in binary mode). The black circles are about the size of a coffee cup base.

Antique Russian SKS45 (Samozaryadniy Karabin Simonova Obrazets 1945g), 7.62x39mm self-loading carbine, made in Tula, Russia in 1952. 7.62x39mm (.30 Russian Short) is ballistically similar to .30-30 Winchester.


Mine:

Smith & Wesson 3913 LadySmith 9mm defensive handgun

Antique Russian/Finn M39 7.62x54mm bolt-action military rifle, receiver dated 1905 and stamped with crest of Czar Nicholas II. Closest thing we own to a traditionally styled hunting rifle. 7.62x54mm is the Russian equivalent of the .30-06 Springfield and was developed in 1891.

Antique Polish M44 7.62x54mm bolt-action military carbine, made in Radom, Poland in 1952

Ruger mini-14 Ranch Rifle, 5.56mm (.223) self-loading carbine (original configuration, looks like this with newer-style stock). My wife calls this one "Piff Piff" since her carbine is slightly bigger. :)

Romanian SAR-1 7.62x39mm self-loading carbine, 2002 model


If we had more disposable income (our 7 y.o. son is a cardiac kid), we'd probably have a few more in the safe. I'd like to pick up an AR-15 type carbine in the near future, finances permitting. Will probably have to sell the Ruger to swing it, though.

[Tsiyu]

40. I own guns

I live in the deep dark woods, and as a bitty woman, I want that protection.

I have livestock to protect, a couple of psycho ex-husbands, and I live in a world where some people are cranked out, hyped-up or just plain evil.

The only thing we've ever killed was a rabid possum. No one has ever picked up a gun in rage in my household, and we have had some very intense arguments here.

Some folks should not have guns, but we handle ours just fine and thankfully I have only had to threaten use of force one time with the 12 guage in all the years I've had guns.

[blonndee]

41. Wow, I'm surprised. I'm among the "I plan to" crowd.

I abhor violence and don't particularly like guns, although I grew up around them and have shot guns many times, just not as an adult.

But as a single woman, and one who plans to stay that way for the forseeable future, I do plan to purchase a handgun and take a safety course to show me how to take care of it and learn how to be safe about it.

[ContraBass Black]

42. I have no need of one.

I have other hobbies, and don't expect to be capable of defending myself with a firearm. I buy my food rather than catching it.

[Retired AF Dem]

131. and don't expect to be capable of defending myself with a firearm

Good for you. A man should know his limitations. Thank god there are folks out there that can.
Eyewitness News just talked to one man who says he saw what was happening, ran to get his gun and held the accused stabber at gunpoint until police arrived.

http://www.abc24.com/news/local/story.aspx?content_id=64BB8C0B-6DDD-4F7B-94B0-D8E8C7DCFEA3

[michreject]

212. Same story

from different media source.

USA Today omitted the gun
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-07-21-schnucks_x.htm

[rucky]

43. I think I'd feel less safe with a gun in the house.

I have a toddler...and I'm pretty clutzy. Nor would I have the stomach to shoot one, I think. Don't really want to find out for sure.

But hey, if you want to own one...fire away!

[benburch]

44. Several reasons.

1. I like range shooting. It's fun.

2. In a survival situation, like we might be in once the oil runs out, I can hunt.

3. I get death threats.

4. The reason Jefferson stated.

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

45. NO.

I walk the walk.

[Wcross]

82. What does that mean? "I walk the walk"????

Are you implying that a true democrat would not own a gun?

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

407. Used to hunt and think guns were cool.

Then I grew up.

I would and will support any program that would push for a gun control system similar to Great Britain's.

America has far too many stupid people that have no business carrying a firearm.

How do you think Bush got elected?

[Xenotime]

102. Good response....I'm with you.

[unkachuck]

49. yes....

....I've always been surprised at the way liberals and firearms have been portrayed in the media....there are many liberals who have a zero tolerance for firearms, and I respect that....we might not be vocal and join the NRA but there are many liberals who own and use firearms....

....however, I've always seen the necessity for firearm regulation....

....and forty years ago I was laughed at many times during hunting trips for talking about wildlife and habitat conservation....now these grumpy old hunting buddies (that are still alive) realize you can't hunt non-existent game in a non-existent environment....

[TygrBright]

51. Nope. Don't plan to. I couldn't shoot anyone anyway, so...

...the only use for it would be hunting or target shooting, and I have other hobbies. No time to take up a new one, but if I did those would be a few down on the list.

However, I've no problem with those who DO want to hunt, collect, target shoot, etc., or with those capable of using them for self defense who feel the need for it.

I do think there is some place between both ends of the argument that ultimately makes more sense than just continuing to argue. Flexibility and common sense should be the key to ensuring that the 2nd amendment is upheld. Different circumstances, different needs should be taken into account. Things are very different in (for example) rural vs. urban areas, West vs. East, etc. Cultural factors need to be taken into account, and we need to find ways to address how those cultural factors change and influence people.

I don't know the answer, I just think we spend way too much time and energy going around in circles on this.

wearily,
Bright

[Nabia2004]

52. I like things that go BANG!

Owning a weapon for self-defense has never been a consideration, not yet anyway.

[DoyBoy]

53. I have 2 but they are both relics.

One is my grandfather's shotgun (over 90 years old) and the other is a WWII Japanese infantry rifle that was field modified to be used as a sniper rifle (brought back from the Phillipines by my uncle). While both are in good enough condition to be used, I probably never will.

[slackmaster]

117. Most of mine are relics too

I shoot old rifles all the time, including a Swedish Mauser made in 1900.

It's quite powerful and accurate.

[SlipperySlope]

56. Ten or twelve or so

Two .223 semi-auto assault rifles.
One scoped 7mm magnum bolt-action.
One 30-06 semi-auto M1 Garand
One 22LR semi-auto rifle
One semi-auto 12 gauge shotgun
One semi-auto 22LR pistol
One semi-auto 9mm pistol
One semi-auto .40S&W pistol
One .44 magnum revolver

I forget the rest right now.

[Billy Ruffian]

129. mmmmm, Garand.....

Just got one myself. What a nice shooting rifle that is.

Mine's a 1955 vintage.

[SlipperySlope]

155. Mine is 1941

If it could talk, it might have stories to tell.

[Erika]

58. We have 4 rifles and a handgun

Been democrats all our lives.

[Historic NY]

59. Had a pistol since I was 18, have permits for a couple states

I am now retired from L.E. and over the year bought a few guns mostly before the dept. supplied them. I have 2 revolvers, 2 semi-auto's, 6 Revolutionary War vintage black powder weapons, shotgun and hunting rifle. I haven't shot some of them in a long while. There was a law passed to allow LE both active & retired to carry nationwide but as usual congress complicated it making it cost more money than it should. Most depts are not honoring it at this time.

[Mythsaje]

61. Not at the moment...

But I will again...

And probably fairly soon.

[Fleshdancer]

62. no. I don't know how to use one and...

I have a small child in the house. I'm not opposed to gun ownership and I might buy one someday (as long as I learn how to use it), but now is just not the best time for me to have one.

[RoyGBiv]

64. Yes, 2 ...

I have a pump action 12 guage shotgun. I shoot skeet sometimes, have been hunting, but don't particularly enjoy it and so don't bother. But, I know how to do so if I need to. I also used it to scare off a would-be home invader once. The sound of loading the chamber was all it took.

I also have a Spanish-American War era revolver. Collectors item that I would be afraid to try to fire. It sits in a display case.

[MGD]

65. yes, several and I intend to buy more.

Why? So I can shoot things.

[LSK]

66. no

[Nevernose]

67. Other. Loaned them out until my kid came of age

I owned one gun, inherited a few more. When my daughter got old enough, I realized that she aws more likely to be harmed by own gun than she was to be harmed by anyone else, however they were armed. I feel that was the responsible thing to do.

I'll take my guns back after she moved out, and then be responsible only for myself (and the person who steals them from me).

[conflictgirl]

68. No, but I can think of circumstances when I might consider it

I am a pacifist and pretty generally anti-gun. However, in the possibility that the oil situation ever gets significantly worse and disrupts accessibility to food, I would consider the idea of getting a gun for hunting. (At this point in time, it's hard to imagine, because I'm pretty opposed to hunting. But I also know that it wasn't that long ago in history that most people had to hunt and kill their own food.)

[Cobalt-60]

70. Let me introduce you to my little friends

This is like the "show us your guns" commercial on old school SNL.
I have a nice MAK-90, a chinese semi automatic version of the Ak-47.
The design of this weapon is perfect. It pained me to purchase an import, but they don't make em here.
My marine friends insisted on a a name. So I selected Janisss, after a pretty little
Chinese man killer I met in L.A. She sported three "S"s on her Janisss vanity plate.
And for close encounters, a Ruger P-89. This is an affordable weapons good enough for the Wisconsin State Police.
Every month or so I get out to the country and burn a brick or two of ammunition from each.

[Jack_DeLeon]

71. Seguro que si.

I own a few handguns and rifles.

[cboy4]

73. Got two for self defense & target shooting

Glock 22 .40
Sig P220 .45/w night sites

[REP]

75. Nice Sig

I mean the pistol. I really want a P232 (I have small hands), but I wouldn't sneeze at a P220.

We have a Glock 20 10mm (along with some others), mostly for target shooting. My personal home defense gun is a bolt action .410 loaded with slugs.

[cboy4]

77. Tnx. Yea, I want a 232 also. Don't need it, but it just looks cool ;)

[slackmaster]

118. I put a rubber Hogue grip on my P232

I found the stock ones too slippery with my sweat-prone hands.

[laylah]

74. My grand-dads

early 1900 Winchester pump 22 gauge rifle. Have it only because my dad gave it to me before he passed. I am thinking I will be purchasing some rounds for it...rabid squirrels and all, ya know.

Jenn

[Maine-ah]

76. yes. we have 2

[calico1]

79. Don't have one, don't want one. n/t

[Philosoraptor]

80. Several.

Lifelong gun owner, not a gun nut.

[xchrom]

81. nope -- and i don't want to be around people who do.

[Raskolnik]

153. Why?

n/t

[DiverDave]

83. Yep.

[karlrschneider]

84. Yep, more than a dozen.

...

[Wcross]

85. Yes I do.

I wouldn't live in an area where the government didn't trust citizens enough to own one.

[-..__...]

86. Yep....

More than I need, but not as many as I want.

At the peak of my collection I owned around 30-35 at once, now I'm down to a piddling 14. :(

(the others were lost in a tragic boating accident). ;)

[michreject]

213. Wink,,,wink,,,,know what I mean.....eom

[TommyO]

87. No, and no plans to buy one

but I have no problems with individual ownership of guns.

[LWolf]

88. Nope.

Never wanted one, never saw the need, never understood the passion people have about weapons. Still don't. Still no interest.

[noonwitch]

89. I don't own one, but I don't have a problem with those who do

I just support keeping them out of the hands of criminals and the deranged. I also don't think anyone needs an AK-47 or Uzi laying around the house.

I've never fired or handled a gun. My dad was not a hunter. I've been tempted at times to buy one for self defense, but I'd just end up shooting myself in the foot or something. In addition to having no experience with guns, I'm a klutz.

[benEzra]

163. You realize that actual AK-47's and Uzi's are tightly controlled

I also don't think anyone needs an AK-47 or Uzi laying around the house.

You realize that actual AK-47's and Uzi's are tightly controlled by Federal law, yes?

I do own a rifle that looks very much like an AK-47, but it functions just like any other U.S.-legal civilian self-loader. Ballistically it's similar to a .30-30 Winchester.

[adwon]

92. No

It's just not my thing.

[verse18]

93. Don't have one, but plan to get one soon.

I've always wanted to learn how to shoot and a plan to start going to the range.

Besides, I'm a single woman living alone in a city that is usually in the top 10 of violent crimes and I take my safety very seriously. I'm not afraid to bust a cap in someone's ass if I or my property are threatened.

[Lorax]

94. Several

DH and I grew up around guns so it doesn't seem odd to us at all. I will say one thing though. No one should own a gun unless they know with absolute certainty that they will kill another human being if necessary to protect their own life or a loved one. I think you have to really think about that and what that means. I think that in addition to safe handling instruction and target practice, a gun owner has to know that they could do what was needed without hesitation. It is just too easy for that gun to be taken away from you and used against you if you aren't convinced in your mind.

[Xela]

95. Own. Primarily for defense and collecting

My firearms are primarily for self-defense. And secondly, I have a special interest in firearms in a historical context.

But I'm also considering target shooting, sport shooting (IDPA) and I don't discard hunting in the future.

Xela

[boolean]

96. Fuck no

And I don't ever plan on owning one. I would rather live in a truly safe society than one steeped in fear.

[Fountain79]

99. So how does you not owning a gun and a criminal owning a gun...

make you safe?

[boolean]

122. The same way...

The same way it makes people in Denmark, Japan, Canada, and the U.K. safe. I don't really want to get into this here, though. Go to the gun forum and see the flame war going on over there over my opinions on this one...

[derby378]

138. I'll choose freedom over safety, myself...

We can't get too comfortable with the notion of our government providing safety for us without us taking any initiative for ourselves. That said, I think a workable balance between freedom and safety can be achieved.

[ozone_man]

100. I suppose it depends where one lives.

I personally dislike guns, but if I lived in a remote area or a violent city, I would at least consider it.

I wonder how many people with kids own guns? I bet the percentage swings the other way. :)

[benEzra]

107. Probably not, actually...

I wonder how many people with kids own guns? I bet the percentage swings the other way.

Probably not, actually--every gun owner I know personally either has kids at home, or had kids at home in the past while owning guns. That's not to say that all gun owners have kids, merely that you shouldn't expect the percentage of gun owners with kids to be significantly different from the percentage of non-gun-owners with kids.

My wife and I are both gun owners, and we have two kids (age 7 and 5). We keep the guns in a safe when not in use, and take other precautions as well. If you are responsible, guns in the home are far less dangerous to your kids than a swimming pool (and I wouldn't consider a swimming pool too dangerous to own, either).

[ozone_man]

121. Probably offset by other factors.

I suppose one would have to weigh the safety aspect of owning a gun with kids vs. the additional protection that a gun or guns might provide.

So many things to worry about with kids. Traffic, water accidents, .... Guns seem pretty far down on the list of likely accidents, but get publicized when an accident occurs.

[immoderate]

157. Most kids die from choking on a hot dog.

Gun fatalities are way down the list.

I have a gun. I don't think of it in terms of defense. It's a toy. I like plinking, shooting random targets usually out in remote country. We bring things we'd like to shoot. And than we shoot 'em.

I guess I could use a hammer or a chainsaw to achieve the same effect, but anything that requires timing or aim is automatically a sport or recreation. Moreover, the gun, itself has attributes that attach it to people emotionally, aesthetic, historic, symbolic. My Browning P35 is a thing of beauty, a work of art.


I also agree with some other reasons mentioned above. I believe it's desirable for a critical mass of citizens to possess weapons to prevent tyranny. It may not be perfect but it raises the bar. Sure handguns are not good against tanks and armor, but the people who would need to be shot will not be in tanks or armor.

--IMM

[ozone_man]

160. Those are all good reasons

to own a gun, especially a work or art like that.

I'm just not a gun person. My parents never had one either. We just never had a need for one.

I think it's much more common to find people growing up in rural areas who own guns. They learn to hunt at an early age. Good for protection with the large distances of a house in the country.

[immoderate]

162. Agreed. I didn't think about owning a gun when I lived in Manhattan.

Spending time out west, outdoors, gave me the space to get into it.

Oooh! I just remembered one of my other reasons. It's an indirect reason nevertheless, an important one. I'll even emphasize it.

In a free society, there isn't anybody who can tell that you can't have a gun!

--IMM

[ozone_man]

209. I guess virtual arms don't count.

Like in Half Life 2. Plus the concept of fighting on the side of the resistance makes it especially justifiable. B-)

I think if I lived out West like in the Rockies, I'd probably own at least one gun. It just wouldn't feel right not to.

[T Town Jake]

130. I have nine firearms...

...and several children. They stay separated by means of a combination safe that is anchored to the foundation of my house, which is itself in a walk-in closet that has it's own locked door.

We have, of course, educated our children on the dangers of ever handling firearms without parental supervision, but when it comes to something as potentially lethal as firearms, words are not enough. Hence, the safe. It is a must for any household that has minor children and firearms on the same premises, IMAO.

[Fountain79]

98. I can't afford one right now...but I plan...

on purchasing one in the future. I plan on taking lessons of some kind.

[slackmaster]

104. I think my collection is up to 55 functioning firearms now

Not counting pistol frames, receivers, non-working dummy weapons, and miscellaneous parts.

My main reason for owning them is collecting. Firearms keep their value well and tend to appreciate if you preserve them. My gun collection is one "bucket" of my retirement savings.

I have a type 03 Federal Firearms License (Collector of Curios and Relics). That allows me to acquire firearms designated by the BATFE as curious or relics through interstate commerce, thus avoiding dealer markups, California sales tax, and the California Dealer's Record Of Sale (DROS) fee. The license cost me $30 and is good for three years. It paid for itself with my first mail-order purchase of an old military rifle.

I chose to collect firearms because I find them interesting for several reasons: Metallurgy, manufacturing processes, and historical context to name a few. Working on them, restoring them, and preserving them provides me with wholesome and mentally rewarding activity. I have built up a few working weapons almost from scratch. Firearms are often great conversation starters. (Or conversation enders for the few people who are afraid of them or strongly oppose people owning them.)

I do keep one rifle readily loadable and handy for self-defense in the unlikely event of a home invasion or Zombie attack. Several years ago I cast a few silver 6.5 mm rifle bullets intending to load some Swedish Mauser rounds for werewolves, but haven't gotten around to it.

I also do occasional recreational target shooting, and like teaching people who have never handled a firearm the rules of gun safety and how to shoot. With all the older weapons I own, I can always put together a decent gun shoot with a theme like "Firearms of World War II", or "Small-caliber handguns", "Firearms of the Soviet Union", "Mauser rifles", or "Weapons designed by John Moses Browning".

:D

[survivor999]

109. I have none

but I find them very cool, as artifacts.

[SmokingJacket]

105. Knowing my crazy friends and family, it would most likely

be used on one of our selves. So, no gun here.

I never met anyone who successfully protected themselves from a criminal with a gun (I'm sure it happens of course) but I know several suicides by gun and one child killed accidentally from a gun.

Cost benefit analysis: not so good.

[Union Label]

108. I voted no

But if someone wants a hunting gun then by all means let they get it, but anything else like a handgun, assault rifle you get the picture ban them all and throw away the key for these gun-nuts.

[Name removed]

110. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[iverglas]

123. anybody else here curious about omenapoint's sig line?

"We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good." -Hillary Clinton, 2004 Fundraiser for a fellow Senator. That's the reason she will never be President. Feingold For Pres. Dean For Pres.

"Many of you are well enough off that ... the tax cuts may have helped you," Sen. Clinton said. "We're saying that for America to get back on track, we're probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good." Matthew Fordahl, Associated Press, 6-28-2004

As I understand it, pretty much all recent and future candidates for the Democratic nomination for the presidency (including Dean and Feingold) ... and I would expect just about everybody here at DU ... opposed/oppose the Bush tax cuts ...

[laruemtt]

112. i voted yes because

dh has one for defending us. i don't even want to touch it.

[iverglas]

113. No, and

never have and never will. And my co-vivant doesn't own a gun, and never has and never will. And both of us would evict the other if either did, and we never would have even met a second time if either did. Although it didn't actually occur to either of us to ask; it would be like asking whether one's prospective partner was a member of the Christian Heritage Party.

And no member of my family ever has or ever will. (Although ... my mother's father's father's sister the actress married this rich guy back in England, and the 1881 census describes him as a "gentleman farmer", so he probably had the traditional English shotgun for shooting things that farmers don't like. When my great-grandparents immigrated to Canada, they were small-town / urban settlers and wage workers, the railway, factories, so I can't imagine there being a firearm among them.)

And I have only had two close friends who ever have had firearms -- one a hunter in a small town (various other drunken lawyers I knew there had them too, but my friend was the only one whose son had killed himself with one of them), the other a fancier of himself as a bit eccentric in a charming way (trained as an undertaker after high school, degree in Russian history, couple of years in the navy, environmentally friendly building contractor, scuba diver, owner of registered sporting handgun). Given that something like 1/4 of households in Canada are said to have firearms, I dunno; I guess I've just spent too much time in cities to know the gun owners. My brother does live on a large rural/undeveloped property, but he feeds the wild turkeys and the foxes, he doesn't shoot 'em.

And my tenants are not permitted to have firearms in their apartments (like any would; quelle joke). And the last time somebody tried to hold up the 7-11 on the corner it was with a penknife.

Ah, the peaceable kingdom.

Just a different perspective for the pot.




Spelling typo fixed on edit ... danged their/there ...

[Raskolnik]

143. Why do you analogize gun ownership to being a member

of the Christian Heritage Party?

[iverglas]

146. why do you falsely accuse me of doing something I have never done?

What I said:

Although it didn't actually occur to either of us to ask; it would be like asking whether one's prospective partner was a member of the Christian Heritage Party.

What your question --

Why do you analogize gun ownership to being a member of the Christian Heritage Party?

is:

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/loadques.html

Loaded Question

Alias:

Complex Question
Many Questions
Plurium Interrogationum
Translation: "many questions", Latin

Form:

A question with a false, disputed, or question-begging presupposition.

Since I have never analogized gun ownership to being a member of the Christian Heritage Party, I cannot answer your question, and I reject it by saying "mu", the only sensible thing to say in response.

Now let me ask you:

Have you stopped beating your dog yet?



For anyone who fails to grasp the concept ...

I said that asking my prospective co-vivant whether he owned firearms would be like asking him whether he belonged to the Christian Heritage Party. And if you can't see the difference between that and saying that owning firearms is like belonging to the Christian Heritage Party, you need new specs.

Why did I say what I did say, I hear you ask? (Of course, I didn't hear anyone ask, but someone would have done well to ask instead of making false accusations, so we'll pretend.)

Well, various reasons. For one, because the very idea that someone I was interested in / someone who was interested in me would either own firearms or belong to the Christian Heritage Party is absurd. So, of course, to take other examples, is the idea that someone I was interested in / someone who was interested in me would be gay, or a devout Roman Catholic, or a militant non-smoker, or a meth addict, or a physical fitness zealot -- none of whom I necessarily despise simply because of what they are, either, and none of whose choices I necessarily condemn.

For another, the likelihood of ME actually having encountered either someone who owned firearms or someone who belonged to the Christian Heritage Party in the circumstances in which we met (he replied to my on-line personal ad describing myself as an "anti-social socialist, funny feminist, atheist in search of a soulmate" and pre-emptively rejecting free-marketeers, door-openers, twelve-steppers or other nonoxymorons) was about nil. In Canada, socialist/feminist/atheists and men who seek them out don't own firearms any more than they belong to the Christian Heritage Party. (Mind you, I was sought out through that ad by someone who insisted that we do lunch ... if you can believe it, a firearms dealer in town for an anti-gun control rally ... and then spent the whole time whining about his ex-wife and his woes as a custodial father ... .)

Basically, I don't care what *your* context or anyone else's is; I spoke from MY context. I was not getting to know a farmer or a cattle rancher or someone living in cougar country; I was getting to know a Toronto boy so urban that at the age of 47 he'd never had a driver's licence. And urban people whom *I* want to know (which will not likely include hunters, as a matter of pure personal preference that I don't need to defend to anyone) walk the walk, as it's been put here, and do not own firearms.

Anything else you'd like to know - ask.

[Raskolnik]

150. "Anything else you'd like to know - ask."

What is it specifically about ownership of firearms that you feel to be so objectionable?

ed. spell

[iverglas]

184. Have you stopped beating that dog yet?

n/t

[Raskolnik]

187. You didn't answer the question you invited me to ask.

Obviously you feel that guns in general are something objectionable with which you wish to disassociate yourself. Fine. I'm not trying to convince you to go out and buy a gun, nor am I trying to convince you to date someone who owns a gun. You've made clear that you have no wish to do so.

What I am curious about is what you think gun ownership implies. By your "walk the walk" statements, you seem to feel that people owning guns are somehow hypocrites. But about what? What is it about guns and gun ownership that you object?

I'll give you some idea about where I stand--I grew up in a very rural area where guns were used for hunting and for sport. I own several guns of various types, and have used them for hunting, although not for some years. I feel that the ownership of firearms is the absolutely last check that citizens have against tyranny, and the removal of that right is the removal of the last best hope that people have in defending their freedoms. Plus I like them because they look cool and they make loud noises.

If I'm wrong about your position, I'm certainly willing to listen, so let's hold of the exegesis of each other's posts and just have a civil discussion about a topic that we both find interesting enough to post about, ok?

[iverglas]

189. oh well

By your "walk the walk" statements, you seem to feel that people owning guns are somehow hypocrites.

I do not feel that way, and I do not seem to feel that way.

I'll give you some idea about where I stand--I grew up in a very rural area where guns were used for hunting and for sport. I own several guns of various types, and have used them for hunting, although not for some years.

Good for you. I have absolutely nothing against people who do hunt -- provided, of course, that they do so for purposes and in ways that are not environmentally contra-indicated, and that their firearms are stored as securely and safely as is humanly possible when not in use and they do not transfer them or allow anyone to use them otherwise than as is permitted by law (or, in the US, by decency and reason), and that - in Canada - they are licensed to possess the firearms after making full disclosure of all relevant information, and their ownership of the firearms is registered.

And I told you that I and my partner and my family members and friends and neighbours live in large urban centres in Canada and do not hunt. (In case you're not aware, the populations of Canada and the US are roughly equivalent in terms of the urban/rural breakdown, and both are overwhelmingly urban.)

Getting it at all? See how it isn't all about you?

I feel that the ownership of firearms is the absolutely last check that citizens have against tyranny, ...

And I don't count among members of my household or family (fortunately), or my friends, people who harbour such very very silly and dangerous ideas.


So in order for me to have firearms owners in my household or family (well, okay, you can't choose your family; I just got lucky) or among my friends, those people would have to be:

- hunters -- they aren't, as it happens, and I simply choose not to have an intimate partner who is, although I have had in the past;

- people who have so little regard for the safety of others that they choose to keep firearms in their homes or businesses in urban neighbourhoods (and/or have some other trait/notion that prompts them to harbour firearms, and which, in itself, rules them off my list) -- walking the walk of a progressive in Canada (and anywhere else, as far as I am concerned) means not keeping firearms in urban homes, and you can check that with any progressive Canadian authority you like;

- people with political notions or philosophies that I regard as bizarre or distasteful; or

- sports shooters; they aren't, but I would have no objection at all to having a sports shooter in my entourage or even my bed, so long as s/he did not keep firearms anywhere other than at the facility where s/he engaged in the sport, and I would probably cadge an invitation to try it out, just not having sufficient motivation to go do that on my own.

In the specific case I originally spoke of -- the early phase of courting -- the odds of the target of my interest being any of those things were minuscule.

There was just a virtually nil likelihood of a middle-aged white-collar man who was looking to meet a socialist feminist atheist woman (and whose first series of emails consisted of a thorough analysis of the Kosovo situation then prevailing) being a hunter, or owning firearms for some other unspecified purpose, or thinking that he might some day need to rise up in arms against the jack-booted thugs in Ottawa -- all of which would have ruled him off the page as a candidate for intimate relations with moi. And all of which would have made it extremely unlikely that he would have responded to my personal ad ... although there was that apparently desperate loser of a firearms dealer ... and he didn't ask for a second date.

My guy being a sports shooter (without any of the right-wing political ideology that seems to be a common characteristic of the breed up here -- and that would have made it highly unlikely for him to respond to my ad, let alone write me a treatise on Kosovo that I approved) would not have been a deal breaker, but it was statistically less likely than us having been born on the same day with the same ascendant. So it didn't occur to me to ask.

There ya go.

[Raskolnik]

193. My apologies, but I don't think I was clear.

I understand that you don't associate with people that own guns. What I'm curious about, and what you've thus far avoided, is *why* you don't.

Specifically, I am very intrigued about three things you stated:

First, upon what do you base your position that those keeping firearms in an urban area "have so little regard for the safety of others that they choose to keep firearms in their homes or businesses"? Does that apply to rural or semi-urban areas as well?

Second, your statement that "walking the walk of a progressive in Canada (and anywhere else, as far as I am concerned) means not keeping firearms in urban homes" puzzles me. I see absolutely nothing contradictory in being a gun owner (urban or rural) and being a liberal/progressive. In fact, I believe that at a fundamental level, they go hand in hand.

Which leads me to my third issue: you stated that viewing gun ownership as the last best hope to protect citizens against tyranny was a "very very silly and dangerous idea[]". I strenuously disagree with that assessment. It may seem quaint to those of us sitting in front of our computers in climate-controlled rooms with plenty of food in our belly, but sometimes people have to fight to keep themselves free. I certainly have never had to do it, and I pray to jeebus that I never do, but that doesn't mean its not reality.

[iverglas]

203. and I can't imagine how I could be more clear

I understand that you don't associate with people that own guns. What I'm curious about, and what you've thus far avoided, is *why* you don't.

1. I don't associate with hunters -- much more by happenstance than by choice.

I live downtown in a large urban centre, in a low-income, multi-ethnic, heavily first-generation immigrant neighbourhood. Hunters do not live in my neighbourhood. (A lot of fishers do; I find my Vietnamese neighbours picking worms in my garden from time to time, and when we were helping the Chinese guy around the corner put in some plants we'd given him, he dug up ... a large, recently deceased fish. Best guess is that one of the Vietnamese households had had it in a bucket on the back porch and a skunk that couldn't believe its luck had buried it for future reference.) When I lived briefly in a small town, I associated with members of the local bar who hunted -- most commonly, while quite drunk. And as I mentioned, the son of the one I associated with most closely had killed himself with his father's hunting rifle two years earlier.

My family is urban, and my immigrant great-grandparents and grandparents were urban or small-town wage workers. My family was not and are not hunters or owners of firearms for any other purpose.

I have nothing against hunters. I have no desire to interfere in hunters' activities (or the economic activities of individuals and communities that depend on hunting-related tourism). That I would probably choose not to be close friends with a hunter simply isn't any of your business, and my reasons for that choice are not up for discussion, since I am not proposing that my choices be reflected in public policy in any way. I'm like a vegetarian who chooses not to eat meat but does not seek to prevent anyone else from doing so -- my personal choice is simply not something I need to explain to strangers, or that strangers have any need to know or any interest in that would make their comments useful to me or anyone else.

2. I think that people who maintain that firearms are guarantors of individual or collective liberty are -- and let's keep in mind that you asked -- either right-wing wackos or just plain garden variety wackos.

There are many guarantors of individual and collective liberty, the most important being the plain good will of individuals and the transparency of their collective institutions. There are many ways to promote and enhance good will and to reduce corruption. The threat of violence appears to be to be one of the most ineffective and most inappropriate methods. The plain fact is that in liberal democracies, the point at which it would become necessary would be the point at which it was already too late: majority support for the values that force was supposedly being used to restore would have been lost.

3. I think that people who keep firearms in urban areas in Canada are scum. Plain enough?

They aren't the only keepers of firearms who are scum, of course -- but they are the ones I was talking about, as I just don't seem to be able to get through to you.

My opinion applies to rural or small-town firearms owners as well to the extent that their firearms are not kept for purposes of sustenance or control of / self-protection from pests/predators, or that, if they are kept for that purpose, they are not stored as safely and securely as humanly possible.

NO ONE ELSE needs to have firearms in his/her home or business. And you can argue that one with me until you're blue in the face, and I will still maintain that anyone who claims to need firearms in his/her home or business is a loon or a right-wing asshole, where the claimed "need" has to do with defending him/herself or protecting his/her property. Or fending off the jack-booted thugs of tyranny.

3. I am as neutral on the subject of sports shooting as I am on the subject of hunting -- people's hobbies are their own business. And that hobby in itself would have little to no bearing on my desire to be friends with someone who engaged in it.

To own a handgun, in particular, for sports shooting in Canada, one must be a member of a gun club and may use the firearm only on club or competition premises, and transport it only to and from those locations. So there is no need whatsoever for anyone to keep a sporting firearm in his/her home.

The one context I didn't mention was firearms collecting -- something people can do here, and can acquire otherwise restricted weapons (like handguns) for, if they qualify as collectors, which isn't too damned hard. All too often they are negligent, if not downright criminal, in their failure to comply with storage regulations, and big hauls of their firearms have ended up in the hands of criminals, and in particular major street gangs, and then have been used to kill perfectly random victims. Firearms collecting is a hobby that the community doesn't need to tolerate, and I can't imagine being at all drawn to someone who engaged in it.


I see absolutely nothing contradictory in being a gun owner (urban or rural) and being a liberal/progressive. In fact, I believe that at a fundamental level, they go hand in hand.

Bully for you.

I said nothing about being a "liberal". I am not a liberal. I am not interested in close association with liberals. At least, not unless they explain to me exactly what they mean by the word, and I ascertain that what they mean isn't actually "liberal" at all, but progressive or left or social democrat or something along that line.

Progressive does not = liberal, despite the recent perversion of the word/concept "progressive" in the US as well.

And all I can do is repeat that there is NOTHING progressive about possessing firearms in an urban environment just because one happens to want to ... and of course there is nothing progressive about wanting to.

There's nothing progressive about driving an SUV either, or about refusing to recycle, or doing a whole lot of obnoxious things.

You believe that possessing firearms and being "liberal" go hand in hand. I believe that possessing firearms, other than for the purpose of legitimate economic or cultural activity or protection from wild animals, and having ... shall we say, problematic political tendencies ... go hand in hand. (I do NOT believe that USING firearms for other purposes necessarily falls into that category -- USING firearms appropriately for sporting purposes, for instance, is completely neutral.)

It may seem quaint to those of us sitting in front of our computers in climate-controlled rooms with plenty of food in our belly, but sometimes people have to fight to keep themselves free.

What seems ... well, quaint wouldn't be the word ... to me is how many people with full bellies and air conditioning fancy themselves qualified to say what other people need. And anyone who thinks that what they need is more guns isn't really someone I'd considered either well-informed or well-intentioned enough to invite into my home.

[Raskolnik]

252. We're getting somewhere. Slowly.

I think that people who keep firearms in urban areas in Canada are scum. Plain enough?

Yes, that is plain, but we've long since established that fact. For some reason you are unable or unwilling to actually articulate *why* owning a gun in an urban area makes one "scum". You mention gun storage as an issue and an incident in which a friend's son committed suicide with a rifle, but you haven't made an argument to justify the "scum" label other than making declaratives.

What seems ... well, quaint wouldn't be the word ... to me is how many people with full bellies and air conditioning fancy themselves qualified to say what other people need.

I'm not telling people what they need, nor am I telling people what they should do. I'm not arguing for you to own guns, or to associate with those that do. People that don't want guns don't have to buy them, and people that don't want to be around guns don't have to associate with gun owners. I am simply curious about a position that brands urban gun owners as "scum", considers those that view guns as guarantors of liberty as "wackos", and terms those owning firearms for the protection of self or property "right-wing assholes".

NO ONE ELSE needs to have firearms in his/her home or business.

Hmmm...what was it that you said about telling other people what they need?

Iverglas, I agree that there are many guarantors of liberty, many of which are preferable to guns. Good will and the transparency of institutions are wonderful things, as are a reasonably successful economy and a well-developed system of law. If those things break down, and history tells us that they inevitably do, I don't want the state to have an absolute monopoly on force. That's why guns are the *last* best hope of preventing or fighting tyranny. I don't think the 2nd Amendment was a mistake, and I don't think its underpinnings dissolved over time.

And finally--You don't associate with hunters. You don't hunt. Your family doesn't hunt. I get it, ok? As much as you try to tantalize with me that fact, I don't care. I'm not asking you to state, much less justify, your feelings on hunting or vegetarianism. Let's put that one to bed, shall we?

[Greyhound]

413. Ha ha ha... I missed this exchange before

I would have warned you that you are wasting your time. There are several of these guys(?) that have this mind-set, and there is no discussion possible. It's another form of fundamentalism and you probably know how far you get trying to debate logic with them.

[Raskolnik]

418. Its really too bad, isn't it?

Because I believe that there is a rational, legitimate argument to be made against gun ownership and against the 2nd Amendment. Those are arguments that I strongly disagree with, but it doesn't mean it isn't interesting to listen and respond to them.

Unfortunately, the few people on this thread arguing against gun rights are not even attempting to make those arguments. Instead, they engage in name-calling, they make declaratives with nothing to back them up, and they generally accuse anyone that owns guns of being defective in some way. You saw how Iverglas responded when I asked her for actual reasons why urban gun owners were "scum"...she just repeated and rephrased it (rather haughtily, you probably noticed) without ever making an actual argument.

Oh well, I guess if Iverglas & MrB need to think of gun owners as trigger-happy scum in order to feel superior, then who am I to deny them?

[iverglas]

538. gee, and I missed this, so forgive me for resurrecting

this totally pointless "debate" of someone's PERSONAL PREFERENCES.

I don't "debate" people's religious beliefs, even though I think they're completely moronic -- all of them; I'm an atheist. That's because they're a matter of personal preference, and their reasons for them are none of my fucking business.

And if they're trying to make ME live according to their moronic rules, I will argue that they are not entitled to do that under our constitution -- NOT that their rules are moronic, or that they themselves are vicious morons.

Nor, as I tried rather politely to explain to you, are my personal preferences regarding firearms ownership -- the actual subject of this thread, which I tried rather hard to stick to -- any of anyone else's business. Nor are my personal preferences as to whom I choose to associate with any of anyone's business. If I choose not to associate with people who drive SUVs, or refuse to recycle, or eat their red Smarties first, because I think such people are scum, it's still none of your business.

If I propose that no one be permitted to keep handguns in their home in Canada -- which I do -- well, since you're apparently not in Canada, it's still technically none of your business. But if it were and you wanted to know my reasons, if you didn't know them already, which you in fact do, I would tell you. And they would have nothing to do with my opinion of people who keep handguns in their home.

I think people who commit adultery are scum -- but I don't propose outlawing adultery because people who commit adultery are scum. Unlike people who argue for the criminalization of abortion and the elimination of same-sex marriage, for example, I don't offer my opinions of the people who would be the subjects of the laws as justification for my proposals. I also don't "debate" those people's opinions of the people they're talking about. I'm no more interested in their opinions of them than I could have imagined you would be in my opinions of people who keep firearms in their homes in urban neighbourhoods.

I'm not trying to persuade haters of GLBT people to invite gay couples to dinner, or misogynists to drive women to abortion clinics. I couldn't care less what they do on their own time. Why would you want to persuade me to hang out with people who keep firearms in urban neighbourhoods? Why would my personal preferences matter to you????

You saw how Iverglas responded when I asked her for actual reasons why urban gun owners were "scum"...she just repeated and rephrased it (rather haughtily, you probably noticed) without ever making an actual argument.

I guess you missed my post in this thread about the theft of firearms from homes. Oh wait ... you replied to it, so I guess not.

I didn't provide you with the facts and figures about theft of firearms from homes in the US, but that's not my job. Try google.

You could also google how the gangs responsible for the lion's share of the last few years of firearms violence in Toronto came by their guns. If you happen on the Toronto Police Service's report to city council on the question ... oh hell, here ya go:

http://www.torontopoliceboard.on.ca/minutes/2004/040122pmm.pdf

Investigative experience of the Gun and Gang Task Force and the Firearms Enforcement Unit has established that long barrelled firearms are primarily of Canadian origin. Long barrelled weapons are historically stolen from private citizens and converted for use in criminal acts. For this reason, long barrelled crime guns are not automatically submitted for tracing. Firearms with obliterated serial numbers have been historically believed to be of United States origin. A recent Provincial Weapons Enforcement Unit (PWEU) investigation has shed light on this historical assumption and it is now believed that these types of firearms may also be of Canadian origin.

Local investigations suggest that many of the 32 crime guns with obliterated serial numbers are of Canadian origin. Investigations have identified that criminals are well aware of the absence of legislation requiring the registering of firearms in the United States. Armed with this knowledge they have developed a sense of confidence that the firearm will not be successfully traced back to them so there is less concern over removing the serial number.

Efforts are currently underway to determine the origin of some 26 firearms seized in relation to a recent investigation. It is suspected that the majority of these firearms will be traced to a Canadian source.

THEFT is a major source of the firearms, including handguns, used in crime and violence in Canada. People who keep firearms in their homes in urban neighbourhoods are putting their neighbours and others at risk.

http://www.parl.gc.ca/35/Archives/committees351/jula/evidence/105_95-04-24/jula105_blk101.html

Mr. Bodnar (Saskatoon - Dundurn): Mr. Minister ... . Last year I resided here in Ottawa, and one of the occupants of the apartment block I live in went for a walk on Elgin Street and got shot. That person was Nicholas Battersby. In that particular case a group of youths stole a gun - it's my understanding - from the home of a law-abiding gun owner, bought ammunition from Canadian Tire, and used it to shoot this innocent man who went for a walk. Fortunately, I guess, I don't go for walks, because it could just as easily have happened to anyone else. ...

Mr. Rock: <then Liberal Minister of Justice> ... On average about 3,000 to 3,500 firearms are stolen every year in Canada. By definition, they fall into the hands of criminals because somebody stole them. They turn up in the underground market, are sold for purposes of crime, and end up being turned on the police or, in other cases, on innocent people.

In my post regarding the unsafe/insecure storage of someone's firearm I made the reasons for objecting to the keeping of firearms in urban neighbourhoods quite clear, and in this exchange I made it plain that my opinion of people who do so (who are not just plain loons with delusions of persecution or right-wing assholes with delusions of grandeur) was based on those reasons:

- people who have so little regard for the safety of others that they choose to keep firearms in their homes or businesses in urban neighbourhoods

Oh well, I guess if Iverglas & MrB need to think of gun owners as trigger-happy scum in order to feel superior, then who am I to deny them?

And I guess that if you choose to state, in public, a baseless and completely false characterization of ME that you know to be completely false because you have obviously carefully read every word I have written ... and to take the coward's way out by framing your false allegation in the conditional ... that's your choice.

And now all rise for the ceremonial locking of the thread.

[MrBenchley]

427. Too too funny...

Once again, the triggerhappy project their own failings on to others....

"It's another form of fundamentalism"
Say, what does the original form of fundamentalism think about popguns, do you suppose?

"Rev. Jerry Falwell: I'm a strong supporter of the Second Amendment and I'm a member of the NRA. I believe America's future freedom depends on every citizen maintaining a Constitutional right to bear arms."

http://www.usatoday.com/community/chat/0802falwell.htm

[sendero]

116. I own several..

... including handguns, rifles and shotguns. I pretty much have a gun for every application, although I have my eye on a Kel-Tec Sub 2000 just for the fun of it. :)

Oh, and don't forget the ammo. I have several thousand rounds. It stores forever, and you never know when sources will dry up - 7.62 was near impossible to get a few months ago.

I have place in the country to shoot (Sendero Compound) and I do so often. If there was ever a time in the history of this country for the people to be armed, this is it.

[Sammy Pepys]

120. Not allowed to....n/t

...

[Billy Ruffian]

124. yes, a few

Some for fun target shooting/plinking
Some for self defense
Some for sentimental value

None that fit only one of the usages above, although some are not well suited for self defense.

[T Town Jake]

125. Yes.

Elaboration: because I want to.

[RamboLiberal]

132. Yes - 4 Handguns 3 Glocks and a 22 Ruger MKII

And wish I could also afford a good shotgun and AR15.

I enjoy shooting as a sport and as a woman living alone and who spends time out alone I like the bit of extra security.

[azmouse]

133. No. And I don't want one.

I believe in responsible gun ownership. To me, that means taking lessons in the proper use and storage of a gun. I don't have the time or the inclination to take classes, hence no guns in my home.

[BreweryYardRat]

134. I'm going to pick up a Remington 1100 when I get a place off-campus.

I go to USF in Tampa. Tampa has a high crime rate. I don't care to take chances with my life.

[mike923]

137. I had my hunting rifles in my dorm room...

but that was back in the mid 90's when it wasn't a big deal. I was the floor RA, ready to protect my guys if necessary.

[Throd]

135. Yep, and plan to buy more n/t

[jerry611]

136. This is not a Dem for Rep thing

I know liberal Democrats with gun collections...

In fact, over 40% of American households have a gun.

[MrBenchley]

250. Perhaps in fantasy land...but here in the US

the gun rights crowd is nothing but right wing loonies giggling under their sheets that nobody can guess who they are.

"In fact, over 40% of American households have a gun."
Another amazing gun owner fact that turns out to be utterly false. The number is under 35%.

www.norc.uchicago.edu/online/guns01.pdf

gppi.georgetown.edu/pdfs/ ludwig/JPubE_guns_2006Final.pdf

[benEzra]

276. Yes, all the DU'ers here who own guns are freepers in disguise... (n/t)

:wtf:

[MrBenchley]

281. You'll get no fucking argument from me, ben

especially not in a thread where the triggerhappy sprouted a Chappaquiddick slur and tried to pretend not owning a popgun is somehow being opposed to the Democratic platform.

[dysfunctional press]

141. nobody should own just one.

after all- you have two hands...

[Greyhound]

173. Yeah, but hardly anyone can shoot well with the wrong hand. ;-)

:hi:

[HuskerDU]

144. Our gov't can be trusted, so why own a gun?

Wrong!!!

I trust our gov't..... will continue taking freedoms away. Sometimes you have to defend freedom from fascists. This is one of those times that Jefferson talked about. I would rather be dead than to live in a fascist regime, which is where this country is headed.

[treestar]

247. Good point - maybe this is what the second amendment is

really supposed to reflect.

[Drewskie]

148. 20 gauge side by side double barrel (nt)

[NJ Democrats]

149. No I don't own a gun.

[Blue-Jay]

152. Yep. And I can outshoot just about everyone I've ever met.

[SnohoDem]

154. Yes,

for self defense, and although I rarely shoot now, I learned to shoot and handle firearms safely as a very young child. I got spanked for pointing TOY guns at people.

[pscot]

156. Two

and I'm planning to buy another.

[Straight Out of Line]

158. Of Course

31 at the moment and waiting on a custom build that should be finished late next year.

Self-defense
Hunting
Plinking
Competitive shooting

[S_B_Jackson]

159. Another yes vote.

For several reasons...the particular order of which is dependent upon circumstances at the time the question is asked.

-> As a means of self defense, defense of my loved ones, my property, my city/state/nation should need arise.

-> As means of putting food on my table.

-> As a form of recreation

Will probably be buying this lovely fellow tomorrow afternoon




:headbang:

[survivor999]

161. Out of curiosity...

How much does a good gun cost anyway?

[benEzra]

166. Depends on what kind...

a used .38 revolver made by Taurus or Rossi can be found for well under $200. A .380 handgun, $300 to $400, new. A new 9mm handgun from a quality manufacturer (Ruger, Glock, S&W, Sig, HK, etc.) runs $500 to $800; a bolt-action hunting rifle, $400 to $1000 (not including scope); an AR-15 type rifle, $800 to $2000, depending on features. Some high-end target rifles will set you back $5000 or more.

There are some bargains to be had, though. The best bargain in rifles is undoubtedly a collectible (and highly shootable) Yugoslavian SKS, currently running about $169. Bolt-action military surplus rifles from WW1 and WW2 can also be found for $150-$200.

[Greyhound]

175. Way more in MA than in AZ..............n/t

[Doctor Venmkan]

183. depends on your location too...

Different prices in different parts of the country.

A Bersa Thunder .380 is a great bargain, mine was $220 new a few years ago. The small Kel-Tec .32 and .380s are great concealed carry guns, and they run from $230-$300.

Glocks are EXCELLENT handguns, run in the $500 range.

They do make some REALLY cheap pistols, buuuut they scare me. Better to save up for a quality arm than buy a gun you're afraid to shoot for fear of it blowing up in your face!

PS, I agree with ben on the SKS. It was my first "real" rifle and it's a great gun.

[sendero]

381. Thirded..

...on the SKS. Easily the best rifle bargain out there.

These military rifles, made in China, Yugoslavia, Romania and Russia (all are similar but with small differences), use the 7.62x39 NATO round (about .30 caliber) and are cheap, durable and reliable.

About the only bad thing you can say about them is that they don't support a mounted scope very well, so they aren't so useful for really long-distance shooting.

At around $150-$250, they are a great choice.

[benEzra]

516. Actually, 7.62 NATO is 7.62x51mm, aka .308 Winchester...

7.62x39 was a Warsaw Pact round, though it actually dates back to the 1940's. I've heard 7.62x39mm called .30 Russian Short, which is a pretty good description.

Ballistics are slightly inferior to .30-30 Winchester.

[Greyhound]

206. I recommend Ruger, they are top quality fire arms and they tend to be

priced considerably lower than comparable weapons.

[OzarkDem]

164. Do BB guns count?

Hubby has one he uses to shoot at the woodpeckers when they start pecking on our house's wood siding.

I grew up in a family where there were guns around - rural area where everyone went hunting. Seldom did anyone have a pistol or any type of gun used only for killing humans.

[Name removed]

186. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Slaughtermeyer]

170. How to reach GOP gun nuts

Here's a good video written from the frame of mind of the GOP gun nut crowd that has the potential to turn Republicans against Bush:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6517776133137328105

[Xenotime]

328. That video scares the hell out of me...

The police state of America is upon us.

[jody]

185. Poll is consistent with past polls that show about 65% of DU respondents

support RKBA and the Democratic Party Platform that says "We will protect Americans' Second Amendment right to own firearms, and we will keep guns out of the hands of criminals and terrorists by fighting gun crime, reauthorizing the assault weapons ban, and closing the gun show loophole, as President Bush proposed and failed to do." See http://www.democrats.org/pdfs/2004platform.pdf

The sad thing is apparently 37% of DU respondents do not support the Dem Platform.

[iverglas]

188. sad, sad things; very sad things

The sad thing is apparently 37% of DU respondents do not support the Dem Platform.

The very, extremely, horribly, overwhelmingly, wailingly sad thing is actually this:

that anyone would choose to misrepresent the statement by 37% of the DU members who responded that they do not own a firearm as meaning that those people DO NOT SUPPORT THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY'S PLATFORM.

(37% = percentage of respondents who say "no" to question "Do you own a gun?" as of time of this post and presumably of the post I am responding to)

But forgive me, an ignorant foreigner -- has the Democratic Party recently nailed a plank to its platform requiring that all members (or I dunno, all citizens of the US) own a firearm?

Maybe the party has recently adopted a policy that all Democrats must respond to polls by stating that they own firearms ...


Of course, the notion that the poll is in any way representative of DU members ... which, phew, no one seems to have advanced ... would be laughable.

But not quite as sad as accusing people who don't own firearms of not supporting the Democratic Party platform.

[Doctor Venmkan]

216. ...I think hell just froze over...

...'cause iverglas and I actually AGREE on something, in a gun-related topic no less! :D

I've said it before and I'll say it again...I don't think that EVERYBODY should own a gun! People that aren't legally ABLE to, and people that don't want the burden and responsibility that comes with gun ownership, for starters.

[Endangered Specie]

223. you do realuze that there are non gun owners who are pro-RKBA

just saying bc it makes that 37% even smaller.

[jody]

240. I know. It's disappointing that so many DUers do not support Dem platform.

[Doctor Venmkan]

241. Do YOU support the "assault weapons" ban part of the platform?

I DON'T!

(Before I get flamed by those that may have fallen in for the slick packaging job that went along with that 10-year P.O.S. law ) As benEzra has already explained, true assault weapons (fully automatic guns that fire for as long as you hold the trigger down) are and have been HEAVILY regulated by the government. The ungodly cost alone is enough to deter most from owning them, but if they have the money, the intensive government security check on a potential owner will make sure they are clean.

What was "banned" under that law were guns that had the same LOOK as their full-auto brothers, even though they operated like any OTHER arm. And any gun that holds more than 10 rounds of ammo.

And I **THINK** guns like my vintage SKS carbine. Which is funny, since it was never DESIGNED to operate full-auto OR hold more than 10 rounds! :crazy:

The AWB was a slice of "Feel-Good" legislation dreamt up by a few anti-gun zealot Dems, and sold to the rest that were too lazy to actually understand what the law was really about - IMO!

[MrBenchley]

267. Tom Delay and Rush Limbaugh, to name just two

Of course, in their case, it's because the judge took away their phallic toys.

[benEzra]

277. The only people I've ever known who consider guns as sex objects

their phallic toys.

I have little sympathy for Delay and Limbaugh, but that comment reinforces something I've noticed about a LOT of your posts. The only people I've ever known who consider guns as sex objects have been people who hate guns and gun owners. I suppose it's a pseudo-Freudian form of the ad hominem fallacy, even though it contradicts what Freud actually said about weapons.

Do you actually view guns sexually, or is it just a rhetorical device?

Do you consider DU'ers who own guns to be sexually attracted to them?

Has it every crossed your mind that people other than repubs, freepers, and sexual deviants own guns? Have you even read this thread?

:wtf:

[MrBenchley]

282. Funny, the only people who act as if guns are sex objects

are the ones who screech out their castration anxiety at any proposal to regulate the gun industry.

[derby378]

257. Here's what the Democratic Party platform should say

We will protect Americans' Second Amendment right to own firearms, and we will keep guns out of the hands of criminals and terrorists by fighting gun crime and closing the gun show loophole, as President Bush proposed and failed to do.

Notice anything missing? Josh Sugarmann's pet name for semi-automatics that make him feel icky has been excised from the platform.

If that were to happen in real life, support for Democrats in the mid-terms would be overwhelming. But first, we have to get people like Rahm Emanuel and Charles Schumer in line. They don't have to like guns - but they can't go trying to confiscate them, either.

[MrBenchley]

269. I notice a lot missing, starting with honesty

and common sense....

"If that were to happen in real life, support for Democrats in the mid-terms would be overwhelming."
Bullshit.

[derby378]

271. TRUTH, Jersey - welcome to Texas

There's 50 states, not just NJ - and Dems have to win in all 50 instead of picking and choosing a few states.

[MrBenchley]

284. Yeah, the honesty of the RKBA crowd is on full display here

I especially love Jody trying to pretend that not owning a popgun makes one opposed to the Democratic platform...

[Pathwalker]

362. NOYB.

None of your business.

[lpbk2713]

200. I have a shotgun that was my grandfather's.

He gave it to my father and my father gave it to me. I think I've fired it twice (at inanimate targets). It's not just a gun to me.

[derby378]

204. Same here - except the shotgun was my great-grandfather's

A gunsmith advised me to hang it on the wall, saying it would be more trouble than it's worth to ensure the shotgun is safe to use.

If I ever get another shotgun, my ideal shotgun would be the Mossberg 590A1. If I were to get a rifle, I'd probably get a semi-auto AK variant.

As for pistols, I don't know. I feel more comfortable with long guns, but it would probably do me good to get some pistol training at some point down the line.

[Endangered Specie]

201. Yes...

how many and what kind we'll just leave to the imagination, Rest assured though that the number will only increase. ;)

[iverglas]

208. so I guess you were just funnin' us ...

Yes... how many and what kind we'll just leave to the imagination, Rest assured though that the number will only increase.

... in all those threads in the gun dungeon when you said such incompatible things.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=86348#86452

"Could you name me as the beneficiary of your firearms collection? I promise to give them a good home and treat them with tender loving care."
Endangered Specie in reply: If you insist, too bad you will get absolutely nothing, unless you count the waterguns in the attic.

(and much more)

Huh. Who'd 'a thunk it??

Well ... I'd 'a thunk it. In fact, I did.

[Endangered Specie]

221. I will admit, a while ago I was VERY anti-gun...

That post, and those "much more" as you say, was about two years ago.

Btw do you have anything better to do than dig up 2 year old posts? :shrug: and if you don't, I made even better anti-gun posts than that surely you can do better ;).

I may appear a hard headed person (not an inacurate judgment) but I do change occasionally my opinion on things, for example even longer ago I went from being relatively pro-life to pro-choice for example (note this was well before I joined DU, so dont bother searching).

Call it flip flopping, I really don't give a shit, but if you (or anyone else) really really want to know why I changed my mind, just ask :hi:.

[michreject]

210. 52 at last count

Better than buying stock.

I shoot competitively
I have a CCW
Wife has CCW

[sueragingroz]

217. Nope. No Thanks... (n/t)

[enfield collector]

219. I had a .38 and a 10/22 before I lost them in a tragic boating accident.

[Greyhound]

488. Sorry to hear that. My 10/22 was the first rifle I ever owned.

That was about 30 years ago and I still have it. It is as accurate as ever, has never jammed even once, and I must have run over 6,000 - 7,000 rounds through it.

That original (walnut, cherry?) stock is so beautiful (though I suspect the quality of the wood has declined), it is still my favorite by far for just having fun. It has also been quite useful in helping a few of my east-coast friends in overcoming their fear of firearms.

[MrBenchley]

220. Send the dough directly to the GOP...

Why involve the corrupt gun industry as a middle man?

[Endangered Specie]

222. Well, you can always buy foreign made guns...

would that make you feel better?

btw if you are that worried about 'donating' to a 'corrupt' industry, then I recommend you shut off electricity to your house and stop pumping gas in your car.

[thefamethrowa]

225. Hehe...

If you don't want to donate to corrupt entities, don't donate to the Democratic party. Let's be perfectly honest: they are corrupt, too.

I own one gun: a Remington 1100 20-gauge shotgun, synthetic; I use it to shoot skeet, which is WAY BETTER THAN TRAP, SUCKAS. I'd like to start hunting woodchucks someday, because they are an incredible nuisance around here, and because I have heard that properly-prepared "whistlepig" is delicious. I view responsible hunting favoribly, especially since I would rather eat an animal that didn't live in an undersized cage and receive hormone and antibiotic injections all day. At the moment, I'm eyeing one of the Ishapore .308 (not .303) Enfields on www.aimsurplus.com. I like firearms in general because they are unique in their entirely mechanical nature, because they barely crawl towards obsolesence while computers and automobiles are outmoded the day they debut, because there is little correlation between the price of a firearm and its level of quality, and because I prefer sports that eschew competition in favor of refining skills.

I'm going to inherit an M1 carbine (which is an "assault weapon") from my grandfather; he received this particular piece on his birthday from David Marshall "Carbine" Williams, the inventor of the short-stroke piston integral to the M1 carbine and the SKS, as well as oodles of other firearms. The M1 is an all-matching, mint-condition (fired nine times, when Carbine sighted it in) Winchester of late production, meaning that it has the adjustable rear aperture; in this condition, it would normally go for $2000, but given its history and the signature Williams engraved in the stock with a nail, who knows how much it is worth--I'll never sell it, though, and will pass it down to one of my own grandchildren, God willing. As you might imagine, I grit my teeth when people talk about banning so-called assault weapons.

I totally respect people who don't own guns and have no desire to do so; firearms are dangerous in the hands of the careless and those who know not how to use them correctly, and I see no more reason to look down my nose at the gunless than I do for harboring scorn for the carless. As long as people don't try to stop me from owning or buying firearms, whatever they feel about guns is fine with me. I do wish that people who oppose gun ownership and commerce would learn the practical capabilities of firearms (which are underwhelming), and people's reasons for owning them. I'll never understand why my friend Beth views firearms as being the oppressive phallus of male hegemony in America. Oh well, live and let live.

If this post is full of typos, then damn. It's 6:00 AM, gimme a break.

[greguganus]

233. Carbine Williams gun shop

If you are ever in Raleigh, NC, the NC Museum of History acqured Carbine's gun shop and it is reassembled just like he had it when he was working in it, along with his biography and pictures. Your Carbine is priceless, and I would let the museum curators look at it just to watch them drool.

[thefamethrowa]

238. Funny you should mention that....

My grandfather went to see it, and he said that the shop was a perfect replica--the pack of Camel(I think?) cigarettes were in the exact same place, he said.

Williams was utterly out of his mind, by the way. He almost killed my grandfather at least three times.

[greguganus]

291. Carbine Williams (continued)

I live about 10 miles from Godwin, NC where Carbine had his moonshine still and killed the federal agent that landed him in prison. He moved back here after his prison stint and died in 1975. Can you post a pic of your Carbine?

[MrBenchley]

244. Wow...always instructive to see the trigger-happy drop their masks

and show us what's lurking behind them.

It must be sheer hell for you to have to clog a discussion board meant for us corrupt Democrats....(snicker).

The wonder isn't that this gun-besotted RKBA crap is right wing racism and craziness hiding under a new sheet...the wonder is that it's so tranparently so.

[Raskolnik]

253. That makes little or no sense.

Could you please point out the "right wing racism...hiding under a new sheet" in the post to which you responded? It should be easy, given its transparency.

Otherwise, I call bullshit on you.

[Endangered Specie]

255. "That makes little or no sense."

you just summed up 96% of his posts.

[MrBenchley]

260. Sez the guy with the Chappaquiddick slur...

Excuse the fuck out of me, but I really don't care what the trigger-happy call "common sense."

[derby378]

261. Ad hominem, ad nauseam

Run along now unless you have something constructive to bring to the table...

[MrBenchley]

264. Tell it to Teddy Kennedy, derby...

I'm sure I don't give a shit what you want...maybe he will, after he stops laughing about the RKBA crowd calling Democrats "corrupt"...

[derby378]

273. If you didn't care, you wouldn't respond

"Who's house? RUN'S HOUSE!!"

[Endangered Specie]

280. and you've never said ANYTHING overtly critical about a democrat

before?
I mean, you do routinely imply the (apparent) majority of gun-owning/pro-RKBA DUers are somehow part of a right-wing conspiracy, or something to that affect.

(lord knows what you have to say about pro-RKBA dems who WIN elections, even in rather RED states)

[crankybubba]

307. I thought

it was more like 99%

[MrBenchley]

258. That IS rich

Somebody who wants to piss and moan about corrupt Democrats has too much bullshit of his own to call ANYTHING.

But hey, it's always hilarious to watch the trigger-happy pretend asswipes like the NRA and their rancid RKBA cause are apolitical or progressive...

[Raskolnik]

262. In other words, there was none there.

If you're going to someone of posting "right wing racism...hiding under a new sheet", you'd better put up or shut up when called on it.

You did neither.

(ps--I'm not the one that commented on corrupt Democrats--that was another poster. *Now* you should be able to provide an answer, no?)

[derby378]

263. And Raskolnik wins a cigar...

But I'm not holding my breath for our good friend from New Jersey to deliver.

[MrBenchley]

266. Is that what that smell is?

Sure doesn't smell like any cigar I've ever smelled....smells more like run of the mill pro-gun bullshit.

[derby378]

268. I rest my case

Surely you have a more productive way to boost up your post count?

[MrBenchley]

270. What could be more productive

than pointing out right wing dishonesty and horseshit. Especially when it's masquerading as libertarian blah.

[slackmaster]

314. While we're on the subject of right-wing horseshit,

Who's the one who's equating burning the US flag with the Ku Klux Klan burning crosses?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1707266&mesg_id=1707422

MrBenchley is all about quashing dissent from what he calls the left.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1707266&mesg_id=1709536

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=2736166#2736571

He casts anyone who would dare criticize a fellow party member as an unpatriotic outsider at best, an enemy infiltrator if it has anything to do with opposing authoritarian efforts to chip away at the right of citizens to own and use firearms.

[MrBenchley]

345. LOL! Yeah, slack, be sure to take up flag-burning as a cause too

[KyuzoGator]

372. Looks to me like he's taken up the freedom to do it as a cause.

Nowhere have I seen slackmaster advocate the act itself, only the right to do it. But you only operate in absolutes, so I guess this is par for the course.

[MrBenchley]

425. Then feel free to snuggle up and give him a big smooch

"Nowhere have I seen slackmaster advocate the act itself"
How'd you like "nobody thinks guns are toys" / "bank robbers use only toy guns" in the same thread? You've hitched your wagon to a star there, all right.

[KyuzoGator]

443. You are the master of the non-sequitur.

And since you've already taken solid stances against the First and Second Amendments, I wonder what else in the Bill of Rights you oppose.

[MrBenchley]

456. Pout louder

And what I oppose are lies about the Bill of Rights....but I guess you knew that.

[KyuzoGator]

483. You want flag burning banned as a "hate crime"

So in other words, you only support the First Amendment only when it pleases you personally.

As for the Second, you actually think it only applies to militias.

[MrBenchley]

484. It IS a hate crime

Burning something is speech the way a punch in the nose is a song.

[KyuzoGator]

485. A punch in the nose is violence. Burning a flag is hurting feelings.

But I wouldn't expect you to know the difference.

[MrBenchley]

508. Yeah, sur-r-r-r-re......

[KyuzoGator]

514. As far as I can tell, a "hate crime" is anything that makes YOU upset.

Kind of subjective, if you ask me.

[Name removed]

517. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[KyuzoGator]

533. You're fucking nuts. nt

[slackmaster]

505. At worst it should be an environmental crime

Contributing to global warming, air pollution, etc.

[Greyhound]

414. Still the sole resident

of my ignore list. I gave it up about six months ago. Life's too short to suffer fools.

[KyuzoGator]

442. I would love to see the tally of Ignores and Alerts he's gotten.

If it's less than 500, I'd be very surprised. Yet no one sees fit to tombstone him.

[Greyhound]

447. As long as they parrot The Party Line without deviation, it won't happen.

Skinner et. al. know who butters their bread.

[KyuzoGator]

450. Of course...what do we know?

Even when poll after poll consistently shows about half of DUers owning at least one firearm, it's still kosher to have a disruptor who equates all gun owners with the KKK and who posits that gun ownership rights are inherently racist.

Last time I checked, there are specific DU rules about accusing other members of being Freepers or Republicans, but this particular character never hesitates to use tired guilt-by-association attacks and accuse all gun owners of being aligned with the neocon agenda. And magically, there's never any consequences for it.

Hmm, strange.

[Greyhound]

451. As I said, just do a search and read what they write.

It is The Party Line to the letter, all the time, every time.

[slackmaster]

286. Probably just the town sewage treatment plant

Which way is the wind blowing in NJ today?

[MrBenchley]

287. That's where the RKBA horseshit belongs, slack

[benEzra]

279. MrB's posting flamebait to try to get the thread locked...

But I'm not holding my breath for our good friend from New Jersey to deliver.

MrB's posting flamebait to try to get the thread locked, since it seriously undermines his contention that there is no such thing as a progressive who supports civilian gun ownership, especially the ownership of nonhunting style guns.

[MrBenchley]

283. LOL!

[Raskolnik]

304. Nah, that would be intellectually dishonest.

I don't doubt for a second that MrB's well-reasoned charges of racism and right-wing leanings are thoroughly grounded in a thoughtful analysis of the issue.

How else do you explain the repeated labeling of gun owners as "trigger happy"? It just makes sense.

[MrBenchley]

346. I leave intellectual dishonesty to the trigger happy, who wallow in it

The arguments for gun rights may all be dishonest and stupid, but on the other hand, they're promoted by the scummiest politicans and pubnlic figures around.

[Raskolnik]

353. The argument for gun rights is founded in the Constitution.

Your arguments do not seem to have any basis other than name-calling.

Is there any substance to your argument, or is that all you have to offer?

(My prediction for how you answer this last question: "Its all I have to offer trigger-happy right-wing assholes", followed by a non sequitor picture of a Republican holding a gun. Am I close?)

[Name removed]

356. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Raskolnik]

358. You're back to that? But you apologized so nicely earlier

for lying about the same thing.

Show me *any* iota of racism by those defending the Bill of Rights on this thread. Try using "facts" or "arguments" this time. If you fail to provide any hint of actual racism, I accept your apology (again) and forgive you (again) for lying and making baby jeebus cry (again).

Have an awesome day!

[MrBenchley]

368. Hey, you can pout all you want

But it doesn't make the gun rights movement any less of a racist cesspool....

[Raskolnik]

376. I accept your apology (redux)

It takes a very big person to admit to the same mistake twice.

I'm proud of you. Admitting you were making baseless charges is the first step to living a better life.

[MrBenchley]

380. Nothing to the "gun rights" movement but bigotry and ignorance...

which is why it's the province of racist imbeciles like Ted Nugent....

Some more tolerance and brotherhood from America's armed loonies here:

http://www.gunguys.com/?p=1289

[slackmaster]

397. And anyone who has a political belief must be part of a "movement"

It's inconceivable that an individual might have an original thought about anything without being influenced by an existing pressure group.

:eyes:

Main Entry: big·ot
Pronunciation: 'bi-g&t
Function: noun
Etymology: French, hypocrite, bigot
: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/bigot

[MrBenchley]

403. LOL!

"It's inconceivable that an individual might have an original thought"
We're talking about the trigger happy here.....they don't have any thought, much less any original ones.

"one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance "
That 's the RKBA crowd in a nutshell, slack.

[MrBenchley]

265. LOL!

"(ps--I'm not the one that commented on corrupt Democrats--that was another poster."
And yet you jumped in to help him roll his log.

[Raskolnik]

272. Was that an answer?

No, it was not.

Let's hear it: where, in the earlier post, or for that matter, on the entire thread, is the "right wing racism...hiding under a new sheet".

You made the charge, and you are the one that is *utterly* incapable of backing it up.

[MrBenchley]

285. All the answer your silly post deserved....

Now I suggest you and the bobo with the Chappaquiddick slur go cry about it.

[Raskolnik]

297. I accept your retraction. It took a lot of courage

to admit that your post was bullshit.

Have a good day.

[MrBenchley]

300. Nice to see the trigger-happy are still delusional

[Raskolnik]

303. I forgive you for lying and making baby jeebus cry.

You can stop apologizing. You've already retracted you accusation by virtue of complete abandonment.

I understand that you're a little embarrassed about making a charge you couldn't even begin to back up. It happens.

We'll get past this, ok? I can assure you that I don't think any the less of you for it.

Rock on and have a lovely evening.

[MrBenchley]

342. Gun rights is right wing craziness and racism giggling under a new sheet

But hey, go on pretending nobody can figure out what shitheels like these are really all about....

[Raskolnik]

352. Ooh, next you should show a picture of Hitler with a gun!

That would prove your point even better!

I'm still waiting for *any* substantiation of your charge of racism, by the way.

[MrBenchley]

357. Every humhole with a swastika today spouts gun rights

but then the RKBA crowd has just the nicest playmates.

[Raskolnik]

360. Still waiting...

for *any* substantiation of your charge of racism.

[MrBenchley]

369. Always happy to show what the RKBA movement is REALLY about....

"Fifteen "knights" from the Klan spoke from atop the Municipal Building roof to a crowd of several hundred protesters. Their message, however, could barely be heard through the noise of the chanting crowd.
"We want to make people see what the government is doing to us with affirmative action and gun control," Berry said. "They're trying to take away our rights.""

http://www.pub.umich.edu/daily/1996/jul/07-03-96/news/news16b.html

"On the issue of the Second Amendment, we all know that the media has a certain slant on guns. What is The Ku Klux Klan's view on guns?
Berry: Have you ever heard of the Patriot's Prayer? This is The Ku Klux Klan's version: Give me the sense to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the weapon to make the difference. Never surrender your firearms. Without the Second Amendment, we would not have the First Amendment. "

http://www.liberator.net/articles/KKKJeffBerry.html

The trigger-happy have such nice playmates....

[Raskolnik]

373. Still waiting...

for you to show how anyone on this thread was using racism as an argument for gun rights.

You haven't even attempted to do so.

[MrBenchley]

377. Here's something to while away the hours

as you go on trying desperately to pretend that this dreary RKBA horseshit isn't just right wing racism and craziness giggling to itself under a new sheet.....

\"Scrutiny of many of the members of the NRA's board of directors reveals a picture more akin to Norman Bates than Norman Rockwell. Some members of the NRA's board belong to militia organizations or express sympathy for the extremist fringe. Others can accurately be described as racist and sexist. Others have had brushes with the law. And still others make their living selling gun-related products, calling into question the ethics of the NRA when it claims to represent solely the interests of "gun consumers.""

http://www.vpc.org/studies/nrafamst.htm


"Rights, though, are only one aspect of gun culture; gun shows are conclaves for a segment of society that NRA president Charlton Heston defined this way in a 1997 speech to the conservative Free Congress Foundation: “God-
fearing, law-abiding, Caucasian, middle-class, Protestant. . . admitted heterosexual, gun-owning. . . NRA-card-carrying. . .male working stiff.”
This us-against-them resentment -- “mainstream America,” as Heston put it, versus everybody who isn’t white, male, straight, and piously Protestant –palpably seethes at guns shows. Those in Denver and Montana, for example, have in recent years offered white supremacist literature, rifle targets emblazoned with cartoon African-Americans and the likeness of Hillary Clinton, and copies of the infamous racist fantasy, The Turner Diaries, of Timothy McVeigh was a fan.
...But even here, 90 minutes from San Francisco, a table offers bumper stickers that read: “Welcome to America, Speak English or Get the Hell Out,” and a picture of robed Ku Klux Klansmen with the caption, “The Original Boys in the Hood.”

http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:QFsB57nept8J:danbaum.web.aplus.net/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/gunshow.pdf+%22gun+show%22+boys+hood&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=2&ie=UTF-8

[IA_Seth]

402. Don't hold your breath!

You won't get an intellectually honest debate, not even an INFORMED debate from some people here.

It's easy to paint with a broad brush and include all gun owners and neo-nazi's and klansman...but how absolutely idiotic does that make him look?

Ya see...there are some parts of this country where hunting and shooting and those types of activities are a part of our heritage, and some jagoff who refuses to even acknowledge that, and lumps all of us together with these sorry excuses for men, isn't worth your time.

By the way, I shave my head pretty clean....I guess I am probably a skinhead.

[Doctor Venmkan]

387. Always happy to show what the "cool it, Israel" movement is REALLY about

Neo-Nazi groups are condemning the heavy-handed actions of Israel in their fight against Hezbollah. In particular here, their killing of UN Peacekeepers:

http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=313227

Thus, EVERY DUer who thinks Israel is going too far is obviously a Nazi!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:sarcasm:

[Name removed]

420. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[crankybubba]

496. nice current article

07-03-96. typical..

[Endangered Specie]

312. Wow, my little comment really got to you?

Im sorry to have burst your fantasy land bubble where all gun-grabbers are divine and incapable of wrong.

[MrBenchley]

343. Nope. But then I know what the triggerhappy are really all about

[Dave Reynolds]

337. Most everyone calls bullshit on him.

But the histrionics keep on comin'.

Countdown to being called a right-wing gun freak in 3....2.....1....

[MrBenchley]

344. But those who do are oozing bullshit themselves

Which doesn't keep their stupidity and dishonesty from comin'....

[Sparkly]

464. "firearms are dangerous in the hands of the careless"

"and those who know not how to use them correctly..."

I agree. That's why I would like to see a process of mandatory licensing that ensures all legal gun owners know how to use and store them correctly.

I also support child access prevention laws, which are not in all states.

Thorough background checks (as opposed to "instant" ones or "NICs") are important in my view, including at gun shows, to make sure that people with severe mental illnesses, criminal histories, history of spousal abuse, etc. are prevented from purchasing them.

I think firearms dealers should be subject to laws regarding storage and security to ensure that "thefts" are actually thefts and not corrupt dealings.

I think gun manufacturers should be held to safety standards -- this is the ONE industry that isn't. There are more laws for safety standards in manufacturing TOY guns than real ones.

All of this, of course, amounts to the evil "Gun Control!"

[MrBenchley]

243. So tell us, who are you going to shoot?

Or are you just going to strut around feeling "manly" with your popgun?

[Endangered Specie]

254. Fewer people than Ted Kennedy has killed...

(which means zero, if you are keeping score).

I only shoot paper, plastic bottles, and the like. They are ootherwise stored away (not on display).

Got anymore ridiculous attacks and irrational sensationalism to throw at me today?

[MrBenchley]

259. Like I said, always instructive to see the trigger-happy drop their masks.

[benEzra]

278. Gee, maybe we buy guns because we CHOOSE TO OWN GUNS? (n/t)

[MrBenchley]

290. Funding the GOP is just a side benefit for the trigger-happy

If I were a stamp collector and I found that....

--the manufacturers and sellers of stamps, stamp albums, stamp reference books and paraphernalia were some of the scummiest companies on earth;
--the stamp collectors' associations attacked Democrats and liberal ideas on a daily basis, and honored the most corrupt Republicans, like Dick Cheney and Tom Delay, at their conventions
--every stamp collectors' on-line forum dripped with dittohead rubbish, racism and bigotry
--the stamp collectors lobby in Congress consisted of the most backward and corrupt thugs in the Republican party
--there was a public health hazard associated with stamp collecting, but the stamp collectinng industry had hired a racist crackpot to "prove" there was a health benefit.

I would drop stamp collecting...

It's no coincidence that the worst administration in American history is also the most gun crazy....nor that every racist group in America peddles this gun rights horseshit at the top of their lungs.

[Raskolnik]

305. I wasn't aware that the Bill of Rights was "horseshit"

Because I just checked my copy of the Constitution, and "this gun rights horseshit" comes right after free speech.

[Dave Reynolds]

339. Only in BenchWorld(tm).

Cherry-picking the bill of rights is a hobby.

You right-wing shill, GOP enabling, gun-nutty, racist-sheet-wearing anti-Democrat you!!!
:D

[derby378]

340. Maybe Mr.Benchley thinks he's trying to "civilize" us

If all of America had the same gun laws that New Jersey has, it'll be Utopia, I tell ya! :evilgrin:

Or maybe not. A fat lot of good strict gun control laws in California seem to have on violent gun crime over there. :shrug:

[MrBenchley]

348. No, the triggerhappy are beyond reach of civilization

They're lost in their own little bloody-minded miasma of delusion and disgrace....

[MrBenchley]

347. I'd hate to have to list all the things you aren't aware of

starting with how dishonest John AshKKKroft and the NRA are.....



"Let the eagle soar-r-r-r-r
It's the same horseshit as befor-r-r-r-e"

[Raskolnik]

351. I like the Bill of Rights. You, apparently, think you can pick & choose

among those rights that you like and those that you find distasteful.

Are there any other Constitutional provisions you would like us to ignore?

[MrBenchley]

355. You like the right wing's lies about the Second Amendment

and you can keep them.

[Raskolnik]

359. You mean the 2nd Amend is NOT in the Constitution?

Holy crap! I can't believe we've been fooled this entire time! You need to get the word out, man!

I suggest continuing to call the majority of people on this thread racists, followed by numerous pictures of Tom Delay. That's *got* to work.

[derby378]

364. Man, that just blows my mind

It's the "Patrick Swayze" Amendment! Or should it be called the "Sleepy Hollow" Amendment? The "Casper" Amendment?

Or, in homage to Hitchcock, The Amendment That Wasn't There. Ooooo, scary.

[Raskolnik]

375. What a racist thing to say! (I'm giving MrB's logic a try...)

Hitchcock shot his movies in black and white. The KKK views society in terms of black and white.

Ipso fatso, you must be a racist, and anyone that likes Alfred Hitchcock movies is a closeted Klan member. Plus I think that means Jimmy Stewart and Kim Novak must be racists too, but I'm not positive on that one.

[MrBenchley]

367. You mean you actually BELIEVE John AshKKKroft's lies?

That's hilarious, er, really sad....

"I can't believe we've been fooled this entire time!"
Jeeze, I can believe it. Somebody who believes that what John AshKKKroft says about the Constitution is true must be one ultra-gullible mofo.

Especially when he knows that what John AshKKKroft says about it is also what Ann Coulter says.

And that what those two say is what Rush Limbaugh says, and what David Duke says, and what Fred Phelps says, and what Ted Nugent says, and what Larry Pratt says, and what Trent Lott says, and what Sean Hannity says, and what Marilyn Musgrave says, and what Bill Frist says, and what Tom Delay says and so on, and so on, and so on.....

[Raskolnik]

374. I believe what the Bill of Rights says. I'm *crazy* that way.

I also like free speech, the freedom to choose my own religion, and I'm quite partial to having the right to a speedy and public trial.

Any of those that you'd like to do away with while you have your red pen handy?

[MrBenchley]

378. No, you believe what right wing loonies tell you

"I also like free speech"
Unless someone tells the truth about the gun rights movement....at which point you wail like a banshee.

[Raskolnik]

389. Do you not believe that the Bill of Rights means what it says?

I'm really asking an honest question here. I'm aware that Tom Delay is a douche, I'm aware that John Ashcroft is a douche, and I'm aware that the RTKBA is full of douches. Lets get beyond that.

Why do you think that the 2nd Amendment is "horseshit"? I would appreciate if we could put a stop to the rather infantile exchange we've been having and actually see where our differences occur. I'm not a Klan member, I'm not a Republican (closeted or otherwise), and I don't consider myself trigger-happy.

Thanks in advance.

[MrBenchley]

404. Wow, at the end of the fuss;, he's unable to read.....

"Why do you think that the 2nd Amendment is "horseshit"?"
As I've said quite clearly, the gun lobby's lies about the amendment are horseshit. Even you ought to figure THAT out.

"I would appreciate if we could put a stop to the rather infantile exchange we've been having"
Ask me next what I would appreciate.

[Raskolnik]

412. Which "lies" do you feel are horseshit?

I believe the 2nd Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms. I think that it is integral to the rest of the Bill of Rights.

Do you disagree with either of those positions?

[MrBenchley]

421. Which lies are not?

And if you want to parrot lies mindlessly, be my guest. There's nothing to the RKBA movement but right wing craziness and racism giggling to itself under a new sheet.

[Raskolnik]

438. Um, the two things that I mentioned.

1) The 2nd Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms.

2) This right helps to safeguard the other rights contained in the Bill of Rights.

With which of these two positions do you disagree.

[MrBenchley]

454. And so he goes on, parroting the lies told by AshKKKroft

AND Coulter AND Jeb Bush AND Fred Phelps AND Marilyn Musgrave AND David Duke AND Ted Nugent AND Trent Lott AND Jerry Falwell AND Bill Frist AND Larry Pratt AND Pat Buchanan AND Sean Hannity AND Trent Lott AND Dick Cheney AND Rush Limbaugh AND Tom Delay AND Wayne LaPierre AND Tom Tancredo AND pretty much the entire cadre of right wing shitheels.

I guess any minute now it will be time for one of the triggerhappy to post that imbecilic essay from the Free Republic which claims that everyone is racist EXCEPT them.

[Raskolnik]

463. You didn't answer my question, so I'll ask again:

Do you feel that either of the two following statements are incorrect, and if so, why?

1) The 2nd Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms.
2) That right serves to help protect the other rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights.

[MrBenchley]

468. Ask John AshKKKroft

You seem anxious to swallow whatever lies he tells you.

Let the eagle soar-r-r-r-r-r
It's the same horseshit as befor-r-r-r-r-re

[Raskolnik]

470. You still didn't answer my question, so I'll ask again:

Do you feel that either of the two following statements are incorrect, and if so, why?

1) The 2nd Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms.
2) That right serves to help protect the other rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights.

[MrBenchley]

471. Let the eagle soar-r-r-r-r

Ask John AshKKKroft, since you seem content to wallow in his lies.

[Raskolnik]

472. Yet again, you didn't answer my question, so I'll ask, yet again:

Do you feel that either of the two following statements are incorrect, and if so, why?

1) The 2nd Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms.
2) That right serves to help protect the other rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights.

[MrBenchley]

473. Ask again and this time say "pretty please"

It's really funny to watch one of the trigger-happy suddenly want to have a "serious discussion" after reams of bad faith.

[Raskolnik]

474. Once again, you didn't answer my question, so I'll ask once again:

Do you feel that either of the two following statements are incorrect, and if so, why?

1) The 2nd Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms.
2) That right serves to help protect the other rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights.

[MrBenchley]

475. Well, now we see why you swallow transparent lies

[Raskolnik]

476. You didn't even try to answer my question, so I'll ask again:

Do you feel that either of the two following statements are incorrect, and if so, why?

1) The 2nd Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms.
2) That right serves to help protect the other rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights.

[MrBenchley]

478. Oh, please please please ask again....

I love to watch the triggerhappy demonstrate their bad faith and lack of acuity....

[Raskolnik]

479. If my phrasing is the problem, let me know. Meanwhile, I'll ask again:

Do you feel that either of the two following statements are incorrect, and if so, why?

1) The 2nd Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms.
2) That right serves to help protect the other rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights.

[MrBenchley]

480. Well, I've wrung all the fun out of your dullness I feel like having

It's no coincidence that the crappiest administration in history is also the most gun crazy. And boy o boy, are THEY some freedom-loving motherfuckers!

"WHEN the Vice-President of the United States discharges his shotgun into the face of 78-year-old Republican lawyer it seems strange that the world does not hear about it for nearly 24 hours.
Harry Whittington was peppered with bird pellets by Dick Cheney on Saturday during a quail hunt at a ranch in Texas. He was taken to hospital and put in intensive care.
President Bush and White House staff were informed that night. But it was not until 18 hours after the shooting that the news emerged and then only because a reporter got a tip-off from Katharine Armstrong, the ranch owner. Yesterday, Mr Cheney was battling media claims of a cover-up, while the status of police inquiries remained unclear.
The local sheriff’s office in Kennedy County was saying as little as possible. “We have no information to release,” Sandra Guzman, the sheriff’s assistant, said. When did they know about the incident — and what did they know? “I can’t say, an investigation is going on,” Ms Guzman said. Are you investigating to see if a crime was committed? “I’m not sure,” she replied and then hung up. "

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,11069-2039094,00.html

[Raskolnik]

481. None of that was germane to my question, so I'll ask you again:

Do you feel that either of the two following statements are incorrect, and if so, why?

1) The 2nd Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms.
2) That right serves to help protect the other rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights.

[derby378]

498. If MrBenchley won't answer, can I? Pretty please?

Just say the word...

[Raskolnik]

499. Its probably safe to say that MrB has *declined* to address the issue

so feel free to answer away...

(Are you going to call me a racist, right-wing asshole? Or post lists and pictures of Republicans? Or act like John Ashcroft is still Attorney General? Because if you were, I regret to inform you that MrB has wrung all he can out of those utterly persuasive tactics.)

[crankybubba]

365. note to benchley

ashkroft has'nt been attorney general for quite a while now. Time to get some new rhetoric. maybe you can scare us with that cheney pic you like....Oh i'm sorry you already did that.

[derby378]

366. I think Benchley realized he's fighting a losing battle

Nobody's asking him to own guns or even like them - he can hate guns to his heart's content. But as long as cops, soldiers, and criminals have guns, "we, the people" reserve that same right for ourselves.

[MrBenchley]

370. You and Bubba keep telling yourself that

It fits so well with the other delusions of the trigger happy.....

[derby378]

386. Fine, but when pro-RKBA Dems win seats that anti-RKBA Dems can't...

...you'll have to rethink your hostility towards those who actually want Democratic victory in November 2006.

[crankybubba]

388. just remember

Mr b's hero is sarah brady...REPUBLICAN sarah brady. that pretty much says it all.

from the brady website...

From 1964 to 1968, Mrs. Brady was a public school teacher in Virginia. For the next ten years, she worked actively in various capacities within the Republican Party. She served as Assistant to the Campaign Director at the National Republican Congressional Committee from 1968 to 1970. In 1970, Sarah joined the staff of U.S. Representative Mike McKevitt (R-CO) as an Administrative Aide. She held the same position in Congressman Joseph J. Maraziti's office (R-NJ) from 1972-1974. During the next four years, Mrs. Brady was Director of Administration and Coordinator of Field Services for the Republican National Committee.

You also keep mentioning the scumbag phelps...but, he is unfortunatley a registered democrat.


he ran for gov a a democrat and was a supporter of gore in the 80's.



hmmmm...makes me wonder

[derby378]

393. Maybe we could put Fred Phelps and Zell Miller in the same room

That way, the rest of us could move on with our lives.

[crankybubba]

395. the would be great

after that we could get someone to realize that dems are gun owners and support the 2nd amend.

the repetiveness of the anti gunners just gets tiresome sometimes.(:()

(edited for clarity)

[derby378]

399. Conservative, moderate, AND liberal/progressive

Very important to make that distinction. This ain't a "Left vs. Right" thing, as some of us keep saying over and over.

[crankybubba]

400. very true n/t

[MrBenchley]

422. Hey, the RKBA crowd could give them awards!

In fact, they already DID make Zell man of the year. Bet it's only a matter of time before Fred gets the honor.

[MrBenchley]

423. Then the flying pigs will descend to eat the whistling shrimps (snicker)

"hose who actually want Democratic victory"
Yeah, the Chappaquiddick slur was a real tipoff to what the RKBA crowd is really all about.

By the way, John Kerry is a war hero and lifelong hunter...and he wasn't pro-gun enough to suit trigger-happy shitheads. And nobody pushed the swiftboat lies harder than the gun lobby--with nary a murmur of dissent from "pro gun democrats." (The only complaint in the gungeon among the RKBA boboes is that anybody dared comment publicly on what the gun lobby was up to).

[Raine]

226. Yes several

I inherited them and the way things are I might need them to hold off the fascists.

[greguganus]

228. Several handguns, shotguns, and rifles

I hope to get a Desert Eagle soon.

[Selatius]

231. I'm surprised more than half of DUers who responded are armed.

If I may make a bold assumption, I assume that the sample size now is large enough to possibly assume the results are a reasonable reflection of the true gun ownership rates of DUers.

If that is true, then DUers would not be so easy to "liquidate," as the apparatchiks in the Nazi Party termed it.

[Name removed]

245. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MrBenchley]

301. Try to contain your surprise....

"Kicked off Democraticunderground for the 9th time...My wolf-in-sheep's-clothing act gets better every time out....They're terrified of debate...that's so funny...makes me feel good...how else would you get away with proliferating liberal nonsense...My favorite screename I came up with was "left of stalin"...After hanging out with the DU crowd, I'd suggest a good shower at a biohazard facility...That would lull them into thinking you're one of the "progressives" while actually showing a wee bit of true colors...Reading that message board is like watching a political debate between semi-literate 4-year-olds...."shallow-thinker" "blind-sheep" either one should get you appointed to a "moderator" status fairly quickly on those liberal lemming sites....Demorats have had that problem for a very long time now. They would dearly love to have their socialist utopia, but they know they must make their way through the intransigent partisans to get there..."


http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=33227&highlight=%2ADemocratic+Underground%2A

[-..__...]

311. Even a blind squirrel finds an acorn every now and then.

And that one is 3 years old, yet you continue to repost it again and again with the same predictable results... no one else shares or cares about your accusatory paranoia.

:rofl:

[MrBenchley]

349. And anyone who looks at the RKBA movement finds a mountain of turds

So what's changed from three years ago? Gun loonies still come trolling in here (and brag about it in their cesspools) and the triggerhappy are still both ridiculous and full of crap.

If you want a more recent example, here's an especially hilarious one.....Note from post 193 in this thread that the right wing loonies are trolling in utterly unconcerned that "pro gun democrats" are clutching their popguns and demanding that the rest of us buy guns.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=2191657

My favorite is the guy who pretends that he's suddenly been persuaded to buy guns when he's been boasting about having guns to protect himself from "latent homosexual right-wing pussies".....

"your accusatory paranoia."
Yeah, that's why I'm afraid to go anywhere without my popgun...oh wait, that'/s you triggerhappy bobes, not me.

[crankybubba]

396. and anyone who looks at the brady campaign

finds nothing but a mountain of republicans.

on ronald reagan:

James and Sarah Brady: The legacy of Ronald Reagan will live on forever. I, of course, had the wonderful opportunity of working with him and getting to know him personally. A more wonderful person you couldn't meet. I think the coming down of the Berlin Wall will always live in infamy. I treasure his friendship and appreciate so much what he did for me personally and for the issue of reducing gun violence. He supported Sarah and my efforts to pass the Brady Law and the Assault Weapons ban. Jim

[crankybubba]

445. I'll take you silence on this

as an admission that you know the brady crowd are republicans. like rove,nugent,bush, etc...

[MrBenchley]

477. Axtually you should take the silence as evidence

of how worthless your posts are, bubba.

[crankybubba]

486. and yet you reply...

still no evidence to refute what I said. huh.. Oh well... maybe next time you can post a pic of cheney or someone.

[Malidictus Maximus]

251. Why?:

1- because I like to shoot, so does my wife. Some people play golf, I put holes in paper at 7 to 600 yards.

2- it pisses off authoritarian types; the same bastards who would tell me what I can smoke, who I could sleep with, what kind of vehicle I can drive, what I can publish or say. Authoritarian types should have their lives made as miserable as possible.

3-Guns are intrinsically neat pieces of machinery, like my basses and guitars and synths; I derive pleasure from equipment that does something well.

4-If need be I intend to save the taxpayers a great deal of money should someone attempt to burglarize my home or carjack my vehicle.

[Greyhound]

490. Wow dude, right on! San Francisco no less, you must be just giddy

from the frustration and apoplexy you induce in all those left-wing fascists.

Welcome to DU. :hi:

[NRaleighLiberal]

256. Nope. No Need. No interest. No way.

[survivor999]

289. Thanks for the fascinating

responses and all! I'm learning a lot! :)

[ecstatic]

292. One day I will buy one for protection

I'm kind of scared of the whole concept, so I've put it off indefinitely. But everytime I see a "scary" movie I think to myself that I never want to be in a situation where I can't defend myself and/or loved ones.

[fordnut]

295. Never felt I needed one

[Broken_Hero]

296. Yes nt

[Demobrat]

298. Nope.

No dangerous wild animals where I live. Why else would anybody need one?

[slackmaster]

315. I don't need any of the ones I own

The same is true for just about every object I own now or have ever owned in my life.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

306. Nope. And Ain't Gonna.

Don't trust myself with them. Too easy to kill something with. Just a push of a button basically.

I don't want anything around me that has a sole purpose of killing and of which the means to that end is that easy.

Water guns are ok though.

[Danmel]

308. No

I never ever felt the need for one. I grew up in NYC but never really believed that a gun would keep me safe- in fact I always thought it would be more likely that I'd be less safe- I'm not exactly a large overpowering person and I bet someone who wanted to could wrestle it away from me pretty easily. I don't hunt and shoot skeet or anything like that so I do not own a gun- I also have kids and would never want to take the chance they could get hurt- and if you keep it so they can't get hurt, you can't use it in an "emergency".

So, no, this nice middle aged Jewish mommy dos not own a gun.

[LincolnMcGrath]

309. The hatred of Democrats on display in this thread is sickening.

But not unexpected.

[Greyhound]

415. Would that be the hatred of Democrats that own/support guns, or

the hatred of Democrats that hate them?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

428. Both, I think.

With the exceptions of Israel/Palestine I have seen no other subject which arouses such fierce flame wars between DUers as gun control, not even Christianity/Atheism.

[Doctor Venmkan]

432. It's a hot-button issue to be sure....

...I just find it laughable that some people are so frakin' narrow-minded that they cannot accept the idea of a Democrat ALSO being a gun owner...

[Donald Ian Rankin]

435. Some people, including me, have strong objections to being shot.

30,000 Americans are shot to death every year - 1 per 10,000 people; I don't know how many are non-fatally shot but I assume it's considerably more than that.

Decent (e.g. UK style) gun control would vastly reduce that number (the UK has between 10 and 100 times fewer fatal shootings per capita per year, I believe, although admittedly it also has about 4 times fewer murders in total), at what people like me who don't see the point of guns regard as being very low cost - hunters would be more restricted; collectors would lose their hobby; sports shooters would be required to store their guns at gun clubs and would be somewhat hindered, and people who carry guns for self defence would feel less safe (although they'd *be* considerably safer). As such, it seems willfully perverse to oppose gun control, and while we're used to that from Republicans it surprises people to meet it from fellow DUers, and some people respond considerably less politely than they should as a result.

It's one of the principle reasons why I'm glad I'm British and not American, and I would be very, very reluctant to emigrate to America unless you repealed your second ammendment, which I see absolutely no prospect of happening whatsoever.

[benEzra]

441. So do I...

and the UK had VERY low homicide rates even when guns were freely available. The same could be said of Australia, and Canada (which until very recently had gun laws rather similar to the United States, as far as what you can own is concerned).

FWIW, the U.S. does not have 30,000 people shot every year, unless you count suicides, which is rather disingenuous since the U.S. has one of the lowest suicide rates in the industrialized world, as I recall.

In the UK, the presence or absence of gun laws seems to have had little determinant effect on the crime rate (although I see that your rates are trending upward, despite your recent enactment of perhaps the most draconian gun laws in the world). In the United States, the strictness of gun laws between different jurisdictions also seems to have little determinant effect on the crime rate. The problem is that the U.S. has many pockets (mostly urban) that constitute completely dysfunctional mini-societies. Most of our violent crime occurs in these dysfunctional areas, which coincidentally have some the lowest rates of lawful gun ownership in the United States (I dare say the rate of lawful gun ownership in the District of Columbia is as low as, or lower than, that of the UK).

The premise that enacting UK-style gun bans in the United States would reduce violent crime to UK levels is highly questionable, due to the other sociological factors that cause our relatively high crime rates. In fact, it is a near certainty that attempting UK-style gun confiscation here would lead to civil war (literally, not figuratively), as it did in 1775...

[Greyhound]

446. You are so right.

I think M. Moore did a great job of examining this issue in Bowling for Columbine. We, for whatever reason, are a paranoid and violent culture. I wish this were not so, but I see what is and accept it, for I cannot change others.

Personally I think it became much worse here in the 80's, after raygun made it "OK" to be a bigot again.

I also find it ironic that self-proclaimed die-hard Democrats (the party of liberty, freedom of choice, the big tent, etc.) are so often willing to abridge others rights whenever it suits them.

[LincolnMcGrath]

462. It's pretty clear who the gun-grabbing dem-haters are on this subject.

I guess it is only a purge when you question anything other than guns! :eyes:

[OnceUponTimeOnTheNet]

310. I'm amazed at how many here state

what they have and how many they have. That is nobody's dang bizness. "Keep it close to your vest"


sidenote: those thinking of something for self-protection, go with a 20 ga shotgun and a gun safety class if you know nothing about guns. don't have to be a sharp shooter to effectively handle one of these.

[benEzra]

338. I decided some time ago...

that it was more important to help people get past gun-ban-lobby stereotypes than to maintain strict secrecy about what my wife and I own. The prohibitionists have managed to get a lot of people to think that most gun owners are hunters and own mostly hunting guns, and that misconception needs to be challenged. GLBT's learned a long time ago the value of "coming out of the closet" in helping to overcome ignorance and prejudice, and the same applies here, I think.

If we owned anything really valuable, I might be a little more secretive, but our 7 y.o. son is a cardiac kid with more than $1 million in medical expenses (including >$50,000 out of pocket!), so our collection is rather small and plebian at the moment.

BTW, good advice on the shotgun. I don't own a shotgun, but I know a lot of people who consider a 20-gauge pump an excellent home-defense firearm.

[marions ghost]

437. oh brother

(quote) "a 20 gauge pump is "an excellent home-defense firearm."

The concept of home-defense firearms, first of all, is ridiculous, unless you have a really proficient sharpshooter on your premises at all times. I would say that no more than 20% of the population could be trained well enough to effectively defend any sort of 'premises.' The rest of the 80% have an excellent chance of being killed themselves or the gun killing someone they care about. I have many stories from my community about guns that accidentally kill, or like my neighbor's son across the street, are used to commit suicide, but I have heard no stories of guns used to deter entry to homes. I'm sure it does happen but is certainly more rare than gun accidents or suicide.

The fact is most suburban Americans are not competent to own or use firearms. They do not have the manual dexterity (and never will) or the street smarts (or maturity) to handle guns. People who advocate guns for others are pushing a selfish agenda. All gun ownership does for most people is to give them the illusion of "safety." It functions as a symbol of safety, but does quite the opposite. I used to have a hammock I kept around to create an illusion of "free time" for myself, but I never once spent any time in it. A gun would be similarly useless to me. I could not find it nor use it effectively most likely were anyone to threaten me. I have found dogs and (weaponless) self-defense training to be far more valuable.

Guns for All is just NOT an effective solution to the problem of violence in our society.

[Doctor Venmkan]

455. No one here IS advocating "guns for all..."

Only "guns for all that WANT them, and are willing and able to learn how to handle them safely and properly."

If I'm in a gunfight, I'd feel much safer with a bona-fide pacifist at my back than a guy with a gun who does not have a clue about handling one...

I'm a "pro-choice" guy, and that also includes the choice of using firearms for the defense of myself and my loved ones.

[benEzra]

502. I'm pro-choice on the issue, not "pro-gun" for everyone...

I would say that no more than 20% of the population could be trained well enough to effectively defend any sort of 'premises.'

And my wife and I are, indeed, proficient enough. No problem there...

The fact is most suburban Americans are not competent to own or use firearms. They do not have the manual dexterity (and never will) or the street smarts (or maturity) to handle guns. People who advocate guns for others are pushing a selfish agenda.

And most of those people choose not to own them. Whether or not to choose to own a gun is a deeply personal decision, and should be based on one's individual emotional maturity, skills, and circumstances. My wife and I both choose to own them, as is our right. However, I would never advocate that anyone own a gun who did not wish to do so, or who did not feel competent to own one.

A gun would be similarly useless to me. I could not find it nor use it effectively most likely were anyone to threaten me. I have found dogs and (weaponless) self-defense training to be far more valuable.

Dogs and weaponless self-defense training ARE valuable. Many (most?) gun owners have both, in addition to owning firearms.

Guns for All is just NOT an effective solution to the problem of violence in our society.

I do not advocate guns for all. I do advocate that law-abiding adults with clean records who choose to own them should have the choice to do so. If they are used irresponsibly, the law allows for them to be taken away.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

323. No, absolutely not.

I wouldn't feel safe with one in the house, I certainly wouldn't feel safe carrying one, I don't have any use for one, and given that I live in the UK I think (although I've never bothered to check) that it would be non-trivial to get hold of one.

[slackmaster]

326. Laws concerning use of deadly force are much different in the USA

Even if you bought a humble side-by-side hunting shotgun, which would not be difficult if you really wanted one, your right to use it defensively in your home has been severely curtailed by due process of law.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

327. For which I am duly grateful.

The lack of gun control, and correspondingly high rate of shootings, is one of the things that would make me think very seriously indeed about ever moving to the US. Deadly force should be a right only in defence of life and limb. Here in the UK, if you shoot an intruder who's still coming, or who doesn't know you're there (I think), you're within your rights, but if you shoot them while they're running away, you're not, and that strikes me as a sensible balance.

[slackmaster]

330. It's only justified in defense of life and limb in the US as well

An alleged intruder/assailant who has been shot in the back is considered strong evidence that you weren't really in danger. The laxness of both gun control and laws concerning use of deadly force in the US are both often exaggerated.

Here in the UK, if you shoot an intruder who's still coming, or who doesn't know you're there (I think), you're within your rights...

Google "Tony Martin shotgun UK".

[Donald Ian Rankin]

Dupe, delete.

.NT.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

331. What point are you hoping to draw my attention to?

I'm reasonable well-informed about the Tony Martin case. He shot a burglar (one of two teenage gypsies; the one he shot was sixteen) in the back, as he was running away (I think as he was climbing out of the window, after having been panicked by Martin), and left him to die; and it appears to have been a calculated rather than a panicked decision. He served three years in prison, of a five-year sentence, after becoming a cause celebre of the right-wing tabloid press.

Are there any facts beyond those that I'd learn from googling that you think are relevant?

I regard that as a reasonable sentence. Do you?

[slackmaster]

333. Only that Mr. Martin's actions would have been illegal in most of the US

Failing to warn someone before you shoot them is not illegal in the US. That is the core difference between UK and US self-defense laws in most states. Other than that, despite what many have said about the case he did shoot fleeing suspects and was not really in danger at the time.

Mr. Martin clearly violated UK laws, but his position would really not have been much better in most of the US.

[meldroc]

334. Depends on where you live in the US.

In Colorado, there's the "Make My Day" law, which states that people are immune from civil and criminal prosecution if they kill an intruder in their home and they can demonstrate that a reasonable person in their position would consider themself and those with them to be in immediate danger of death or serious bodily injury.

In other states, it may be far more difficult to defend yourself without being prosecuted.

[slackmaster]

335. Colorado's law sounds just like things are here in California

I assume the person has to be there without permission.

[meldroc]

329. Yes I do own a gun.

I own a Glock 19, which I keep in a quick-open gun safe at my home. I also have a concealed weapon permit, but I usually do not pack heat on my person on account of not wanting to lose my job, or creep my friends out. :p

I consider myself to be a responsible gun owner in that I received training in safe firearms handling and shooting as soon as I purchased my first firearm, and I take gun safety very seriously.

Why do I own a gun? Self defense. Not just against criminals, though that did come to mind when I bought the weapon, but also against the government. That is exactly what the Second Amendment is all about. Self defense, not just against random thugs, but against government gone bad. I hope with all my heart that I will NEVER have to use my weapons against a human being, but our federal government is teetering dangerously close to fascism (read Conservatives Without Conscience to help understand why,) and at the minimum, I want the government to understand that taking our liberties away can come with a high price.

But let's hope it never comes to that.

[union_maid]

341. No

I had an ex-husband, over thirty years ago, who had a handgun and a rifle. I never liked having them in the house. It was a relief to have all three of them gone as it turned out.

[FILAM23]

350. Yes

I have firearms in the home. I have them for defense,
target shooting and occassional hunting. And yes I can
use it for defense without hesitation. I will use it to
defend myself, family, home and possessions.

[survivor999]

354. Well, if I were living in Phoenix...

With all the chaos those serial rapists/killers are creating, perhaps I'd get a gun... Not sure...

http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/07/19/phoenix.serial.ap/index.html?section=cnn_us

[Fox Mulder]

361. Hell no.

And I'll never buy one, either.

I hate guns.

[Ganja Ninja]

363. 6 handguns, 2 rifles and a shotgun.

I'm planning on buying another handgun next month.

[OnionPatch]

371. We have about 16 or more

so we can make up for some of you who don't. ;)

My husband hunts and owns many hunting guns of different caliber from 30 ought sixes to BB guns. He also owns a revolver and several pairs of antique dueling pistols and an old-fashioned front-loader musket that were handed down to him. (I don't know all the correct gun terms, so pardon me) I own a small handgun for self-defense. (He travels out of town frequently and I know some of you would disagree, but I feel better with a pistol hidden away.) Even if we don't need them for self-defense, it's fun to shoot targets.

PS All are locked, trigger-locked, etc. Safety is number 1 in this household.

[evirus]

383. no i despise guns, they are the filth of the human race

they whouldnt be used even for self protection, thats why for selfprotection i have a nuclear missle in my back yard.(obviously im just kidding, actualy im pretty neutral about guns)

[mtnester]

385. More than one

actually, more than 6

and the ammo to go with it.

And the training to use them.

And a permit for carrying one.

My guns are for food and for protection. Yes, if we shoot something while hunting, we eat it. Although, I won't eat squirrel but my husband will (I cannot soak the game out of squirrel enough to suit me.)

Our farm has a healthy deer, rabbit, pheasant, turkey and squirrel population..in balance and not competing with each other and themselves for food or habitat. We regularly help supplement their diet if we feel the year is bad for food (drought last summer was a good example..graze was bad so we rolled out some hay rolls and corn supplements)

Now, if someone can come and help us get that WILEY coyote off our premesis...he has eluded as more times than I care to admit, and he scares the CRAP out of us as he is not your typical scrawny coyote, he is huge, he is massive, and we suspect he is a hybrid of some type - either with dog or wolf...his paw print is huge and deep, and we have seen him from a distance that would not allow for a shot to be taken for several years now, he is VERY dark in coloring but has that weird coyote gait.

He is creating havoc with our animals, we cannot leave cats outside, he is disturbing the owls badly. And he continues to allude us. We will not trap, as we feel that would be cruel. We are about to call in a professional soon I believe.

[mnhtnbb]

394. Hubby owns a shotgun and a replica of a revolutionary war musket

which fires.

[chili_rainbow]

401. Life long gun owner

I own guns. Rifles, shotguns and handguns fill my safe. All get used from time to time. I hunt and target shoot with the rifles and shotguns. The handguns are mainly for CCW. I have had my CCW for 3.5 years, and will renew it next year. Since receiving my CCW, I have had to draw my weapon three times. Fortunately, I have never had to shoot. The scumbags have all dropped their weapons, and I called 911. To people who say that no one needs a gun, I needed one 3 times. To the ones who ask "Who are you gonna shoot?" Anyone who threatens the life of my family or myself.

[God Almighty]

405. 51% of you own guns? Warn me if you come into my neighborhood.

The purpose of owning a gun is to use it to kill.

[slackmaster]

409. If the ONLY purpose of owning a gun is to use it to kill

Then mine must all be defective.

:eyes:

Now please post your city, state, and ZIP code so we will know when to warn you. ;-)

[Greyhound]

416. We're already there, your completely surrounded.

:evilgrin:

You are not wrong about the purpose of firearms, and the second this world changes from a dominator, might makes right, world, I'll happily give them up.

[Doctor Venmkan]

430. Refreshing to see another open-minded progressive...

...oh - wait... :(

[MrBenchley]

431. And tedious to see trigger happy boboes with right wing propaganda

[benEzra]

439. Mine must be defective, too...

I suppose the only reason to own a German Shepherd dog is to use it to bite people, and the only purpose in owning a car is street racing, and the only purpose in drinking alcohol is to get smashed so you can commit crimes without your conscience bothering you, and the only purpose of digital cameras is to make child porn, and the only purpose of email and Internet encryption is so terrorists can communicate without the government reading their mail.

[Sparkly]

465. Come on, the point is obvious.

Cars are designed to get us from one place to another -- that's their basic purpose.

Cameras are designed to produce still images -- that's their basic purpose.

Guns -- other than popguns, BB guns, and water pistols -- are designed to expel bullets at a speed and force that kills people.

Let's at least be real about that.

[slackmaster]

466. Interesting set of things you chose to compare guns to

Some people collect cameras.

Some people collect cars.

People who have collections of cars and cameras may occasionally use some or all of their collectable cars or cameras for their originally intended purposes. Some of those items sit around preserved on shelves or in garages slowly appreciating in value.

People who collect cameras or cars sometimes use them for purposes other than that for which they were originally intended, e.g. collecting, taking them to shows, or simply as conversation starters. Some people enter their classic cars in races or drive them in rallys, which is quite different from their originially intended purpose of transportation.

I collect firearms. I've never shot anyone nor do I intend to. I have a few that I have never fired. When I do fire weapons from my collection it's for amusement and as tools to teach other people gun safety.

I hope I am making myself clear.

Guns -- other than popguns, BB guns, and water pistols -- are designed to expel bullets at a speed and force that kills people.

Let's at least be real about that.

I don't believe anyone here has any delusions about guns not being weapons, but besides expelling bullets at high speed they make pretty good persuaders without being fired.

I like them because they're well-made metal objects that have links to history. Just like cameras and cars.

[Sparkly]

489. "The things *I* chose?" Read the post I responded to. nt

[slackmaster]

500. Sorry, I got the thread flow mangled up

:D

[benEzra]

491. They all have the capability of being so used...

but that's not how they're usually used, was my point. The fact that they can be useful in an in extremis defensive situation, both as a deterrent and (heaven forbid) to shoot someone in self-defense, is certainly one reason my wife and I own them. But between us, my wife and I have expended tens of thousands of rounds in recreational shooting and practice and never killed or threatened anyone. That's the way the overwhelming majority of firearms in the United States are used--lawfully and responsibly.

[Posteritatis]

467. If we collect swords, are we murderers too? (n/t)

[chili_rainbow]

410. Defective guns

If you have a gun that doesn't kill, return it to the store you bought it from for one that does.

[Alacrat]

417. quite a few, mostly pistols

I enjoy collecting them, and target shooting. I also never leave home without one. I never had a desire to own an assault rifle until the ban was imposed. I purchased one before it went into effect, and purchased a few different styles since it expired, all the fuss peaked my interest, now I enjoy collecting and shooting them. Fun hobby but expensive.

[panzerfaust]

434. ...please eleborate on why (self-defense? What else is there?).

... "What else is there?"

Well - for one thing shooting is FUN (Please note that 'shooting' does not = 'killing'), for another guns are tools: for getting food in certain circumstances, for ending suffering in others, and yes, for protection and even self-defense.

Guess I have a 'lot' of guns (though not compared to many of my friends)

12 gauge shotgun for skeet
410 shotgun for snakes (Texas)
22 cal revolver
For tin-cans (plastic bottles these days)
To put suffering, injured small animals down
Like the rabbits cats attack, but don't quite kill
'dillos injured by dogs, etc
22 cal survival rifle for flying
Required in Alaska, advised in Canada, good idea in the American West
Pellet Pistol - to keep those plastic bottles at bay
357 Magnum revolver
Target shooting with 38 cal wad cutters
For unwelcome visitors 480 grain handloaded hollow points

Used to have 30/30 carbine for hunting - which I gave up when gave up hunting.

[sendero]

461. There is no better thread..

.. than this one to see the close minded idiocy that lives here as well as on the other side.

Guns are TOOLS. And like most tools they can be used for good or ill.

Those of you who don't like guns, fine, they are like abortions - don't like them, don't get one. And don't presume to understand or judge folks who do. You clearly don't get it.

[MoseyWalker]

458. I own many

Reason? I feel I should and need to. I live in an area where one or another may come in handy to prevent the bad guys/gals from hurting me or those I care about.

To be without this type of protection would be to admit one to be an idiot.

[Vinnie From Indy]

459. This is my rifle, this is my gun. This is for killing and this is for fun

[SammyBlue]

482. 12 gauge Shotgun for turkey hunting

30-O6 Rifle for elk hunting

Glock for protection.

[prairie populist]

494. Gun cabinet full of hunting rifles and shotguns

[IronLionZion]

495. Not yet but I will.

I have no need for one right now.

But I plan on learning how to use a gun properly and responsibly, just so that I will have the knowledge in case I need it for any reason...

Some things to keep in mind:
No one in their right mind wants to take away your hunting rifle.

Our founding fathers put in the 2nd amendment immediately after overthrowing the government.

If you seriously keep a gun for self-defense, you better be psychologically ready to put two in someone's chest and one in his head protect your family. And then be prepared to face the legal consequences of having killed a human being.

[derby378]

497. Do keep in mind that this isn't about hunting rifles

Even in Ireland, which has what is arguably the most restrictive gun-control legislation in all of Europe, they'll let you own a hunting rifle.

Your other two points, however, are well taken.

[IronLionZion]

501. I know, but rural conservatives always think it is

and urban liberals always think about keeping kids safe from shootings.

As if there is no sensible middle ground.

IMHO, guns are like abortions. If you don't like them, don't get one. Guns and abortion are the perennial wedge issues the Repubs use to beat us every time.

[benEzra]

504. Rural and suburban gun owners of all political stripes

are far more concerned about nonhunting-style firearms than hunting rifles. Nationally, only 1 in 5 gun owners is a hunter, meaning 4 out of 5 aren't. The gun-ban lobby is indeed interested in banning half the guns in our gun safe, and it is attempts to ban various nonhunting style civilian firearms (handguns, civilian rifles with handgrips that stick out, civilian shotguns that hold more than 5 shells) that constitute the real albatross around the party's neck on the gun issue.

Dems and the Gun Issue - Now What?

Alienated Rural Democrat (thanks to DU's virginiamountainman for this one)

[IronLionZion]

506. Wow, I didn't know

I bet most DUers don't either. Your thread that you linked to is very interesting. Thanks for sharing. :hi:

[survivor999]

534. I did not know either

Thanks for sharing.

[dand]

512. A .357 magnum and a 9 mm

one in my bedroom and one in my den. I am surrounded by Repub neanderthals and my guns are comforting to have around

[survivor999]

513. This is such a great thread!

Thanks all!

[Renew Deal]

524. GD gun threads are usually good.

And you always find out that DU is much more pro-gun than you would think.

[IronLionZion]

535. I'm more pro-freedom or pro-choice more than pro-gun

because I view guns and abortions the same way: God forbid you have to use it but it's good to have the right. If you don't like them, don't get one.

I suppose that could extend to light drugs and prostitution too.

[Renew Deal]

536. Drugs and Prostitution

You really want to get this to 1000 posts huh? ;)