General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsHere is when I bought my first gun
Some years ago, we lived in a nice middle class neighborhood in Louisville, KY. My wife had occasionally left her keys in the front door (hands full with grocery bags, etc.), and so I would check every night after the news, when we were getting ready to go to bed, to make sure she hadn't left her keys in the door.
One night, I started to open the door to check for the keys, and as soon as I started to open the door, someone was pushing against it. I threw my shoulder into the door and, after what seemed like an eternity of wrestiling against someone pushing against me, managed to get it closed and locked. We called the police immediately. They showed up 30 minutes later. I sat up all night with a steel microphone stand, as it was the only thing I had that remotely resembled a weapon. My wife and children went on to bed.
The next morning, when I went out to work, I found this message scrawled in the dust on the back windshield of my 1983 Chevy Blazer: "I'm going to f**k your girl." I remember it like it was yesterday. I will NEVER forget that.
I went to a local gun dealer that same day and passed the background check. Two days later I had legally purchased a .357 Smith & Wesson K-frame revolver. My wife and I went to a local shooting range and learned how to handle it. She was already pretty good with a firearm. I had to learn. But learn I did.
There have been two other incidents since then, when someone tried to get in our door in the middle of the night. I sat up with the .357 aimed right at the door, waiting for the police to show up. If you think I'm depending on the police to protect my family, you are mistaken.
If someone tries to break into my home in the middle of the night, it's safe for me to assume he/she is not there for a social call. If it's him or me/my family? It's going to be HIM. Could I shoot another human being? Under those circumstances, you bet your ass I could. And sleep like a baby afterwards.
You gun-grabbers need to consider that.
Bake
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)But a .223 Assault weapon does not belong in civilian hands.
Gun regulation, in spite if NRA noise, does not equal a door to door search and confiscation of guns.
datasuspect
(26,591 posts)and against whom.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Is used in combat zones, join the army. I am serious.
datasuspect
(26,591 posts)i am serious.
you cannot expect to know every possible security situation in civilian life.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Better ask the boss to fund the proper body armor and ballistic helmet.
datasuspect
(26,591 posts)it is presumptuous to assume that one person can know every possible situation.
and yes, we're in a civil war. it's just not hot yet.
we've been in one for a few decades.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)That said, while we are in a cold phase, no, we do not need these weapons in civilian hands.
Perhaps after the civil war...we'll do what the NRA fears.
datasuspect
(26,591 posts)there isn't any sense in communicating with you.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Sorry.
riverbendviewgal
(4,253 posts)You sound like one.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2010/03/oath-keepers
datasuspect
(26,591 posts)but i made a promise to not reflexively do that on DU.
so, bless your widdle heart.
if you want to talk about ideas (and not me personally), i'm all ears.
riverbendviewgal
(4,253 posts)datasuspect
(26,591 posts)you seriously have nothing better to do, nicht wahr?
CatWoman
(79,302 posts)your non rationalizations make no sense whatsoever.
jpak
(41,758 posts)yup
datasuspect
(26,591 posts)the economic cleansing of NYC is fascinating.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)of Fifth Ave or Wall Street, where the big money is. And they are fine without guns and cars, BTW. It's the ultimate big tent.
I feel safer in the Bronx ghetto than many of the gunners here feel at home. WTF is that about?
datasuspect
(26,591 posts)do what you wanna do.
ieoeja
(9,748 posts)datasuspect
(26,591 posts)it has nothing to with this.
isley brothers, homie.
one_voice
(20,043 posts)ieoeja
(9,748 posts)Not too blatant. But just about every post has something in it that could have racist intent. A couple posts might be coincidental. But a dozen...?
I'm not buying that as a concidence.
"hood" = "Ku Klux Klan garb". "Your hood is showing" = "your racism is obvious". Anti-racist dog whistle to an individual posting racist dog-whistles.
You notice the poster didn't act confused at all. Instead decided to pass off some pithy remark; probably to confuse anyone reading. It appears s/he is just as fluent in racist language as am I.
datasuspect
(26,591 posts)
frylock
(34,825 posts)there are no US cities that are like combat zones. you are not clearing rooms or avoiding IEDs.
datasuspect
(26,591 posts)there's a LOT more to warfare than clearing rooms or avoiding IEDs.
your naivete is breathtaking.
frylock
(34,825 posts)like I already told you.
datasuspect
(26,591 posts)Response to datasuspect (Reply #271)
Post removed
datasuspect
(26,591 posts)
Atman
(31,464 posts)Where the fuck do you live? You've had THREE armed encounters? And you still live there? If you want to protect your family MOVE THE FUCK OUT! You obviously live in a shit hole. Please excuse the harsh words, but this is just stupid...you get continuously assaulted by armed thugs, yet you stay there? Seriously? Yes, yes...more weapons is the answer.
Holy crap, this country is a goner.
datasuspect
(26,591 posts)what in the living fuck are you blabbering about?
frylock
(34,825 posts)datasuspect
(26,591 posts)Atman
(31,464 posts)Maybe she wandered into the kitchen at 3:00 am...BLAM!
I'll cuss all I want. My words won't kill people.
Atman
(31,464 posts)C'mon jury...I didn't attack the poster, just the subject of his post.
datasuspect
(26,591 posts)Atman
(31,464 posts)I'm a sock puppet. I spent this whole time on DU just waiting for you.
datasuspect
(26,591 posts)instead of just lashing out.
shit like that makes DU suck.
Atman
(31,464 posts)"To which you are responding." Grammar alert! LOL! Putz.
datasuspect
(26,591 posts)datasuspect
(26,591 posts)C'mon jury...I didn't attack the poster, just the subject of his post.
DURRRHHHHHHHHH
Atman
(31,464 posts)I was on a jury yesterday. Two nearly identical posts. One said "You make DU suck." The other said "Your post makes DU suck." The first one was blocked (not by me, I voted to leave it). The second was allowed to stay. The only reason? One supposedly attacked the poster, the other supposedly only attacked the post.
Seriously?
I could easily alert on your response for calling me a "moron." But you said I only "sounded like a moron," so I guess you're in the clear.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)these "combat zones" that need assault rifles?
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Because it isn't used in combat zones.
The military uses derivatives like the M-16 and M-4. There are... notable differences between these devices.
S_B_Jackson
(906 posts)Seriously....
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)some of the preferred weapons for those in the black weapons trade. Seriously.
this is the part that the NRA will never, ever tell you. Watch Lord of War, it is loosely based on a Russian piece of scum who made his living doing that.
This is not something most Americans are aware off, for the record.
Straw Man
(6,625 posts)nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)For the record I did not imagine them when the war on drugs was just heating up either.
And this is a well known problem.
http://www.fas.org/asmp/campaigns/smallarms/IssueBrief3ArmsTrafficking.html
This info graphic is amazing since it focuses not just on the US
http://www.fastcodesign.com/1670508/infographic-google-visualizes-the-world-s-terrifying-arms-trade#1
For the record, the AK is still the most popular weapon in the black weapons trade, in any variant, semi, full 47' 74' you mention it.. You want some irony? Since we banned Chinese knock offs, guess who is the number one market for the AK (civilian versions) right now? We are.
FYI, closing the gun show loophole would help greatly, and it is, quite frankly, a matter of national security.
Straw Man
(6,625 posts)"Whatever they can get" hardly indicates preference.
The world is awash in military-grade full-auto AK-47s as a result of Soviet policies during the Cold War. That is why the AK is the backbone of the international black market in small arms. There are some documented cases of individuals purchasing weapons on the US consumer market in order to arm various factions in overseas conflicts -- the Kosovan case cited in your link is one -- but these are a drop in the bucket compared to large-scale criminal enterprises like Bout's, which rely primarily on military stockpiles.
So no, AR-15s are not battlefield weapons, nor are they the preferred stock-in-trade of black marketeers.
I'm curious as to why you consider the "gun show loophole" to be a matter of national security rather than a domestic crime issue. Is it your contention that terrorists are arming themselves from US gun shows?
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)So did the Army and the Police..
They are in battlefields around the world. You might not like this but the us is the number one exporter of arms...to the black market. You think we're only exporting Aks?
Look at that graphic, carefully. The information is out there if you want it. I personally suspect you do not want it. But it is.
Closing the gun show loophole is also a matter of national security.
Straw Man
(6,625 posts)What AR-15s? Where? Whose army? Whose police? I'm not asking just to be difficult, but to try to determine the parameters of the discussion.
I'm fully aware that the US is a huge exporter of arms worldwide. We supply military weapons to "friendly" nations. Arguably, this is akin to what Viktor Bout did, albeit for slightly different motives, but it has nothing to do with the civilian firearms trade in the United States.
I'm not trying to be obtuse or condescending here, but are you aware that the US military does not use the AR-15, which is the semi-auto civilian variant, but the M4 (and previously the M16), which is the full-auto version? These are NOT available at gun shows. These make up the bulk of what we are exporting to the world, in government-sanctioned armament transfers.
Now that you've said it twice, I have no doubt that you think the gun show loophole is a matter of national security. What I don't know is why. Because crime destabilizes the nation? Because terrorists are arming themselves through gun shows? I'm not sure what we're talking about here.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)These are from Mexico
http://www.publimetro.com.mx/_internal/gxml!0/4dntvuhh2yeo4npyb3igdet73odaolf$acq6kdl8la0pd8mgvu2rnlvp0yy9r68/armas-decomisadas.jpeg
Oh this is from Serbia by the way
http://dalje.com/en-world/serbia-to-keep-arms-exports-at-record-level/244220
This from Libia, what looks line an FN Fal
Here you go, from Brazil
Have fun... trying to ignore the evidence.
The rest of the world is not.
Straw Man
(6,625 posts)Aside from a few Hi-Point carbines in the first picture, there is absolutely no way of telling from those photographs whether those are civilian semi-autos or full-auto military versions. The FN-FAL is made in Belgium, BTW, not the United States.
When I ask for specifics and clarifications, I'm not trying to ignore anything. I'm giving you the opportunity to explain yourself. What are your contentions? These pictures and pronouncements accomplish nothing. Please clearly state what you see as the problem and what you propose as solutions. Then we can have a discussion. Otherwise we're just propagandizing each other.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)I know where the FN Fal is made by the way. I also know the issues with it.
I showed it for a point to be made, these things are out there (Belgium is also an exporter into the black market, but nowhere close to the US, or Russia or Germany, the three top exporters)
The US Gun Shows and straw buyers are a source of these guns.
The problem is that MOST AMERICANS are in actual denial, you are not alone, as to this reality, and why the loophole has to be closed.
It has to in order to close it for domestic criminals and foreign ones.
Straw Man
(6,625 posts)If they are military, they did not come from US gun shows and straw buyers.
The Mexican trace data is misleading, because not all seized guns are submitted to the US for trace: only those which are suspected to have come from the US civilian market. You cannot trace a full-auto military weapon on the US civilian market because it was never legally traded there. Therefore, there is no point in attempting such a trace.
The flow of weapons into the black market is huge, and I contend that governments are the major players, abetted by large-scale racketeers like Viktor Bout. You contend that the bulk of it is from private sales at gun shows and elsewhere. I don't think Viktor Bout got rich by trolling the gun shows for civilian AKs and ARs. The gun shows may be a source of these guns, but the bulk of the problem is actual military weaponry passing into the hands of gangsters and warlords.
I have no personal stake in proving this one way or another, but you have offered no compelling evidence. Closing the loophole may in fact be a good idea, although I'm not sure how much effect it would have, either domestically or internationally. Personally, I think straw buying is a much larger issue, and the solution is aggressive enforcement.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)is that closing it would affect gun owners. Six states have done such already, with zero effect to gun ownership
Regardless, Americans are in denial, and that is a fact jack. No evidence will be sufficient to you. Have a good long life.
Good bye.
Straw Man
(6,625 posts)... that you felt you had to summon the NRA bugaboo. I thought you were interested in substantive discussion.
You didn't offer evidence. You offered articles of faith. You keep telling me that you know things and are aware of things, but you refuse to elucidate. Tell me what the problem is, who the players are, how it works, and what can be done. All these vague allusions just serve to muddy up the waters further.
Very disappointing.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)As I said, no evidence will be sufficient.
I gave you evidence, and I did not imagine things.
Denial ain't just a river in Egypt.
Buy bye.
Straw Man
(6,625 posts)You gave me some pictures and were very vague about what they represented.
What did you "not imagine"? Do you have first-hand experience to share? Please share it. I do not respond to "I know things that you don't know, so if you do not agree with me, you must be in denial." This is supposed to be a discussion, not obeisance to a seer.
The link you provided concurs with me that the bulk of the trade is in military weapons:
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)As a Red Cross medic south of the border.
I saw those weapons, and AK style weaponry as well, to be fair.
More than one shootout between the army (since the cops were way outgunned) with the cartels.
Of course the Federal police is using M-4, part of the Merida agreement.
I did not have to imagine what responders found at Sandy Hook Elementary.
But yes, I imagined this. And so have people like Ammanpour, who saw them in places like Sarajevo. She did not imagine them either.
As I said, denial is not just a river in Egypt
This is a well known issue around the world...but Americans, as exceptional as we are, are in fracking denial. This is the kind of denial the rest of the world has a good laugh about, since crying is not useful. I also provided you with a graphic of weapons exports, which you conveniently ignored.
As I said, your handle suits you. Straw mans is what you provide.
And yes, this will be my last, since I expect you to continue to hide your head.
Straw Man
(6,625 posts)I'm sorry if I offended you. I appreciate your telling me of your experience. I can respect what you have gone through. However, the question remains:
Do you know the provenance of these weapons? Are they from the military, or the private market? I looked at your graphic, and it told me nothing I didn't already know and had not already acknowledged. Your own source suggests that they are military in origin, as I had suspected.
And I have no reason to hide my head. I have done and said nothing wrong or inappropriate.
Thank you for the discussion.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)As far as Mexico is concerned, a lot comes from four border states.
Fast and furious, as badly conceived as it was, came from a demand from Mexican officials to stop this. The last time I looked at the figures, the camino de hormigas, which is from straw purchases, accounts for about 70% of them. The other thirty comes from internal black market or black market through Central America.
And fast and furious was extremely badly conceived. This was fantasy, that they'd be able to follow 'em after they were bought, let alone they crossed the border. Whoever conceived of it should have been fired.
Here, some more info
http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2011/12/12/qa-inside-the-murky-world-of-arms-dealing/
http://gizmodo.com/5927379/the-secret-online-weapons-store-thatll-sell-anyone-anything
A tad more academic.
http://www.fpif.org/reports/small_arms_trade
This is the clean weapons trade
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/27/world/middleeast/us-foreign-arms-sales-reach-66-3-billion-in-2011.html?_r=0
We really need to deal with this.
Straw Man
(6,625 posts)I already mentioned the problems with the Mexican trace data. I think they have corruption problems with their own military and police that are as significant if not more significant a factor in their problems with weapons.
Much of the information in links confirms my suspicions that the bulk of the trade originates with government stocks of military weapons. I think we agree that there is a problem. I think that we disagree on the exact nature of the problem and the best ways to deal with it.
I don't consider that to be denial. Perhaps you do, and that is your right.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Though that exists...and none who is honest will deny it.
Some from the army, some from the federal police. In fact, two former Generals, one in line (until he retired) to become the commanding general of the Mexican military were prosecuted...not for gun dealing, but intel leaks. So were two active Brigadiers and one Lt. Colonel...last year.
Yes, I still read their press. They also cover American politics and 2004 and OH, kind of embarrassing where the information showed up. (British, Canadian and Mexican press chiefly)
Even DOJ knows this problem with straw purchases, why the ill conceived fast and furious. And it was probably the worst sting operation in the history of ATF.
We close that loop. It will be good both internally (a source for criminals in the US) and externally, and not just Mexico.
It will not affect legal owners one iota.
zappaman
(20,606 posts)She has been in enough shoot outs to fill nightmares.
You really don't know who you are dealing with...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1996780
Straw Man
(6,625 posts)I asked for her experience, and she finally answered.
Also, I don't subscribe to the notion that traumatic experiences give one a free pass in discussions.
zappaman
(20,606 posts)I didn't mean to come off as harsh.
She did not know she is an ex-marine, ex-cop, former firefighter, EMT, paramedic, climatologist, champion fencer, has at least one Masters degree, as well as being a trained historian, and expert on just about anything and everything.
Now you know!
Ghost in the Machine
(14,912 posts)
http://www.walmart.com/c/kp/bushmaster-gun
DPMS Sportical Rifle 5.56/.223 Rem
Sig Sauer M400 Enhanced Carbine ODG with Rifle Bag
All semi-automatics, at my local Wally World....
Ghost
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Erose999
(5,624 posts)Straw Man
(6,625 posts)Three rounds are released with one trigger pull. M4 has burst-fire, M4A1 has full-auto. Neither capability exists in the civilian versions.
Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #4)
Straw Man This message was self-deleted by its author.
Bake
(21,977 posts)Although I have fired one, semi-auto, at the range, and I did enjoy it. But I have no desire to own one. I'm perfectly willing to re-institute the assault weapons ban, and ban hi-cap magazines (depending on the definition of hi-cap--my 9 mm holds 15 rounds plus one in the chamber; I don't consider that hi-cap).
I've gotten stranded on the side of the interstate at night with car trouble before. I wouldn't THINK of leaving home on a road trip without my S&W. My father was stuck at a RR crossing in Arkansas when a gang of hooligans decided to f**k with him. He simply showed them he was armed and they took off running. He won't leave home on a road trip without his handgun either.
Do I carry when I go to the grocery? No. But I COULD, legally. I've been through the requisite background checks and classes to carry a concealed weapon legally.
Many here are calling for outlawing all handguns, and the confiscation of legally-purchased firearms. And I'm saying that will never happen. I'll break the law if I have to, to have it with me when I need it. Depend on the police? Not on my life. Hell, I don't even trust the police not to fuck with law-abiding citizens!
I'm willing to discuss reasonable gun control. But I've been called all sorts of names here on DU: gun nut, gun worshipper, NRA mouthpiece, compared to kiddie porn, etc. Frankly, that does NOTHING to advance the discussion, and it just makes me more entrenched in my position. My family comes first. You can get my S&W when you can come get it out of my hands.
The extreme gun-grabbers aren't being productive.
Bake
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)As guns for everybody. But hey, we are going for that, make mine a Glock forty.
You want to have an adult discussion it helps to not use loaded NRA terms. Gun grabber happens to be one.
Bake
(21,977 posts)that have been thrown around here.
I've begged for the name-calling to stop. It has been ignored. So be it.
Bake
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)How many of these people have the power to ENNACT LAWS?
Once you answer that question...
Recursion
(56,582 posts)So, one. Though thankfully he has the sense to stay out of most of these threads.
Come to think of it, Grayson's position on guns seems to be closer to mine than to the median DUer's.
zappaman
(20,606 posts)Another term people use to belittle anyone who owns a gun.
I have the same gun as you and for similar reasons.
But of course, as soon as you mention you legally own a gun, you get accused of wanting everyone to have an assault rifle.
It's no wonder we can't have a civil discourse on this when so many call names as you pointed out.
And for the record, I am not an NRA member, think they are full of shit, and would like to see something done about the all too easy access to high powered weaponry and ammo.
Bake
(21,977 posts)That's helpful. Really helpful.
For the record, like you, I'm not an NRA member and I, too, think they are full of shit.
Bake
zappaman
(20,606 posts)*sigh*
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)But then I have no problem with registration and regulation. I don't understand why so many Democratic gun owners jump on the NRA and GOP gun madness bandwagon.
DrewFlorida
(1,096 posts)You are being hypocritical, you call for civility at the same time calling people who disagree with you "gungrabbers". Let's all be realistic regarding the gun issues, #1 There are legitimate reasons to own a gun. #2 There is a need for reasonable gun controls / regulations. #3 If we all agree that high capacity magazines should be controlled, then the number of rounds is what needs to be negotiated. #4 You don't gain any advantage by bringing an elphant gun to a pheasant hunt, that means Assault weapons don't have legitimate purpose for hunting, or self defense and therefore don't have a legitimate purpose to be in the hands of civilians.
Bake
(21,977 posts)And yet I've been called every name in the book (most recently, "gun nut cretin"
. If you're offended by "gun grabber," then excuuuuuuuuse me! It's simply a normal reaction to the vilifications I've been subjected to, and if you're not a gun-grabber, you have no reason to be offended.
To the gun-grabbers out there, please be offended as I have no intent to apologize for that term.
Bake
DrewFlorida
(1,096 posts)Please try to stay focussed on a solution rather than being like those you dislike (namecallers).
Do you have any reasonable solutions which would address the gun problem while respecting your need for self defense?
If you have no intention to focus on a solution, then you are part of the problem!
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)"It's simply a normal reaction to the vilifications I've been subjected to..."
We do often rationalize and predicate our own behavior by blaming others for the same thing. It's not really hypocritical... merely a petulant action without thought. We also construct mighty nice crosses from which to martyr selves on for a wonderful sense of self-validation.
DrewFlorida
(1,096 posts)Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)24-7, 365. And evidently institutionalized. Alerting rarely works except in the worst cases. Off-topic, I guess.
Mojorabbit
(16,020 posts)
Sekhmets Daughter
(7,515 posts)You won't change their minds and they have no chance of getting their wish so interacting with them is totally non-productive.
jmg257
(11,996 posts)and yet you are willing to become a criminal so you can protect yourself against...criminals. Brilliant!
Good luck providing for your family when you are in jail.
Bake
(21,977 posts)I purchased mine legally, passed the background check, and I assume it's registered somewhere.
But if you outlaw the possession of all firearms, I will gladly break that law before I'll leave my family to die at the hands of a real criminal.
It's called civil disobedience.
Bake
jmg257
(11,996 posts)(And cleverly admit as much in a public forum!)
"I'll break the law if I have to, to have it with me when I need it." "...if you outlaw the possession of all firearms, I will gladly break that law before I'll leave my family to die at the hands of a real criminal."
Its called "illegal"...and you would be a real "felon". Good luck holding onto any of your guns once you are caught, protecting your family while you are being someone's bitch in prison, and providing for them after spending all your money going to court.
Once again...brilliant plan.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Read on it.
Cause the scenario posed by the OP is covered in it...it is called self defense.
Now the psychological effects of shooting another human being are not covered by it.
But this, as the OP described, even before before stand your ground, is a legal shooting.
jmg257
(11,996 posts)stating he will gladly be keeping guns if/when they become illegal to possess?
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Would only be taken away after a long drawn civil war and a new constitution..why that part of the OP deserves scorn. It is an NRA talking point.
Of course, the kind of civil war I am talking about might lead to the dissolution of the Union.
He has yet to answer exactly how many of our most vocal fringe DU'ers that want to ban guns are actual legislators. The number of course is zero.
zappaman
(20,606 posts)It's almost as if it was copy/pasted from an entirely different discussion from another planet in an alien language...
Bake
(21,977 posts)I seriously doubt ANY of the posters here are actual legislators, but they can write to their legislators and try to advance their point of view.
The only actual legislator I know of who is a DUer is Alan Grayson. The rest of us are just here to discuss issues.
What does any of that have to do with the "rational" discussion going on here on DU?
Bake
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)There are some things you can easily discount as in the realm of the possible.
But as much as they can write, some will...those legislators fear the NRA, not a poster on the internets.
Bake
(21,977 posts)They are entitled to their opinions but I am not?
Bake
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Reality check is reality check, your .357 is safe, none will ban it...none has the power to do such.
Serious, a little perspective does help.
jmg257
(11,996 posts)has the stomach to do anything about the ones already out there.
Only by substantially reducing the number of guns can we hope to substantially reduce the level of gun violence.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Right now you could not get a universal weapons ban in the US
But you could ENNACT (I hope) a 100% background check, get rid of Internet sales, ban assault weapons. (And I hope this time around they do it by workings not looks) and when feasible mandate smart weapon technology.
100% background checks will go a long way in ending straw purchases.
quakerboy
(13,920 posts)doing it by workings, not by looks, that is.
But I dont see that happening. The Gun owners in our country have, by and large, been intransigent, supporting leadership that insists there is no such thing as a harmful gun.
And with the outrage of sandy hook, the resurgance of anti-gun feelings seems to be in full force, with a growing belief that there is no such thing as a useful gun. I think HS and college shootings, as horrible as they are, just didnt touch people the same way that these little kids deaths did.
Looks to me like the most likely result is a country bruising, no holds barred fight to the metaphoric and possibly occasionally literal death. I don't see extremists on either side being willing to talk the issue over, and despite probably being a majority, I don't see people who see a problem needing a solution, but wanting a measured, effective response rising up with any alternatives. The NRA is not, as best I can tell, losing its members, even the ones smart enough to know better.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)As well as smart weapon tech, with congress critter.
But I fear it will take a few more shootings for the cultural shift to take hold.
quakerboy
(13,920 posts)As I say, I am pessimistic about the chances of smart gun control. The one side is so opposed to even the smallest decrease in gun rights, and the other is growing even less tolerant of even the smallest retention of gun rights. And those in between seem by and large content to let their extreemists run the show. The continued shootings only seem to steel each side in their resolve to destroy the other. It seems more likely to me that one side or the other walks away with victory, despite any damage to our nation that may result, than that any common sense compromise might happen.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)We are at the beginnings of it.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)But it will happen. And it will take, sadly, a few more Auroras and Sandy Hooks and other mass shootings.
See Colorado as an example. After Columbine it is one of six states that have closed the gun show loophole. In Colorado's case it was by initiative.
Bake
(21,977 posts)I suspect he/she would be JUST FINE with banning most if not all guns, including mine. And that's what I'm opposed to, and have stated as much. And if reasonable gun control measures now are just the beginning, where does it end? For jmg, I think the answer is clear: it ends with banning all private gun ownership. And that will never happen.
Bake
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)I got no idea what it will take for you to get it through your head.
Now, the only way to get all guns off civilian hands would only occur after a hot civil war, and a new constitution. Quite frankly the US will not survive that. And quite brutally honest fifty million dead is quite a bit of dead.
But seriously, you want to have your pea shooter to stand guard all night...none will take it away from you. I would have dialed 911 as well, but you already told us you don't trust cops. (A lovely NRA talking point in this context).
But hey, if you want to be paranoid, that is...quite frankly...your problem...not mine.
Oh and bake, all anecdotes to the side, crime rates are way down nationwide.
Bake
(21,977 posts)And neither does anybody in his/her right mind. It's a lethal weapon. I recognize that. You apparently don't.
Pea shooter, indeed.
I don't feel the need to stand guard all night. Only those few nights when something happens. If you were in my family, you'd appreciate the fact that I do that for you.
Paranoid? Hardly. I sleep just fine, thank you.
My post was in response to the DUer who thought the discussed ban was a good start, but he'd gladly come for the rest of the guns after that. And I'm telling you flat out, that won't fly. You can scream as loud as you like that "nobody wants to take all the guns away" but that is simply NOT TRUE. You need to start telling the truth.
Bake
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)But whatever.
I have a gun at home. We are gun owners. And your point. We did not get them for home protection, these days they are for that.
We still call 911 if need be. We pay cops with our taxes...hence, we use them when need be.
And the truth is that you are paranoid if you think anybody will pass legislation banning gun ownership in the US... that is the truth and an NRA talking point.
People wanting a full ban are just as fringe as those who want zero regulations. In fact, far more delusional.
And all tall tales to the side, crimes in the US are way down.
Bake
(21,977 posts)Those who want to ban gun ownership ARE fringe. Apparently we have a lot of fringers on DU. All I'm doing is trying to point that out, becuase they are the loudest voices on DU, and any disagreement is cause for getting posts hidden and maybe a slice of pizza.
And that's just WRONG.
No, I'm not paranoid. You are, in essence, preaching to the choir.
Bake
jmg257
(11,996 posts)gun-related deaths, and bunches stop dying in mass gun massacres.
I wouldn't be fine with it, it'll actually be a huge pain in the ass. But unfortunately I do see the positives in substantially reducing the numbers of guns, and/or severly limiting the unfettered access to them/certain types. And even in reducing the number of rounds as in your wondernine's mags.
If you can control your fears and get past the paranoia enough to see the cost in an unselfish manner, you might understand too. Maybe you wouldn't even be as willing to become a criminal just to hold on to those deemed illegal.
Edit: BTW, its OK you don't trust me..you don't even know me. To be fair, I don't trust you either...nothing personal, just the whole willingness to break the law / illegal gun owner thing.
Bake
(21,977 posts)I sleep like a baby at night.
Am I selfish? When it comes to my family, if you think I'm selfish, tough sh*t. And if you and your kind were to succeed in banning all guns (no you haven't said that explicitly, but it's pretty clear you'd be fine with that), then I and a multitude of others will gladly practice civil disobendience before I'll see my family endangered. Fortunately, I seriously doubt it would ever come to that.
I have no beef with you, but trust you? Hardly. If that makes me selfish, so be it. Do something about the Bushmasters and 30-round magazines. I'm fine with that, as I've said OVER AND OVER AGAIN. But I'm a law-abiding, responsible gun-owner. If the law changes, I'll reconsider that, but I'm likely to do a Thoreau on that one. And I'm not the only one. So those of your persuasion who want to make me a criminal, go ahead and try. You will fail.
Bake
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)There is going to be a universal ban in gun ownership in the United States.
That is an NRA inspired, paranoid talking point.
Closing the gun show loophole is not a universal ban. Limiting the size of magazines is not the dreaded slippery slope.
FYI slippery slope s also an NRA talking point.
So far you have engaged in three of the biggies.
Slippery slope
Can't count on cops
They're gong to take my gun away.
They are pervasive...they are fringe.
Bake
(21,977 posts)There are PLENTY of posters here, who likely represent a small but vocal constituency, who want to ban ALL gun ownership. Perhaps you are in that group and just not saying it NOW.
TELL THE TRUTH. Stop saying no one wants to ban all guns. It's patently evident that some, perhaps many, DO.
Bake
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Which you are incapable, or unwilling to understand. What part of loud but fringe are you still purposely missing?
Tell me, which of these people has the actual power to actually write and pass these laws you fear?
Point to one...
I will wait here, I fear for a few decades.
That is the the truth.
An AWB might be possible, closing the background loophole is possible...banning gun ownership is a good joke you like to tell to remain scared.
There is this thing we call reality, try it sometime.
Bake
(21,977 posts)But THEY are the loudest voices on DU.
I am not scared now, nor do I stay up at night in fear.
Bake
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Time to stop repeating their talking points which you have...that includes your OP.
Bake
(21,977 posts)But I don't withdraw a single thing I said in my OP. Everything I said there and on this entire thread is the truth. That doesn't make me an NRA-type.
Bake
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)They are insidious I will grant you, but that does not make them less so.
Bake
(21,977 posts)Sorry if that does't fit your argument.
Bake
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)They are gonna come after my guns is not true. Nor is the slippery slope true.
The police are bad and can't be trusted, is not true. In most circumstances the police has served the country well in cases of actual threat to life.
Crime is up and you need guns to defend yourself are demonstrably false. You just need to take a careful look at FBI national crime statistics. Chief among them, home invasions are WAY DOWN.
We need guns to preserve our freedom from the government is laughable, and seditious. Yes, they push that one too.
You need a good guy with a gun to stop a bad guy with a gun, is mostly a tall tale, and not true... mostly. And the incidents the NRA uses had TRAINED individuals, as in cops, or former military, in a few cases both. And these are few and far between, and take years between one and the next.
We have a right to bear arms, ignore the other two dependent clauses. They are militia service, and security of a free state... moreover, they also ignore contemporary papers to the ratification of the Bill of Rights that mention the individual seldoml if at all, since the militia came way ahead of the individual. So if you are going to divine what founding fathers wanted, the Federalist is a good start. Oh, it is not in the favor of the current NRA, as historical work has repeatedly shown.
Closing the Gun Show loophole will prevent gun owners from selling or buying guns is demonstrably false, six states have done such and has not stopped legal gun owners yet.
I could go on, if you wish.
Of course the NRA of the 1920s (can we get that back pretty please) understood this and was all for actual banning of the assault weapons of their age, the machine guns. They actually went and lobbied Congress, getting us the 1934 laws that in my opinion should be extended to assault rifles, regardless of cute names current of future.
They understood back then that this was not a slippery slope, The NRA of the present day has only one goal, SELL GUNS... and they do it well. In that vein they have worked to WEAKEN legislation, what could go wrong of course? And they are against anything that might affect their true client's ability, which is not the members, but the weapon's manufacturers.
Among other things they havre done, with their friends at ALEC, include restoring gun rights to former Cons. you alright with that?
Bake
(21,977 posts)Scenario (which I've been through IRL): Somebody is trying to break into your home. Or pushing against you on the front door. Call the cops? Sure. If the bad guy gets in, by the time the cops get there, somebody is already dead. The police are NEVER going to get there in time to protect my family in that scenario.
And explain to me why in this scenario I should trust law enforcement, when TIME AFTER TIME law enforcement has proven it can't be trusted: police brutality cases almost every single day (how about the homeless guy they beat TO DEATH?), abuses of power, etc. What if the cop has just had a bad day and he's not a hurry to get anywhere?
Do I trust my family's LIVES to that? Not just no but HELL NO.
If that's an NRA talking point, sorry. Just calmly explain to me why I should trust the cops, using something besides "it's an NRA talking point."
Bake
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)because you do not trust the police, what other areas of government you do not trust?
I told you already, you stand guard, with your pea shooter, and YOU CALL FUCKING 911... is this that difficult for you to understand? Of course it is. You can, and should stop the threat, but as a citizen you also call the cops to remove the threat from the streets.
YOU DO NOT TRUST THE GOVERNMENT...this much is clear. Again, that is another NRA talking point and it is border line seditious.
Have fun with it, by the way.
Bake
(21,977 posts)I CALLED THE COPS. THEY TOOK FOREVER TO GET THERE. THEY DID NOTHING TO PROTECT ME. IT WAS ALL OVER WITH BY THE TIME THEY GOT THERE. I WAS DAMN LUCKY THE PERP DIDN'T PUSH THE DOOR IN AGAINST ME!!
Sedition, my ass! REALISTIC is more like it. You keep trying to change the argument because you can't win. Calling my assertion an NRA talking point is simply an ad hominem resopnse--that's a logical fallacy, by the way. I'm done.
Bake
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)You are REPEATING NRA SEDITIOUS TALKING POINTS.
Hug your precious for me... none is coming to take it away.
NONE. NOBODY, IT WILL NOT HAPPEN. LIVE YOUR FANTASY LIFE.
And you called them after the threat was gone. GOOD... That means it goes from P-1 to P-3, yes, they will take forever since they are RESPONDING TO A P-! call... This is why you call them as it is ongoing. Or somebody does.
Funny, we called ours the other day as discharges happened outside. EVEN THOUGH THEY ARE chasing the radio, and it is the holidays, they were out here in the bush looking for the person responsible within seven minutes.
Bake
(21,977 posts)Are they all true? Or may we discount them just because they are "talking points?"
Saying a particular assertion is false because it is an NRA, or anybody else's, talking point is a fallacious argument that deserves NO MERIT WHATSOEVER, becuase it does not respond to the substance of what is asserted.
You dismiss anything you don't like, apparently, as an NRA talking point, as if that automatically makes it false. If that makes you FEEL better, fine, but it won't convince voters.
I hug my precious ones EVERY SINGLE DAY: MY FAMILY. Not my guns. The LOTR reference just makes you sound like a geek, and it is condescending as well (and, by the way, sounds suspiciously like a "gun-grabber talking point," but more on that in a moment).
Plenty of DUers want to ban all private gun ownership, and they have just as much access to their lawmakers as I do. Some of them have EXPLICITLY stated "let's START with an AW ban, and then get the rest later." Right here in DU/GD. Are they fringe? Maybe so. Do I think anybody's coming to take my .357 or my 9mm? Not today, and probably not tomorrow. After that? I don't know. But I do know that I have the RIGHT and the OBLIGATION to speak up and try to express my reasonable, rational position to counter those loudest voices here that want to ban and confiscate all guns.
Maybe you're one of those, maybe not. You seem to spout a lot of their "talking points," which according to your own logic (not mine) makes you suspect.
But typically, you STILL haven't responded to the SUBSTANCE of my one single assertion about law enforcement. You simply try to move the goal posts or resort to Lord of the Rings references and tell me I live in a "fantasy life." You even call me seditious! I guess that's what one does when one cannot respond with a substantive argument.
Bake
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)I am trashing this, since we are talking across each other
When you get over the fear you might get it.
Have a good long fracking life in your fear.
Trashing the thread... we are more than just done.
And as far as I am concerned, you might as well be an NRA member.
And no I have told you what responsible citizens do... you don't want to, that is YOUR PROBLEM... and it is driven by fear. I prefer to live in the real world and away from fear. Your choice,
zappaman
(20,606 posts)
Maybe once you have been "in enough shootouts to fill nightmares", you will get it.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1996780
Bake
(21,977 posts)I do think the gun-banners and gun-grabbers are fringe. No, I don't think that will ever happen.
But do I trust the cops? Not on my or my family's life. And when it's an OWS thread, everybody else agrees that the cops are the bad guys. When it's a gun thread, all of a sudden I'm the bad guy because I don't trust the cops. I'm realistic, is what I am. If somebody is breaking into my HOME, the cops are several miles away and it will take TIME to get there, when seconds matter. Tell me I'm wrong. You can't.
Bake
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)We did recently. Fortunately nobody was hurt, though they never found the idiot who discharged a weapon twice, or the why.
You live in a large city.
Cops respond as a priority to threats to life.
Now you come after the break in, that suddenly is a P-3 call...they will take their time.
And yes, cops can and do misbehave when it comes to civil disobedience, this is a problem we actually now share with Russia. They are still needed. I pay for them. I can also hold more than two thoughts in my head apparently.
And the I cannot trust the cops IS AN NRA TALKING POINT IN THIS CONTEXT. the NRA holds a few fringe views, that are even borderline seditionist. I would stop repeating them.
jmg257
(11,996 posts)Last edited Fri Jan 4, 2013, 01:33 PM - Edit history (2)
Fear keeps us from doing all sorts of stupid stuff, and causes us to do all kinds of smart stuff.
We wear seatbelts, we use car seats for our kids, we install airbags in our cars, we put fences around pools, we hire life guards to watch us swim, we install smoke alarms, we buy fire extinguishers, we pay for insurance, and we often pass laws hoping to better protect us.
Fear of us/ours becoming victims causes us to buy guns for protection. Fear that 6 rounds out of a .357 might not be good enough causes us to get a 15+1 9mm, and resist 'hi-cap mag bans'. Fear of 'hi cap mag bans' causes us to buy more hi cap mags. Fear that a ban-limited 9mm won't be good enough causes us to buy .40SW and/or .45ACPs. Fear that a full-size pistol is too large to carry concealed causes us to buy compacts. Fear of pistols not being enough causes us to buy rifles and shotguns. etc.
But don't you think when the fear of being outgunned by some other criminal causes you to comtemplate becoming one yourself, it might be time to revisit other ways to avoid it?
Trusting me has nothing at all to do with selfishness...again you don't even know me, OR 'my kind' (whomever they are???). But if ever YOUR perceived needs of owning certain guns and mags for certain reasons diminishes simply because you see what the costs are in everyone else having the same unfettered access as you, then you may understand. You seem to see it with ARs and 30 rounders, so why not with Beretta 92s and 15 round mags? Is it simply because you don't own an AR?
Bake
(21,977 posts)I'm not too worried about becoming a felon.
As for the psychological effects, I'll live with that, as opposed to seeing my family or me killed.
Bake
jmg257
(11,996 posts)Now I really want to ban guns - not all just yours!
Ah well.
Armed, willing to break the law...dangerous indeed.
Bake
(21,977 posts)If you can. Of course you'll have to break in to do so. And Kentucky is a castle doctrine state.
And before you go ballistic on me, yes, that's an overstatement. Unless you try to break into my home in the middle of the night. Then all bets are off.
Bake
jmg257
(11,996 posts)That's what warrants are for.
zappaman
(20,606 posts)That he owns a legal, registered pistol?
I bet they are on it now!!!!
jmg257
(11,996 posts)scenario. Where the OP will become a criminal by keeping his guns if they were banned/subject to being confiscated, (so he can use it to protect himself and family from...other criminals..and possibly cops).
LE can deal with 'going to get it".
AldoLeopold
(617 posts)You need a four-leaf clover, not a gun, lol.
And seriously, gun-grabber? I heard that term on a conservative radio show yesterday - a show advocating armed resistance against the US government if they try to geturguns herpa.
So I guess all the Democratic gunners are now using Republican terminology?
Bake
(21,977 posts)But I don't trust luck. Although I have been known to buy a Powerball ticket or two.
Bake
Floyd_Gondolli
(1,277 posts)Multiple people coming in to kick your door in, people scrawling weird messages on your car, your dad's encounter with hooligans. Most people go their entire lives without any of this happening to them. I've seen it before with others. Some people just can't help but have drama in their lives at all times.
I agree with the above poster though, you need a rabbits foot or a 4-leaf clover, not a firearm.
Also, stay off small planes and don't go skydiving.
I wouldn't want to be standing within a mile of you during a thunderstorm.
Walk away
(9,494 posts)law-abiding citizens! " It always comes down to the police being the bad guys in every gun nut 's scenario. This is why people call you those things on DU.
" I'll break the law if I have to, to have it with me when I need it."
So how will that story end? Will the police have to fuck with you to get your gun if laws change? Will you use it on them if they do? Gun people always sound rational until you pay attention to what they are saying.
quakerboy
(13,920 posts)I would guess that most Occupy participants are not Gun nuts, and yet, I believe most of us know that police are not really the "good guys".
Aside from that detail, I agree. The argument is kinda self immolating. "responsible, law abiding gun owners are safe to have guns and do not contribute to gun crimes" doesn't seem to mix well with "if guns become illegal, I will voluntarily become a criminal".
Edited to fix a spelling error and a punctuation error
tabasco
(22,974 posts)How sad and pathetic.
Bake
(21,977 posts)But I was a Boy Scout back in the day. Our motto was "Be Prepared."
So no, I don't live in fear, nor do I choose to be a victim.
Bake
Floyd_Gondolli
(1,277 posts)It's probably a good idea you own a piece, though the term "gun grabbers" sort of makes you sound like an asshole.
Jenoch
(7,720 posts)on these threads callng for repealing the 2nd Amendment, and the bamning and confiscating of all legally own guns in the U.S.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Are actually legislators, with the power to do this?
I will save you the effort...the number is precisely zero.
So how will a fringe view, which is as fringe as the NRA (which is closer to their goals) will be enacted? Once you answer that question...
Bake
(21,977 posts)Slim and None.
And Slim just left town. But that doesn't stop some from calling for such a complete ban, or calling responsible gun owners petty names. They're tilting at windmills, but they are also taking up all the oxygen on DU. I'm just trying to raise a reasonable counterpoint.
Bake
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)zappaman
(20,606 posts)
reformed_military
(101 posts)1. "But a .223 Assault weapon does not belong in civilian hands."
"Assault" weapons are currently covered by the NFA and have been banned from manufacture since 1986.
The .223 bullet has a legitimate use in the civilian world. It is used as a varmint (pest) hunting rifle. You are not going to find ranchers in the West using a deer rifle to hunt gophers or prairie dogs as all it will do is break the ranchers shoulder after the 20th shot.
It is used for sport and target shooting.
It is used to introduce kids how to shoot.
All of this is about what the gun LOOKS like. If someone breaks into the OP's house and he has to stop that person with lethal force, it doesn't matter if the pistol has ivory handles, the original handles or pink handles, that someone is going to be in just the same amount of trauma, looks be damned.
2. "Gun regulation, in spite if NRA noise, does not equal a door to door search and confiscation of guns."
But this is talking about registration, which as history has shown, does. And since the grandfathered guns are covered under the NFA, no one is going to get away with the "I lost them" or "I sold them" game. More on the NFA below.
3. The bill that is being proposed would also cover some (maybe even most) handguns.
"Certain other semiautomatic rifles, handguns, shotguns that can accept a detachable magazine and have one or more military characteristics"
Do you know what is a military characteristic? How many guns are based on a military weapon? Every one of them. Until the adoption of the 9MM by the military, female MPs carried a .38 revolver very much like the OP owns (the men carried 1911s). Our snipers carry rifles based off of the most popular bolt action hunting rifles the world has ever designed. Which are based off of the Mauser and Springfield 1903 actions from WWI.
If the bill gets approved, those that have already been made will need to be registered as part of the NFA. The NFA is a no-joke law with 10 year minimum federal prison term for each violation. The $200 dollar license fee (per gun) is a regressive tax. It might not bother someone that makes $250K a year, but it is sure going to hit joe lunch bucket in the wallet. And generally speaking, mid to lower income are the people that live in the sketchier neighborhoods. NFA firearms are only allowed to be transported from a locked vault to the range and back. You also have to get a permit each time you wish to transport it across state lines. IMHO, this is going to have a chilling effect on the Concealed Carry Permits.
So the choice is pay $200 that you may not have, hope that the local sherrif/CoP approves your permit or turn it in.
They may not come to take them away, but you can forget about ever using them.
rustydog
(9,186 posts)
tosh
(4,423 posts)You are not listening.
Bake
(21,977 posts)I've been called way worse than that, here on DU.
You're not listening.
Bake
enough
(13,259 posts)credibility this post has. Not that I don't believe what you say about what you have experienced. But I don't think you are paying attention to what is being discussed about controlling guns in our society.
Bake
(21,977 posts)And the names I've been called.
Bake
Bake
(21,977 posts)Gun nut, gun worshipper, small-penis, child pornographer, etc.
But I guess that's OK.
Or not.
Bake
Jenoch
(7,720 posts)Marrah_G
(28,581 posts)Your last sentence made the OP go from a good discussion starter topic, to an invitation for a flamefest.
This is such a serious topic and it seems like every thread on it gets turned into an insult competition.
Bake
(21,977 posts)I've been asking --no, pleading, for civility here on DU in this discussion. I've been compared to child pornographers (Taverner, are you out there?), called a gun-worshipper, gun nut, told I should lose my job and my family should divorce me.
But you see ONE term, "gun grabber" and you go off on me. Nice.
Bake
Marrah_G
(28,581 posts)Both sides have gone overboard on this issue.
In fact personally, I think those who are passionate about banning firearms all together have gone the most overboard in name-calling on DU.
What I am saying to you is that you otherwise pretty good post, maybe have been able to cause a discussion and make people think, but when you add terms like that it just shuts everyone down.
I am not picking on you.
I didn't go off on you, I just gave you my opinion on what you wrote.
Berserker
(3,419 posts)
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)I've never advocated for the total ban of guns. I see that as an extreme position that's well outside the mainstream. However, I do see the need to limit, if not ban, the types of guns that are most predominately used to kill and maim human beings. If that makes me a "gun grabber" then so be it. Even though I do own guns and have used them recreationally, I have never in my life thought my situation would have been improved by having a gun in my hand, and I've lived in far worse neighborhoods than what you describe. Even if you did have some sort of argument for the need for a gun (and I'm not convinced you do), your situation and the situation of your neighbors, would have been improved had you chosen to buy a shotgun instead of a pistol.
Bake
(21,977 posts)I have nothing to prove to you. At the ballot box, you won't know who I am.
As for shotguns, I'm fine with shotguns. My wife is more comfortable with a shotgun than a 9 mm. Break into my house in the middle of the night, and you'll find out how good she is with one. I'm more comfortable with a pistol.
But again, I have no desire to own a Bushmaster AR-15.
Just don't tell me I can't protect my family.
Bake
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)When you make the statement, "You gun-grabbers need to consider that." It leads one to believe you are trying to convince someone of something. The only other conclusion I can see is that you simply posted a gun story bragging about how you're the knight in shining armor keeping your family safe from the huns at the gate. I'm not saying your story is bullshit, but I will say that if the number of such stories is to be believed, the statistics on violent crime in the US must be skewed beyond value.
Just sayin'
Bake
(21,977 posts)I have NO DESIRE to kill ANYONE. But you can bet your life I will gladly lay mine down to defend my family. I've been there.
Am I a "gun lover?" No. I love my family. Some people just cannot stop the name-calling.
Bake
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)"You gun-grabbers need to consider that."
Bake
(21,977 posts)Or any of countless others calling other DEMOCRATS gun nuts, gun nut cretins, gun lovers, gun worshippers, etc. etc. ad infinitum ad nauseum, and then come back and talk to me.
Bake
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)I just thought that since you like throwing around "gun grabbers" in your OP, you must be down with the name calling. I could be wrong though. I suppose hypocrisy is another possibility.
Just sayin'
Bake
(21,977 posts)I've finally gotten sick and tired of the rhetoric from the other side. Sick and tired of being called vile names -- much worse, by the way, than "gun grabber." I've gotten so sick of it, after pleading (to no avail) for civility, that I've stooped NOT QUITE to their level. If you can't see that, then my next comment is for you.
If you want to see hypocrisy (or willing blindness) take a look in the mirror.
Bake
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)I'm not the one complaining about the name calling. So your case for my hypocrisy seems to be stalled right out of the gate.
If "gun lover" offends your delicate sensibilities, then don't invite it by using names like "gun grabber". If you have issues with other "vile names" (whatever that means), take it up with those using them or alert. If you don't like being called names, then don't call other people names. Most people learned the "don't dish it out if you can't take it" idiom in primary school.
Just sayin'
Bake
(21,977 posts)Funny how a jury let that one slide.
Bake
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)In fact, I can't remember ever calling anyone that in my entire life.
I just found your allegation of name calling at me quite amusing. Nothing you posted about the behavior of anyone else changes that.
Just sayin'
zappaman
(20,606 posts)
marions ghost
(19,841 posts)where the present anti-gun fervor is coming from......
Then, really, you never will get it. Surely even diehard gun owners can understand & respect the reasons for this reaction, this outpouring of disgust and dismay. (Some have expressed that here at DU).
If you can't understand, then you ARE part of the problem.
Bake
(21,977 posts)I also understand that knee-jerk reactions are usually WRONG.
I also understand that a lot of die-hard anti-gun people are using the Newtown tragedy to advance their own agenda, to ban all private gun ownership.
If you don't understand that, then you think the rest of us are stupid. We're not. I assure you, we're not.
Bake
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)Irony of ironies: why on earth do you think we "gun grabbers" want those guns grabbed? I'll give you one guess (hint: it's in my subject line, and it quotes you directly). That's probably something worth your consideration.
MicaelS
(8,747 posts)I see this all the time "buy a shotgun", "buy a shotgun", "buy a shotgun", "buy a shotgun ". It's like a mantra some people chant.
"Buy a shotgun instead of an evil handgun."
"All you have to do is rack the slide on pump gun, and the intruder will run screaming into the night."
I would much rather have a handgun for home defense because:
(1) The handgun is smaller, and thus able to more easily secured in steel lockbox that can be secured to wall studs, bed frame, nightstand, drawer, etc. I have my home defense .45 automatic secured in a lockbox bolted to the nightstand. The gun is loaded, cocked and the safety is on. I can access the gun in under 5 seconds. I can point and fire while lying in bed. With a shotgun, you either have a have a gun safe, or gun cabinet which might take 30 seconds to open.
(2) The average defensive handgun is about 9" long. Thus it is smaller, and thus more easily maneuvered in the confines of an apartment or home than a 40" long shotgun with a legal 18" barrel.
(3) Yes the shotgun is more powerful, but that power comes at a price. You can't shoot the shotgun one handed. The recoil is more severe on a shotgun, especially for women or small stature men.
(4) The handgun is cheaper to practice with. I can buy 50 rounds of .45 ACP for as little as $20. 50 rounds of 12 gauge 00 buck is going to cost me at least $50.
And if I HAD to buy a shotgun for home defense, I'm not getting a pump, or a double barrel, I'm getting a semi-automatic shotgun with a magazine extension like a Remington 1100 TAC 4, or a Benelli M2 Tactical. And someone is going to want to ban those because they're "semi-automatic" or "holds more than 5 rounds".
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)But if you really want to go into what is best for home defense, I can give you a lot of non-gun alternatives that are more effective and won't actually increase your personal risk making your effort completely counterproductive. I suspect you don't really want to hear about those.
MicaelS
(8,747 posts)Slug rounds would easily go through a wall or door. So will a load of 00 or 000 buck. Both are the best rounds for home defense in a shotgun.
But yes, I don't want to hear about your "non-gun alternatives", because (a) I have already done the research, and (b), it's pretty obvious you don't want people to own guns at all.
You don't want to own guns, don't own them. But I'm not going to let people with your mindset make that choice for me.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)(a) you obviously haven't done much in the way of research.
Owning a gun does not guarantee you won't be harmed or killed by someone else. I haven't seen any research that suggests you are even statistically more safe in that regard and I've seen some that suggests exactly the opposite. Owning a gun also increases the risks to yourself and your family, unquestionably. So perhaps you've done all your "research" from gun nut sources and have simply ignored everything else that doesn't fit your bias. There's also plenty of non-gun alternatives that actually do mitigate your risk without actually increasing it. Your own admission to turning a blind eye to it is very telling.
(b) I posted in this very thread that I'm a gun owner that isn't in favor of banning all guns. So your research there seems to be quite lacking as well.
Just sayin'
frylock
(34,825 posts)double-ought will go through several layers of drywall, cinderblock, and stucco?!
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)Most birdshot loads in most shotguns will have a hard time penetrating two sheets of drywall and even if it does won't kill a person on the other side, yet is devastating to a human at close range. Even if you do use buckshot, which is completely unnecessary for home defense, the long range penetrating power is greatly diminished. You can't say that about higher velocity pistol rounds.
So yes, I do find that most self-described "experts" really don't seem to know fuckall.
Just sayin'
Bake
(21,977 posts)They flatten out better than a hollow-point round. In other words, not to be overly graphic, they make a small hole going in and a very large one coming out, if they come out at all. If you hit the intruder (and I'm a damn good shot now), he/she will no longer be a threat.
And there are no toddlers in my home.
Bake
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)A licensed and registered handgun, or a shotgun, for home defence, or a rifle for hunting? Those are perfectly reasonable. The problem isn't keeping guns out of the hands of the majority of responsible gun owners. But there isn't really any valid home defence or sporting reason for owning an AR with a 30-round magazine. For home defence? You want a revolver or semi-auto pistol in .357 or .44 Mag or .45 ACP, or a double-barreled or pump action 12-gauge. And for hunting? Shotguns for fowl, small-calibre rifles for small game like rabbits and such, and semi-auto, bolt action or lever action centrefire rifles or carbines for deer, bear, elk and moose. And I don't really see that reasonable restrictions on firearms (for instance, magazine capacity, and limiting the sale of certain weapons to civilians) and requirements for licensing, safety training, and secure storage amount to "gun grabbing".
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)Bake
(21,977 posts)You're posting this on GD and say that? Are you blind? There are plenty of calls not only for banning all firearms but for confiscating those that are out there! Dear God, at least be honest about it! Yes, people HERE ON DU are calling for banning all firearms!
Do not piss on my leg and tell me it's raining!
Bake
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)there's a lot of emotional reaction, but it's not really something that is contributing meaningfully to the discussion.
Honestly, I think that the only reasonable discussion that could be had on this issue is around restricting AR-type weapons and high-capacity magazines (with "high-capacity" being defined as "greater than ten rounds for long arms and greater than 17 for handguns"; 15-17 round mags are standard for many common 9mm's, so that seems reasonable). The most extreme voices on any issue are also frequently the loudest, which is something to keep in mind.
Jenoch
(7,720 posts)are similar are used in many more crimes than rifles or shotguns. Rifles of all kinds are used in less than 4% of all gun crime. The Aurora shooter used a pump shotgun for most of the injuries and death that he caused.
abelenkpe
(9,933 posts)move. Really. If I was your wife I'd have left that house and neighborhood long ago. If you have to stay up all night with your gun pointed at the door living there isn't really worth it. Certainly hope she doesn't leave her keys in the door anymore.
And the gun grabber thing is over the top. No one is talking about taking people's guns. Just about limiting access to military style guns like those used to murder all those kids and people in aurora. Please relax. And seriously, look for a better environment for your family.
Bake
(21,977 posts)Wake the fuck up.
Move? At that time, we lived where we could afford. MOVE??? Law-abiding citizens have to move rather than defend themselves????
We now live in a nice neighborhood, but there have been breakins on our street. I'll NEVER be without the means to protect my family.
Bake
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Are actually LEGISLATORS with the power to pass these laws?
Buehler...buehler.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)How many of these DU'ers who have said these things have the power to do such?
spanone
(135,844 posts)Bake
(21,977 posts)Never even thought about a machine gun, or an assault rifle.
Nice straw man. I've said OVER AND OVER AGAIN, both in this thread and elsewhere in GD, that I'm fine with an assault weapons ban. And by the way, if you want to buy a "machine gun," good luck finding one of those. Even a Bushmaster AR-15, the sale of which I'm fine with banning, isn't a "machine gun."
Bake
metalbot
(1,058 posts)You're willing to ban my gun, as long as you get to keep your gun, even though your type of gun kills more people.
On another post, you point out that you are more comfortable with a pistol over the shotgun. Why is that ok for you, but not for my wife (who is terrible with a pistol, but good with an AR)?
jpak
(41,758 posts)No gun = helpless to protect home.
You can't depend on the police to protect you.
It can happen in your nice neighborhood.
Have gun = vigilante gun hero protecter!
I wonder if the would-be bad guy left his fingerprints on your windshield.... that the police did not investigate.
What horseshit.
yup
Bake
(21,977 posts)They caught the guy a few days later. He had been prowling the neighborhood for about a week.
Frankly, you can call it horseshit if you like. I really don't care what YOU think. What I **am** saying is this: if you think you're going to repeal the Second Amendment and confiscate all handguns or other such HORSESHIT, you are mistaken. There are plenty more people just like me -- DEMOCRATS -- who will vote against you.
You just can't help yourself from resorting to name-calling: "vigilante gun hero protector." THAT, my friend, is HORSESHIT.
Call it talking points if you like; I really don't care. Just don't try breaking into my house in the middle of the night.
I've been here on DU since the BEGINNING, and by your post count, I suspect you know that. I don't post bullshit stories. Sorry if they don't fit YOUR narrative talking points.
Suck on that.
Bake
laundry_queen
(8,646 posts)are you making the argument FOR gun grabbing. Jus' sayin'.
laundry_queen
(8,646 posts)Especially the first one - why is the gun the FIRST thing they reach for? They must lack imagination because there are many other ways to protect one's property.
Bake
(21,977 posts)That was pretty creative, don't you think????
Of course, the perp could have taken that away from me and beat me to death with it.
By the way, "spring-guns" and other booby-traps are illegal. I learned that in first-year torts in law school.
I'll stick with S&W.
Bake
laundry_queen
(8,646 posts)and who said anything about booby traps? LOL.
DrewFlorida
(1,096 posts)you are at the supermarket (without your gun), and steals it, then proceeds to use it against you or some other victim? Should you be held liable for allowing that gun to get into the hands of a violent offender? Should you be sued by the victims survivors? Should all gun owners be required to keep their guns in lock boxes? While respecting your need for self defense, what are some sensible regulations which could be made to keep guns out of the hands of violent and mentally unstable people? We can all sit here and hurl names at each other all day/month/year/decade, meanwhile we have a serious problem, let's focus on solving the problem rather than winning the argument!
Tikki
(14,557 posts)We have them and, also, sensor lighting which floods the property with bright light at night.
Didn't cost much.
The Tikkis
Bake
(21,977 posts)The guy knew we were home. He was trying to push the door open as I was trying to push it shut.
He wasn't there for a social call.
Bake
Tikki
(14,557 posts)someone from the neighborhood. If you had him on camera
or if others in the neighborhood saw him clearly and could identify him
than a real service would be served.
Tikki
Bake
(21,977 posts)But that's OK with you? See, we didn't really NEED the gun ...
Bake
Tikki
(14,557 posts)I would want to know what the guy who didn't break into my home looks like if possible.
Tikki
ecstatic
(32,712 posts)prior to the first incident. I don't think people who normally leave keys in the front door are interested in surveillance cameras.
sasha031
(6,700 posts)
Just popped over to DU to see if there was any breaking news, 
more gun talk & posts.
I've been a poster & member of this forum since 2003, it was an amazing experience because the posters were so well informed with current events. Through them I received an allot of knowledge, quite an enlightening experience, miss those days...
sasha031
(6,700 posts)is by far the best feature on DU
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)When they have to depend on the cops to show up when someone is trying to break in or does break in or when they get robbed at an ATM or a neighbor gets killed and or raped by home invaders then they might change their attitude. And then there is always someone who will say "move away from a high crime area" like that is something everyone can afford to do. And there also is the "you should be man enough to duke it out" types ...like everyone works out at the gym and can bench press 300 lbs and take on anyone ....which doesn't work so well against a bullet. There's no point in trying to discuss it with them. Let em wait until it's too late. Of course some of this has been said by the NRA so I will get attacked for that by the immature high school click insult crowd.
Let me say this right now ...it is my opinion that everyone who is going to own any kind of gun should have to pass a law enforcement or class G security guard psych test and have gone to a gun safety class.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Pick a lane...either crime is down (an NRA talking point and actual statistic) or it is not.
You know, maybe we should send you to a few actual trauma centers though. Nothing better than a kid with a gun shot would...really.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)Nadin ..I like you and want to continue to like you.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Either gun crime related stats are wrong, or we have actually seen a decrease in crime rates.
You can't have it both ways. So are the FBI statistics wrong, or not?
And tell you what...I think the FBI stats are correct.
You want to pack, go for it...I don't give two shits about it, but increasing crime is not the reason for t.
appal_jack
(3,813 posts)Until violent crime is 0 and holding, a responsible citizen may choose to procure tools for self-defense. You, Nadin, might be comfortable with low odds of criminal assault, but others might not like that risk.
Also, the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right that transcends any given needs. So even after violent crime descends to 0, citizens will have the right to Keep & Bear magazine-fed semi-automatic handguns and rifles for hunting, target-shooting, or the simple joys of collecting interesting machinery. For more than a century, magazine-fed semi-automatic firearms have been considered well within the Second Amendment's purview. The DU'ers I respect least at present are those among us who are pretending that a change to this scope of the RKBA can or should be done via simple legislative action. That is nonsense: abrogating the Second Amendment should require the full process of a Constitutional Amendment.
The gun-grabbers (yes, if you want to deny Americans' right to own the most popular highest-selling sporting arms of the past few decades you are advocating the grabbing of guns - own the term or change your stance...) know full well that a repeal of the Second Amendment will never fly in the USA. For that reason, we Democrats should be exploring other options besides magazine or firearm bans for enhanced security: better mental health care, increased security at vulnerable targets, etc. But an end-run around the Second Amendment is not an honorable course of action. At best, it will provide security theater to people ignorant of Constitutional principles and firearms technology both. It could very well also provoke a horrible backlash against Democrats during the Congressional mid-term elections. This is not an outcome that I, an avid DU'er, desire; nor should it be an outcome desired by any DU'er.
-app
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Pick a lane.
Is the FBI wrong or not?
And your "favorite hunting gun," is used in actual combat zones.
I guess we need to get ready for the civil war.
Of course individual states actually have a limit on how much ammo you pack when you go hunting, but I guess that's ok.
Go on, will not bother with the rest of the NRA talking points.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)I figure Scalia is about one glazed donut away from a massive coronary. All it would take is one more progressive justice and Scalia's individual right interpretation nonsense is out the window, and we are back to the collective right interpretation that has prevailed for hundreds of years which would effectively nullify the 2A for all intents and purposes. Then we can get back to states and municipalities dictating their own gun laws free from federal interference, the way it should have been all along.
Just sayin'
JI7
(89,252 posts)
obamanut2012
(26,080 posts)JI7
(89,252 posts)because i had worse incidents than the OP happen. i don't see how having a gun unless you know before exactly what is going to happen could help.
and such crap to say bad things have no happened to those who support gun control.
obamanut2012
(26,080 posts)And took a course in how to use it defensively, and took a CCW course and am now a CCW holder.
I not getting into details on this board, although a couple posters know the details, but I will never be harmed and victimized that way again.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)I don't really find it any more convincing coming from you.
Just sayin'
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)The progressive judges on the SCOTUS happen to agree, but you may favor the NRA/ALEC/RW interpretation.
geomon666
(7,512 posts)Hopefully the statistics of owning a gun won't catch up to you and your family and further tragedy will be avoided.
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)I wish I had my gun when it happened.
Now I'm prepared, and if I'm attacked again, you bet your ass I will protect myself. I guess some of you just don't know how is to be victimized and helpless, with no means to defend yourself.
As long as its within our constitutional right to own a gun, we will, and no amount of name calling on here or elsewhere will change that.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Now a .223 bushmaster don't belong in civilian hands.
zappaman
(20,606 posts)as evidenced by a great many threads here in GD.
You may not see them since you have 97% of DU on ignore...
dionysus
(26,467 posts)
Bake
(21,977 posts)All one has to do is take a casual walk through GD to know that is simply not true. You can qualify it, as some have, by saying "no one reasonable" or other such terms, but there are plenty of DUers who want to do EXACTLY THAT.
And not all gun owners want to keep Bushmasters in their homes. I don't.
Tell the truth.
Bake
zappaman
(20,606 posts)Bake
(21,977 posts)It was just SOOOOO over the top ...
Actually, it just wasn't the "accepted wisdom" on DU ...
Bake
ON EDIT: My story here has been called "bullshit" but because you questioned another DUer's claim, in a civil manner, might I add, your post gets hidden. Wow.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)A 100% ban are just as fringe as the NRA. That is the truth.
Bake
(21,977 posts)and see how fast you get crucified, figuratively speaking.
Go ahead. i won't hold my breath.
Bake
zappaman
(20,606 posts)Easier to just pretend no one here is calling for confiscation of all guns...
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Because it is the truth.
Here
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022087589
Bake
(21,977 posts)you have a ridiculously high post count, and people know and respect you. Be the voice of reason. Put that in an OP.
Shall I hold my breath?
Bake
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Ironically it is getting zero responses
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022087589
Have a good day...I am sure you did not expect this...I am sorry.
zappaman
(20,606 posts)I responded.
Have a good day.
You are posting this because some DUers want to ban guns?
That's no threat to you.
Bake
(21,977 posts)I didn't say DUers were a threat ...
Bake
frylock
(34,825 posts)what percentage of people on this board are doing this? you are blaming the entire board based upon numerous posts from a very vocal minority.
MicaelS
(8,747 posts)Like a [link:http://www.benelliusa.com/shotguns/benelli-m2-tactical.php|Benelli M2 Tactical
]
Or a Remington 1100 TAC 4
Are these OK? If not why not?
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)The OP is worried about his guns.
But I love the NRA tactic.
As I told a member of congress, the law must take into account inner workings...not looks.
zappaman
(20,606 posts)You are just all over the map.
I suggest you either re-read the OP or have someone read it to you.
First hint..."The OP is worried about his guns."
OP owns a pistol so it's not plural.
But you have a nice day!
MicaelS
(8,747 posts)Pump or double barrel is OK. Right?
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)You did.
Once again. This is an NRA talking point meant to distract. I ain't taking the minnow on the fish hook dangling from your line.
Sorry.
Have an excellent day. You can go discuss the specifics and ballistic profile with somebody who cares about that.
better
(884 posts)Unless it's a specific model you don't think a civilian has any business owning.
I'd very much like to hear your justification for that combination of statements.
So why is it exactly, that say a Ruger Mini-14 should be okay for me to own, but a Bushmaster should not?
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)It's not the scary back riffle...it's the mechanics.
You want to have a manually operated bolt action scary rifle, by all means.
Does that answer your question? It's more than adequate for hunting and target shooting.
Oh and a eval limit, like hunting in mst states, of a 10 round limit.
cali
(114,904 posts)I did not run out and buy a gun, tough guy.
I had a gun in my face when I was 17 during a robbery at the fast food joint I worked at.
I was held up when I was 21.
Now I own a pistol.
Different strokes I guess...tough gal.
cali
(114,904 posts)zappaman
(20,606 posts)Where does it say it was his ONLY choice?
Bake
(21,977 posts)I reached, discretely, of course, for the silent alarm button, and the robber pointed a cheap .38 AT ME.
Of course, the idiot took the dye bomb from the cashier's drawer and stuck it down his pants ... when he got about 100 feet from the building, the dye bomb went off (that means there was a small explosion IN HIS PANTS!) ... poetic justice, as I see it.
I had my gun at that time, but not at work. I would never take a gun to work, and wouldn't have presumed to try to shoot it out with an armed robber in that situation. Geez. The cops caught that guy (he was hard to miss, since the dye bomb permanently tattooed whatever was left of his privates).
Some of us are reasonable and responsible.
Bake
DrewFlorida
(1,096 posts)We all know by this time that you feel a need for a gun for self defense, and the vast majority would agree that if you can pass a back ground check and have no history of violence, that you should have a right to have a gun for self defense. Yet you know there is a huge problem of violent and mentally unstable people having access to guns and even assault weapons in this country and you have not offered one single solution, that makes you part of the problem. You complain and complain for self defense, what about the defense of the people who have been the victims of violent offenders with AR15s and 100 round magazines, .223 high velocity rounds and easy access to these weapons through loopholes in laws such as the personal gun sale which doesn't require a background check?
I'm tired of reading about your need for self defense which is in absolutely no danger, while you ignore all of the people being murdered because of the need for sensible regulations.
Become part of the solution, offer reasonable logical solutions or just please STFup, that's what I would say to someone who keeps muddying the waters of the gun debate.
laundry_queen
(8,646 posts)Bake
(21,977 posts)like an AW ban, and hi cap magazines (depending on the definition) ban.
Sorry you missed that. My OP was more in response to the many calls here for total gun bans.
Bake
DrewFlorida
(1,096 posts)Rather than useless banter back and forth hurling insults at one another while nobody talks about solving a problem. I agree, an AW ban and hi capacity magazine ban for starters, I would also like to see a nationwide background check law with no loopholes and no exceptions including for personal sales, I would also like to see nationwide ban to anyone with violent history or mental unstability, I would also like to see a national gun registry which is required for every gun sale personal or commercial. These things would still preserve the right for people to have guns for self defense and hunting while making it more difficult for criminals and violent people to get them.
frylock
(34,825 posts)but some will look at that say YER WANT TER TAKE MER GERNS!!1
Bake
(21,977 posts)And thanks for telling me to STFU. How civil of you. Your rhetoric is part of the PROBLEM, not the solution.
Apparently you need to take a remedial reading class. If not, you can STFU yourself.
Bake
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)You know, there is always the exception, and since you just seem to attract violent episodes, maybe you should be armed everywhere all the time. Or maybe you like to tell stories.
So I'm curious, do you carry the .357 and the 9mm? Just in case one gun isn't enough? .233 in the trunk if the firefight gets heavy?
I lived in NYC in the 60s and 70s. I saw all sorts of crazy shit. I experienced all sorts of crazy shit. I never once thought that having a gun would have improved any of those events.
Floyd_Gondolli
(1,277 posts)But your experience is "normal" according to you.
To recap:
-Multiple people trying to break into your house in multiple instances
-Weird dude scrawling messages on your car.
-Your dad is accosted by hooligans while on a road trip.
- The bank you work at is robbed.
But you don't see any of this as abnormal? Most people go their entire lives without ANY of this shit happening to them. You are a drama magnet.
Chorophyll
(5,179 posts)I'm a woman, so believe me, I've given some consideration to my personal safety. Like, my whole life. Constantly.
But if that had happened to me, I'd invest in an alarm system. No effing way would I have a weapon in my house.
Bake
(21,977 posts)And if that's what you choose, that's fine. I'm not trying to evangelize anyone to go out and buy a gun.
But I **am** saying this, for me only: An alarm system may alert the police, who will get there after all is said and done. Your dog will be the first casualty, if the robber is armed. I have four dogs who are part of our family, and nobody is going to harm them OR my human family.
Also, alarm systems and the monthly monitoring fees aren't cheap. Certainly more expensive than a firearm and a box of rounds.
Trusting the cops is futile.
Bake
Chorophyll
(5,179 posts)That's about it. Shit happens around here, but I choose not to live in fear.
The more guns around you, the more likely that a gun will go off with a bad result. But as long as what you've got is legal, good luck to you.
laundry_queen
(8,646 posts)The gun the OP owns means his family is now at a bigger risk than it was before his gun.
I had a friend who, had she had a gun, would've killed someone. Some drunk wandered into her house at 6 am while she was downstairs nursing her newborn. She freaked out, took her baby upstairs where her other kids were, and yelled for her husband. Her husband went and confronted the guy, who was simply drunk and wandered into the wrong house - he was visiting his friend and wasn't even from the area and they had been at a party down the street and he had forgotten what his friend's house looked like. My friend's husband had left the door unlocked after starting his car (winter here at the time) and the drunk wandered in. The drunk guy apologized profusely and left. My friend said had she had a loaded gun, that guy would be dead, because her or her husband would've started shooting. And if she DID have a gun in a safe (since she has small kids) and the intruder DID mean harm, oops, it would've been far too late.
Lack of guns saved one innocent life here. I'm guessing lack of guns in those types of circumstances usually saves more lives than it takes.
Chorophyll
(5,179 posts)Very scary.
Rex
(65,616 posts)The 'anti-gun' laws screed and the 'gun grabber' paranoia is overwhelming and I had no idea so many of my fellow DUers felt so insecure or where put into a position of vulnerability that they risked death or injury! Your point and the overall message are at odds.
Show me one person that is coming to take your .357 away from you! Name one or an organization heading in your direction to take your gun. None, never.
The ISSUE is not about your gun! So many need to stop taking their own personal emotional situation and applying it to everyone else! It is getting sad in here. The issue is did you need an M249 mounted on the floor next to your bed? NO. Did you need a 50 round clip bullpup? NO.
This is about the insane level of firepower available today to the public in America. NOT about 'gun grabbers'. There will never be a day when someone cannot go to Guns-R-Us and buy a pistol, rifle or shotgun.
I will bet the entire 2nd amendment on that.
Gun control means a well regulated population that is entrusted with lethal machines. We can dial back on RPGs. We don't need one in every other household.
You didn't.
zappaman
(20,606 posts)To these and many other posters, the OP's revolver is THE ISSUE.
Rex
(65,616 posts)Dam you are fast, hardly had time to post.
libdem4life
(13,877 posts)at all points of entry...
"Dog on premises and is kept hungry ... one foot inside here and YOU are his dinner." or something similar.
Spend money on a great dog, dog food, licenses, dog toys and training to teach the dog and the family responsibility and protection and to make sure it barks vociferously. Also, a dog doesn't need to be locked away as it's something the kids can share and enjoy at will and perhaps have some fun helping to make the sign. Daily walks could be effective prevention for the locals. The down side is the cost of food and the vet's bill... and the poop.
Not perfect, of course, but a lot safer for for the family home on a daily basis, and perchance a break-in attempt. My guess is that a burglar noting the photograph and the sign and the light, expecting to hear, or actually hearing loud barking from inside, will change course quickly. Most are cowards anyway...that's why they have to steal or burgle.
For the folk who feel the need to protect themselves against non-home kinds of crime at all other times and places, I'd have to go with:
1) Required training and testing and retesting and required liability insurance ... heavy penalties, loss of privilege and legal actions for intoxication during a crime...similar to obtaining a driver's license and car registration and a DUI ... one permit and open carry. Heavy penalties for any act of violence or injury...intended or unintended.
2) One protection-type permit per licensed individual...single-digit shot capacity which is enough to kill one or two god forbid it's necessary
3) One hunting gun permit per liecnsed invidual for a hunting rifle...single digit shot capacity
I have also noticed that using the word "weapon" to describe a .22 or hunting rifle/gun didn't seem to fit. For the protection handgun, "weapon" seemed appropriate.
JMHO.
benld74
(9,904 posts)i e stronger locks, flood lights, alarm system, but one must do what one must.
I do NOT deny anyone to purchase a gun, learn to use it etc but it must be legally done as you have accomplished.
Rex
(65,616 posts)To me, it would be like owning a car yet not knowing how to drive it to work (but ya do anyway).
zappaman
(20,606 posts)I did it.
Many do.
Rex
(65,616 posts)or join the military. Get an idea of what a weapon is. I did. I also was brought up as a traditional hunter in south Texas. There is a perspective on military verses civilian firepower that I am forever thankful to understand.
Walk away
(9,494 posts)No one that I have known has ever had an incident like that. You must live in a terrible area. If something like that happened in my neighborhood I would be looking for a safer place to live, not a gun.
I can't believe you stay there after people, who obviously mean to do your wife terrible harm, have made THREE attempts. Do you have guns everywhere in the house? Do you both carry them where ever you go? I am not trying to be facetious but a gun would not make me feel safe at your house. Apparently, guns can give one a false sense of security.
I simply can't believe you haven't moved.
Bake
(21,977 posts)Then of course it NEVER happens.
Bullshit. It happened to me and my family.
Bake
Walk away
(9,494 posts)or anyone I knew THREE TIMES... then we would move out of your obviously dangerous neighborhood before we bothered to buy a gun. The reason being that, unless you and each of your family members are "packing" 24/7, you wife is at serious risk. Especially since you received a threat referring to her.
I CLEARLY pointed out that you are risking your family member's life by depending on a gun to protect them from people who may have guns of their own.
If you can't even read an entire post before you blow off you really need to rethink the "gun in the home" thing.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)"Could I shoot another human being? Under those circumstances, you bet your ass I could. And sleep like a baby afterwards..."
My experience has been that the only people who say that, are the people who have never done that. The ones who have done it, rarely talk about it, and on the few time they may, never speak of it so flippantly.
But I'm very certain you believe it to be true, regardless of whether it is or isn't. And that's the important thing... along with your firearm.
"You gun-grabbers need to consider that."
I'm certain they will allow you all the consideration you indeed warrant.
OldDem2012
(3,526 posts)...because I have no idea if what you're telling us is the truth or not. Most legit gun owners I know don't brag about it, much less on the Internet.
I guess since you consider those of us wanting to ban assault weapons and extra-large magazines as "gun-grabbers" I guess it's okay to call you a true "gun nut", right?
Jim Warren
(2,736 posts)albeit 20 years ago and in living a country outside the US.
I had just started a small business and met a girl from there. We dated for six months and eventually married. About two months into our courtship, I started getting death threats, written messages left on the windshield of my car. Creepy stuff, "you think you can come here and take one of our woman", "we know who you are but you don't know us", "you have 24 hours to leave before we fill your chest with bullets", and others.
I began to get more than a little worried and my girlfriend too. She had no idea who it was and we went to talk with her parents. We got along well and they approved of our relationship. I wanted to know if they knew anything, like maybe could it be an ex-boyfriend or something and wanted their advice on how serious I should take this. They said sincerely they knew of nothing in that regard. I had a one-on-one with her dad and I asked him what he would do, if he would go to the police there. He said forget the police, they would be worst than useless. He said he would get a gun. I asked him if he could help me with that and he said yes.
Believe me, there were moments when I thought I'd just pack it up and get out. But then I was at a point in my life where I decided to not be cowed. I remember asking myself when is something worth fighting for, and said to myself "screw it" I've lived long enough, this is worth fighting for. I took my place on this earth having done nothing wrong, bad or out of line. I became rooted and actually visualized being an Oak tree, I would bend but not be moved. I also went to the local gravel pit and fired off a round or two now and again. I quietly let it be known that if you come for me, good chance I'll take you with me. I went about my peaceable business.
The threats stopped, dissipated, the vibe lightened but I had to take a stand using language that would be understood. I married that woman and she is still my wife this many years later.
ileus
(15,396 posts)
Turbineguy
(37,343 posts)56 guns since that day, because you feel the need for a gun for every possible purpose? Do you have a large caliber rifle in case you go on an African safari to hunt elephants or poach rhino horns? Do you have a few assault rifles with high capacity magazines in case you fantasize about mowing down a street-load of bad guys? Do you get drunk and show your 8-year old how to load a .45 1911? Do you have a Glock so that you can (try to) pass through airport security?
If you cannot answer "yes" to those questions, I'm afraid that you do cannot qualify as a gun-nut and that means that it's unlikely anybody will be out to grab your gun.
nakocal
(552 posts)You are like many of the millions that do NOT have a clue about what gun regulation is about. NO ONE wants to take away the one or two guns that you would use for personal protection or guns used for hunting. What they are targeting is the cowards (it is NOT name calling if it is true) that think that they need an arsenal for protection. A weapon such as used in the most recent massacre is not used for protection, it is an offensive weapon. The person using it does not care if they miss their target with the first shot and does not care if it hits a bystander. Do you really need to protect your home with a weapon that could kill your neighbors if you miss the target and hits your neighbor's house (and possibly the people in the house).
Jim Warren
(2,736 posts)would is be if this were so. I am one that would not care a twit if military, assault type weapons were to all disappear. But how can you assure that is the case? There are fanatics on both sides of the issue and "mission creep" has a way of setting in.
obamanut2012
(26,080 posts)Both IRL and on DU.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)That can actually write legislation that has said such, ban all guns, repeal the second.
We have exactly one Member of Congress, and he has not said such.
So, the number who can and will, is exactly zero.
This is as fringe as the NRA position of arming as many Americans as possible.
obamanut2012
(26,080 posts) zappaman
(20,606 posts)nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)If you cannot accept that is the reality, I cannot help you.
Those who want to ban all guns are as fringe as the lets arm all crowd.
Sadly the lets arm all crowd has a better lobbying arm right now...and if you insist make my mandatory side arm a Glock .40
When the lets grab all guns crowd gets even one tenth the lobbying power as the NRA, wake me up...hope soon to be honest. That day we might actually come with reasonable gun control, not taking away...that is an NRA inspired talking point, legislation that will allow both gun owners to keep most of their toys (sorry bushmasters do not belong in civilian hands, but you want that Glock for self defense, knock yourself silly) and those who wan to be protected living together.
But let's make this clear, none is grabbing your guns. Nor are jack booted thugs, wearing blue helmets, coming to take your guns away.
Now do point to the multiple elected members of the House and Senate...oh wait...we don't.
obamanut2012
(26,080 posts)Isn't every state a "castle doctrine" state? Who in the world can rail against anyone protecting themselves and loved ones from a home invasion? That is definitely NOT the same thing as being burgled in a "normal" way. Home invaders are there for violence.
In NC, it is a felony to use a gun in any way (including brandishing) to stop theft of property. However, if someone breaks into your home, you are allowed to use force by any means, including deadly force to protect yourself.
I don't get why this is a bad thing.
*FYI: this isn't some NRA nutball thing btw, this is a a part of English Common Law.
Sherman A1
(38,958 posts)a can of wasp & hornet spray for home defense. About $5.00 and it's as accessible as a gun would be in the middle of the night scenario, range about 20 feet, which covers most rooms & hallway. Not bad on the bug things either.
lunatica
(53,410 posts)But so far I've lived in peaceful neighborhoods and have had no need of that kind, or any other kind of defense weapon. But I certainly understand why you got a gun. I would too.
Warpy
(111,276 posts)but you'd have done far better to spend the money on changing the locks. You also might have thought to install a hook next to the door or put a basket onto a small table for your wife to stash the keys in when she came into the house loaded down with groceries. Checking the locks as soon as she came home would also have been prudent.
If that gun makes you feel safer, then so be it. However, statistics show it's more of a liability than an asset.
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)"Gun grabber" here, for full disclosure, but I'm not addressing the merits of guns or restrictions on guns in this post. I've never killed anyone, and I feel fortunate for that. But it's my understanding, from lots of different sources, that no matter what sort of bad actor you shoot dead, it's going to have a big effect on your life. I don't doubt that you'd try to do what you think needs to be done r.e. home and family security, but if you shoot someone, even if you didn't feel like there was any choice, it's going to have an effect on your psychological well-being.
Indydem
(2,642 posts)Than if my wife and child are murdered or otherwise harmed by a home invader.
I don't relish the thought of taking the life of another. I hope to never be in that position to have to choose.
But if I have to choose the life of an intruder or the lives of my family, I will take their life and deal with the psychological consequences later.
I would be irresponsible to be left with a microphone stand as my only method of defending my family.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Done that and has a few fantastical thoughts.
This is why PDs engage psychologists.
zappaman
(20,606 posts)Thank you for your perspective!
"Been in enough shoot outs to fill nightmares. A couple really, as in an inch the other side we'd not be talking."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1996780
"I ave been in real shoot outs
And can testify to quite a bit of it, Rambo."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2082821
Sometimes I think you are the only sane one here!
loli phabay
(5,580 posts)When you shoot someone or injure them in any way it can have effects but they are less than if you are the one hurt or a loved one or innocent bystander.
In_The_Wind
(72,300 posts)It's a damn shame that you've got go through that.
I learned to shoot many years ago. I'm not sorry that I can hit what I aim at.
patrice
(47,992 posts)is a lie, so, though there are people who want to respect what you say, YOU prevent that by disrespecting them in how you say it and, rather obviously, trying to prejudice the perspectives of others in doing so.
Please consider an edit, otherwise, I, personally, will be putting you amongst those whose opinions count less WITH ME, because you apparently think it more important to insult others than to express the truth, which fact indicates that you claim a privilege, disguised as your demand that others not do to you what you feel you have somekind of right to do to them, i.e. insult their understanding of the situation and, hence, their intended course of action.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)So what you don't need, and didn't need, and didn't buy, is a sem-auto high capacity assault style weapon.
So you would be fine with a ban on that stuff, right?
Bake
(21,977 posts)I've said repeatedly IN THIS THREAD that I'm fine with an assault weapons ban, plus a ban on hi-cap magazines (depending on how that is defined, the devil is in the details, of course).
No I didn't run out and buy a Bushmaster or other "assault weapon." As I've said, I have neither the desire nor the funds to own one of those.
So yes, ONCE AGAIN, I'm fine with a "ban on that stuff." But thanks for chiming in with the other 100 people who also can't read, who posted the same comment, including the ones who said I'm "part of the problem."
Bake
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)One revolver ain't a big deal when you have folks with honest to God weapons cache and who feel the need to strap one or two on when going round Chuck E Cheeze.
Glad things have worked out. We all have had incidences. Some choose to not become a slave to them.
nolabear
(41,986 posts)Btw you've got an extraordinarily threatened life. I've lived all over the place and never had anyone, nor has anyone I've ever known, had to sit with a gun pointed at the door for fear of nighttime intruders. I know it happens but repeatedly? Wow.
Bake
(21,977 posts)Shortened version of my last name.
I don't sit at the door at night with a gun pointed at it. I've done that on two occasions when I could hear someone trying to open the door and I knew my family was all accounted for. In one instance I could look out a window and see the person at the door. I had already called the police. I was NOT comforted at all by how long it took them to get there.
It's a cliche, but I've found it to be true: when seconds matter, the police are several minutes away. And in no rush to get to you.
Bake
nolabear
(41,986 posts)And they do seem to try very hard to get to the scene of a call. If you are in imminent danger i expect that seems like forever.
I'm still impressed you've had such a bad time of it re home invasions.
rustydog
(9,186 posts)But a .357 (my wife owns a lady smith) does not fire 30-round magazines of ammo, you have a 6-shot pistol.
If you can't hit a target in your home with 6 .357 rounds, you need to pawn the gun the following day.
What America does not need are the shotguns you can buy with ammo DRUMS. AR-15, SKS, and othe semiautomatic firearms with extended clips allowing 30 plus shots.
Help me Jesus, if a good old-boy american wants to kill an intruder, stop the next mass-murder school shooter, stop the next carjacker or bank robber...Why doesn't a .38 special suffice?
beacuse the gullible american shooter has been sold a bill of goods...More fire power! we need 100 round drums to kill even more people in movie theaters!!!!!
No, The "Gun grabbers" are not coming for your .357. chill, Obama isn't and never was after your guns!!!
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)Plus he and his entire extended family have been robbed threatened and otherwise put into DIRE STRAITS I TELL YOU dozens of times, perhaps daily. I'm sure there is an arsenal of semi auto AR15 based military style weapons there somewhere. My guess is a whole lot of prepping and go-bagging is going on too.
Bake
(21,977 posts)Your last name is probably appropriate.
The "dire straits" you speak of have not happened "dozens of times," nor did I ever say they did, bofwad.
I simply told my experience. I'd tell the same story under oath in a court of law. There is no "arsenal of smi auto AR15 based military style weapons" anywhere in my home.
Your comment is yet another reason, along with the name-calling, why people of your persuasion have so little success in persuading rational people to accept your position. Reasonable and responsible gun owners are more than willing to discuss reasonable and rational gun control legislation. People like YOU make us tend to "pucker up" and say fuck it. You want to be part of the solution? Be rational and civil. Otherwise, you're part of the problem.
Bake
D23MIURG23
(2,850 posts)There is some kind of meme circulating that a pistol is the gun of choice for home defense, when in fact pistols are harder to control and less powerful than shotguns. The only thing pistols are good for that other guns are not is concealment.
coalition_unwilling
(14,180 posts)in the space of 'some years'? that's got to be some sort of statistical anomaly of the highest order.
I hope you are aware of the actuarial science that shows unequivocally that you and your family are 4.5 times as likely to suffer death or injury by having a firearm in your domicile than you would be without one.
Walk away
(9,494 posts)Especially where they actually threaten you wife in a note. Living in a state of siege can't be good for the head.
coalition_unwilling
(14,180 posts)of otherwise-rational gun owners is fascinating in a sort of horrifying way. To wit, the rational part of them knows and understands that they are far more likely to be victims of gun violence by mere ownership or possession of a firearm in their place of residence. Yet some fantasy of 'control' allows them to overlook and override what their rational mind knows and understands.
I don't get it, I really don't. The actuarial science is unequivocal, not a matter of interpretation or subjective analysis.
Walk away
(9,494 posts)wouldn't you think his own anecdotal evidence would point him towards a brand new neighborhood?
Bake
(21,977 posts)The others happened at a different address, still in the same city.
Bake
Response to Bake (Original post)
ann--- This message was self-deleted by its author.
LP2K12
(885 posts)How do you know who will lose?
Is a law enforcement officer, armed in his home off duty likely to lose?
Or, an Army veteran such as myself?
Also, it's not a game. I wouldn't call killing someone winning.
maxsolomon
(33,345 posts)Incident 1: you didn't own a gun but still protected your family.
Incident 2 & 3: you stayed up pointing your gun at a door, not a prowler. The door kept the prowler out.
Despite your plethora of DU posts daring us all to try, no one is coming for your 15-round semi-automatic pistol, except maybe a thief who would prefer to rob you when you're not home.
And your assertion that you would sleep like a baby after shooting someone is conjecture, because you haven't done it yet. I would hope that it would traumatize you and haunt your dreams, because it will likely be someone's idiot teenage son, and they'll be devastated with grief.
tabasco
(22,974 posts)without a gun.
Bake
(21,977 posts)Next time we might not be so lucky. So as a former Boy Scout, I believe in the Scout Motto: Be Prepared.
Bake
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)There is no "gun grabber" movement in the USA. That is a paranoid NRA/GOP fantasy. When you use Republican fear and smear talking points, you guarantee your thread turns into a mud slinging contest.
You trashed your own decent OP by throwing a handful of NRA dog shit at the end.
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,182 posts)So, after a documented incident of a home invasion and a threat against you and your family, you decided to purchase a single pistol for defense of one's home, and which I can only assume you keep in a secure location in your home.
You do know that this "gun grabber" doesn't really have much of a problem with that? I don't.
You had an actual threat as compared to an imaginary one, you went through the necessary legal precautions, it's an appropriate weapon for the purpose of home defense (not an AR-15 with 30 round clips), and I can only guess you keep it in the home and are careful where you keep it and ensure that it is secured.
But it's so much easier for you to play the Strawman and call all people like me "gun grabbers."
Nice way to kill sympathy for your cause.
ecstatic
(32,712 posts)I consider that one of the few instances where a gun may be needed. I think most people are murdered by someone they knew who had already made threats.
No..no one is taking our guns...but what if someone comin in your house was in possession of an automatic or semi weapon? Not out of the realm of reality at all these days...could your little non auto defend? Dont think so....
dhpgetsit
(1,917 posts)Not even the civilian versions of the AR-15. In some ways, the AR-15 is not as deadly as grandpa's 30 06. In some ways my .22 is more deadly because I can carry a lot more rounds of ammo on me.
I am for real serious regulations of the transfer of these guns, aimed at keeping them out of the hands of criminals and crazies.
That is going to require registration and tracking ownership of the weapons, and a requirement that you lock your weapons away. You can get a strong box with a combination lock that can be opened in a few seconds. If you want to sell your weapon or give it away you should have to get the assistance of an FFL dealer to handle the paperwork. The recipient should be tested to make sure they understand the law and the responsibilities. As it is now I can sell or give my rifle to any resident of my state that tells me they can legally own it. If I'm smart, I get a bill of sale in case the weapon is used in a crime, so I can back up my claim that I don't own it any more. But that is not a requirement.
I do not nor will not support the NRA. Just another person living out in the country.
marions ghost
(19,841 posts)(I am not sure where you are coming from, so I use "if"
IF --as a gun advocate--you DON'T understand
where the present anti-gun fervor is coming from......
Then, really, you never will get it. Surely even diehard gun owners can understand & respect the reasons for this reaction, this national outpouring of disgust and dismay. (Some DU gun owners have expressed that they DO understand).
People are DONE with being held hostage by the NRA. Capiche? No?
If you can't understand, then you ARE part of the problem.
LWolf
(46,179 posts)You've experienced 3 attempts at home invasion. Were they all in that nice middle class neighborhood?
I'm wondering who painted a target on your back, or why.
I've never owned a gun, and never will. I've never been threatened by anyone except for my first husband. He usually only threatened with fists and boots, after a drinking spree. Once, though, when one of his friends came to stay and left a shotgun in the closet, I got to see the wrong end of it. That might have something to do with the determination I've had to never have a gun in the house.
I never would have shot him, given the chance. I just divorced him.
If I were fearful enough to keep a gun for self-defense, it would have been ineffective, anyway. Raising 2 sons, there never would have been a loaded gun on the premises that it was easy to get to.
I have experienced garage/shop invasion, and theft of tools. It happened twice, in two different states. Both times I was not home. If I had been, I wouldn't have shot anybody. I don't have anything here worth taking a life over.
Norrin Radd
(4,959 posts)and grabbed at your gun.
flash47
(11 posts)When I hear talk about "we are not going to take away your right to keep and bear arms" I remember that generally the same people that want to ban "assault weapons" are the same ones that supported DC in Heller v DC and Chicago in McDonald v Chicago, where the Supreme Court determined they were violations of the Bill of Rights. How can you trust people that have already got it wrong?
By the way, here is a link to a discussion about a magazine ban. What is interesting is the last couple of minutes where Tim shows that he can do a rapid fire just as fast with 10 round magazines at more.
Orrex
(63,215 posts)
Sheldon Cooper
(3,724 posts)Did I miss the part where you'll make the intruder crap his pants, too? That always seems to be a part of these narratives. Party on, dude.
lonestarnot
(77,097 posts)was they threatened because you missed, then what? I mean you have to sleep sometime right?
Bake
(21,977 posts)YOu might want to try rephrasing that. Not sure what you're saying.
Bake
Jeff In Milwaukee
(13,992 posts)Is a perfectly justifiable reason to own a firearm. Now some people will argue that it's more dangerous having the gun than not having, but if you feel safer with it, then that's what's right for you.
Do me a favor. When you're not at home, keep it stored someplace safe and if you have young children in the house, keep it locked when you're not around.
mokawanis
(4,442 posts)Every time I hear a gun humper talk about defending their home by putting a bullet in someone's head I get the feeling they almost relish the opportunity. Kind of like they got to kill someone and don't have to suffer any consequences.
Like you, I could take a life in order to protect loved ones. Unlike you, I would not "sleep like a baby". I'd lie in bed awake and feel terrible that I snuffed out a life, even though it was justified and unavoidable.
Response to Bake (Original post)
Post removed
