View from a new gun owner

[olefty]

As a recovering anti-gun person, I hope I can cast a little light on this divisive issue from my change of heart. My anti-gun stance was a knee-jerk position because I am a progressive I was anti-gun, without giving it any real thought. Two things changed my mind, until recently I went out with a girl who was is an avid shooter and even though she was very in your face about guns, I was attracted to her for other reasons and overlooked her pro-gun and a couple of other things we disagreed about. After a while she gave me something I really wanted as long as I went to a local gun range with her. It took a while to get used to the noise, smoke and all that you need to remember to shoot well. Long story short, I now own a handgun, an HK USP in 9mm, and I love target shooting. The lessons I learned on this sojourn are:

1. It is very difficult to purchase a firearm in Illinois.

2. Not all gun owners are bad people, many own guns to make up for a lack of "equipment" but most are really nice.

3. Many Progressives own guns! A slim majority may be repukes, but there are millions of good Dems and Indies that own guns.

4. A political reality that I have always been aware of, but I didn't want to admit that gun control efforts harm our party and candidates.

As it turns out, the girl is a latent repuke and I only see her once in a while, to shoot and engage in our other common interest. For some reason my taste in women always draws me to women who say or think they are liberal, but really aren't. Why are all repuke girls nuts??? But I digress, I know this is old news to most people who frequent the gun forum, but what I learned shocked me and I don't think of myself as naive. Thanks for listening, Chase

[shrdlu]

1. Nice piece. ....The gun. I mean the gun.

[Fresh_Start]

2. my sweet husband became pro-guns

(at least partially) due to anti-Bush sponsored feelings.
I'm okay with guns. I grew up with a gun rack on the 'summer kitchen' wall.
I just wish that there was adequate background checks and registration of them.

[olefty]

10. Question

How did "anti-chimp sponsored feelings" make your husband pro-gun?

[Endangered Specie]

27. You have to have a NICS background check to buy any gun from a dealer.

[mike_c]

3. so your principles are maleable if there's a little nookie involved...?

:rofl:

Dude, Ann Coulter wants to talk to YOU!

[tularetom]

5. I would not do ann coulter with your er, weapon

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

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

[SteveM]

13. Zora Neale Hurston packed. So did Harriet Tubman. And Eleanor Roosevelt.

Anyone turned on yet?

[davepc]

18. Ann aint got shit on Eleanor

[Captain Hilts]

84. This photo was taken by ER's boy-toy of over ten years.

In the Adirondacks. Probably summer '33 or '34. It's the revolver that the secret service required her to carry in her car when travelling alone.

Her NYState bodyguard trained her to use it. There's another photograph with her aiming it right at the camera.

Evidently, she was a pretty good shot. Decades later she gave it, as payment, to one of her neighbors who repaired her roof and refused money. Wonder where the pistol is now...

[Xenotime]

82. LOL THAT's Great!

[radioburning]

100. Can't People Just Change Their Minds? It's Called "Growing".

You guys just can't accept the fact that it's really common for people to not really know anything about guns other than they are afraid of them and act accordingly, then they go to a shooting range and find out that it really is a lot of fun, so they change their opinions about guns and gun owners. All you can think of saying is "your mind is so easy to change that...". I never thought that being close minded or willfully ignorant was what being a liberal was about.

[villager]

4. Some of us know people who've lost their lives, thanks to the easy proliferation of handguns.

Don't know if that qualifies as a "knee jerk" response in your book. I guess my story isn't as much fun as yours.

[olefty]

9. My position was knee jerk not yours

I don't fault you for being anti-gun if you have lost a loved one to gun violence. I can almost imagine the pain of that, I have lost two close friends, but both were partially due to alcohol. I don't want to spout the NRA cliches and I won't since I respect your loss.

[villager]

16. it was, in particular, a student in one of the classes I taught.

He was one of the more promising ones.

Cut down, by several shots.

Ah well, cars should be registered -- but the hell would we ever want to register guns?

on edit: I appreciate your empathy, however. I find it a startlingly --though perhaps not surprisingly -- rare commodity in the pro-gun crowd, alas.

[HiDemGunOwner]

22. Neither empathy or sympathy is rare among the "pro-gun" crowd

Since I cannot speak for the rest of the "pro-gun" crowd, I will only speak for myself. In my 20+ years in emergency medicine I can tell you I have been both sympathetic and empathetic for those who have suffered losses by any means. I am as empathetic to the mother who lost a child to gang-related gun violence as I am to the family of a home-invader who was shot by a homeowner (and I have seen both). My sympathy however, is limited to former, not the latter. Knowing what a violent world we live in, and recognizing that efforts to control that violence thru ever more intrusive and restrictive gun laws is not the answer, I choose to arm myself for protection. I do so because I know that criminals will not obey the law and give up their guns. I also know that 911 is rarely able to prevent a violent encounter or protect the victim of an aggressor. I also know that trying to "talk" someone out of a physical assault is virtually impossible and cooperating does little to guarantee your safety. I have seen the aftermath of all of these "techniques" in the emergency department. What I haven't seen, is the lawful, gun-owning citizen who used his gun, either by brandishing or discharging it, to thwart a criminal attack. Why do you think that is? Could it be that owning a gun is indeed a valid defensive tool. One likely to succeed where other, less "violent" measures fail? It is unfortunate that some lose their lives to the wanton, illegal actions of uncaring criminals, and certainly owning or having a gun does nothing to guarantee that that won't happen to you. But, it does even the odds in you favor. Disarming citizens only increases the odds of the bad guys winning in such an encounter and that, in my opinion, would be even more unfortunate.

[villager]

31. since I posted this afternoon, a 16 year old cousin of *another* student of mine was shot

to death.

In the face.

It happened a couple of weeks ago, she had to leave town, I just found out this afternoon.

Should the 16 year old have had his own gun?

That's really your best, most creative "solution?"

[pipoman]

34. Sorry to her that

No policy will save every innocent victim.

I feel a big difference between people who oppose lawful firearm ownership at what ever level and those who are believers in RTKBA are based in a difference of perspective. Those who want strong limitations often site anecdotal instances to justify changes which they say would result in dramatic increases in societal safety or could have prevented a specific incident. Upon looking at these specific incidents there is always a person behind the act of violence who generally are prohibited from owning, possessing or even touching a firearm. Their firearm is usually illegally obtained.

The person who is stronger supporter of RTKBA are usually only concerned about an anecdote which puts themselves or a loved one in a position of being on the defensive against a person or people who are trying to harm them. I know that my keeping/carrying defensive weapons will have no effect on societal violence. It may however have an effect on an anecdotal incident which otherwise could result in harm coming to myself or my family.

What is your "creative solution" to eliminating senseless murders like the one you are describing without putting innocent law abiding people in more danger of being the helpless victim of a violent act? I do feel that not knowing if there is an armed citizen behind that door does deter a lot of otherwise would be criminals from committing acts of violence against victims they know or have good reason to believe are unarmed. Just my $.02

[f the letter]

35. Very few if any gun supporters would say that a 16-year-old should have a handgun,

and it sounds like this is a horrible loss for you and the community. i think you are misunderstanding the reply to your post, i doubt they were suggesting arming our teenagers.

i don't own a gun, but strongly support legal gun ownership in this country. i emphatically do not support children or young adults running around with handguns. But if i decide i want to purchase a firearm at some point in my life, then as a law-abiding citizen my country has no right to prevent me. This is not a solution to violence, but neither is disarming. It is not as though violent crime is relegated exclusively to guns.

Anecdotally, i don't know any victims of gun violence but know a fair number of victims of violence in general. i don't know the numbers nationwide, but i know that non-gun violent crime is sadly far from rare.

[villager]

38. does that mean the shooter shouldn't have had his handgun?

If so, what are the NRA talking-points folks proposing to keep guns out of the hands of kid killers?

All I hear is: Once everyone is armed, we'll be safe!

[HiDemGunOwner]

60. Kid Killers?

If you look at the stat, most murders of 14-20 year olds are done by their peers, i.e., those of similar ages. That means possession of a gun by the shooters was already illegal. Should we make it "more" illegal?

I don't think NRA's message is that "Once everyone is armed, we'll be safe." I think it's more like law abiding citizens, recognizing that the police have no duty to protect them and are rarely able to stop a violent act upon said citizen, should have the ability to choose the method of self-defense that is best for them, at a time that is most appropriate for their circumstances.

Once again, instead of logically discussing the issue, you choose to perpetuate falsehoods and spew hyperbole.

[ManiacJoe]

65. You seem to be missing

all the NRA members shouting, "Enforce the current laws!"

[RSstoppingby]

99. I think your wrong

I think you wrong on that. I am 16 and I own many guns including two handguns and many gunowners support getting the younger generations involved. I also know dozens of other people my age that own handguns and none of them, including myself, have shot anyone.

[HiDemGunOwner]

36. Condolences to the family

However, you leave out some facts. Where did this happen, and what were the circumstances? I don't mean to be insensitive, but statistics indicate that males of this age who are the victims of gun violence are frequently associated with gang violence. Again, I don't know what the facts are, but I think the it's germaine to the discussion if the kid was shot while sitting in his living room by a stray bullet from a drive by versus getting shot while in the commission of a crime or while participating in gang activities.

As for solutions, again, it would seem additional facts would need ot be evaluated in order to debate any proposed "solution" to this particular incident. However, whatever the circumstances, disarming law abiding citizens is not the answer. If protecting students is really an issue, maybe eliminating the gun-free zones at schools and colleges, at least for teachers and administrators, might be a consideration. After all, we have evidence here in the US that at least one shooting incident was curtailed when a legally armed citizen intervened, and experiences in Israel lends additional support to the premise.

Again, my sympathies to the family.

[villager]

39. oh, for fuck's sake. It was a kid who wanted to move out of his neighborhood

because the guns you love were taking their toll.

He was shot point blank in the face before he could.

And right, if only there were more armed teachers lurking around him, he'd be safe.

You people are utterly, completely unbelievable.

[ac2007]

40. Then he was an unfortunate victim of a CRIMINAL

Then he was an unfortunate victim of a CRIMINAL, not a GUN. A person had to wield the gun and commit that terrible act. A gun didn't magically levitate into the air and shoot him by itself.

Context matters. You are blaming the gun for the tragedy, not the person that carried it out. You see the gun as the embodiment of evil and not the mind that conceptualized it and acted upon it. Evil exists in our minds, not the tools or weapons we create. Weapons can be used for good or evil.

None of us would advocate allowing a teenager to carry a gun by themselves. They aren't adults and lack the legal right to do so.

But you seem to blame the gun for the violence around you. For every act of violence, there is a story behind it. There is a HUGE moral difference between a teenaged gang banger sticking a stolen gun in someone's face and shooting and an adult pulling one from their hip or nightstand to defend themselves from aggression. Do you not recognize that?

We can't wish these types of events away. Nor can they be legislated and controlled out of existence. The only way to deal with such evil is to fight back by any means necessary. Guns are the most effective means.

Your experiences do not give you an unassailable moral high ground from which to strip the rights of others. If you feel it does, explain exactly how you would a) totally, without fail prevent a criminal from getting a gun and b) how to protect someone from their predations in any form (club, rock, knife, car, etc) in the absence of a person being allowed to defend themselves and handing that duty over to the State?

If you can't answer those questions then you are operating on emotion. And that is no way to control, restrict or remove the rights of 99.87% of the population who have done no wrong.

[villager]

44. who you unfortunately wish to keep ARMED

n/t

[SteveM]

61. More hateful culture war? How will your comments help anything?

[ManiacJoe]

66. How did you jump to that conclusion?!?!?!

If you are looking to get the criminals disarmed, you will need to get to the end of the long line of gun owners already in front of you.

[sabre73]

52. It is so hard

It is so hard to take posting like your last one as anything other than a child throwing a tantrum. If you want to be heard then add something of substance not a bunch of kicking and screaming.

Or maybe you need a "time out" followed by a nap?

[villager]

53. I don't know who your post is directed at....

...if it's me, I can refer you to the victim's family, however.

You can talk to them.

Hopefully, it was directed at the rather cold-blooded, ammophile, gun strokin' response....

[sabre73]

56. Yes, please do

I would like to send my condolences to the victims family having been a victim myself of the same type of crime.

To be honest I have been shot at more times then I can count and I too have lost many, MANY loved ones to "violence" whether it be gun or other means (more than a dozen to shootings). So I feel that I could offer something to them at such a time.

However, my reply was intended for you. You play an emotion card and you cry "oh, for F$#@K sake...." and he was trying to move....

Look at the telling. A 16 year old was moving out on his own... he was shot right after you posted "this afternoon" but it was last week. I am not saying that it did not happen because it did, to someone out there. I am just saying that your posting educate tells me that you might not know of this person and that you are trying to "shock and awe" a wave of support.

All I am saying is that you post traumatic type threads and get a reaction of concern then you post a thread that makes the people who reply look like asses. You can not be taken seriously when that is all that you have to offer. Give logic. Give reason. Then we will listen. Or you can scream about us "people" and be ignored.

It also surprises me that a teacher with an obviously advanced vocabulary would resort to four letter words that proclaim ignorance and immaturity to make a point.

Just a thought.

[villager]

57. So you just joined DU in order to call people liars, rather than engage in actual debate?

Though debating on the bones of a dead 16 year old is not something I'm interested in -- though plainly, you are. As are your fellow ammophiles.

No empathy for anyone. Just the usual rampant prick-ism.

It happened a week or so ago. the student - the victim's cousin -- disappeared, and contacted me the afternoon aftger the post in question.

I could scarcely give less of a steaming crap whether you believe me or not.

Take your own damn nap.

[sabre73]

58. Thank You! Case in point!

You have proven my point. Please note all who read this thread that Villager does not care about the others who have died that we know personally. That does not matter. We offer sincerity and honesty and we are mocked and referred to as "ammophiles" for it.

I am not calling you a liar. I am saying please grow up. This is a grown up topic that requires grown up input.

You are, again, playing the emotion card by posting

"Though debating on the bones of a dead 16 year old is not something I'm interested in -- though plainly, you are."

If that is not a sad version of my three-year old saying "Oh yeah? well you are a POOPY head!" Then I don't know what is.

I know that you will want to have the last word on this so I will not respond to any more on this little side thread lest I start to sound like a child myself.

In all honesty I joined because of your thread about the shooting. It moved me and I wanted to offer condolences but by the time I got my password (you have to wait 24 hours to get it with Yahoo email accounts) I had read the rest of your responses and felt like you had totally "played" people on this thread with your tactics.

[HiDemGunOwner]

59. Would you like to let us know what state and/or city you live in?

Or where this event took place? What type of gun control is in effect there now?

Do a little research instead of spewing foul language and dismissing anyone with an opinion other than yours as a fanatic or "completely unbelievable."

In case you don't (or can't) here's somewhere to start:

States with permissive gun laws typically have less violent crime, places with more restrictive gun laws generally have greater amounts of violent crime. Vermont, where you don't have to have a permit for concealed carry has one of the lowest violent crime rates in the nation. California and Washington D.C. have some of the most restrictive gun laws in the nation and also the highest rates of violent crime. What about different countries? Both England and Australia had INCREASED rates of violent crime after their respective gun bans. Russia has a complete ban on civilian gun ownership and one of the world's highest violent crime rates. Is is as simple as "more guns equal less crime?" No, but there are some correlations that reasonable and rational individuals wishing to debate the issues need to consider.

Just a question, since you are here in the DU. I assume you have a somewhat "liberal" view of drug reform. What is the trend in current thinking about drug illegality? Is it "Make more drugs illegal/Harsher penalties for use/possession?" No, most have accepted the argument that more laws will not keep people from obtaining illegal drugs. Why, because there will always be criminals willing to risk breaking the law. Why is it that this concept, so easily recognized when it fits into your agenda, cannot be extrapolated for the argument against further restrictions on guns?

Another question: I also assume that you are of the opinion that "even if it saves one life" additional gun restrictions are "reasonable." So, using that logic, I assume that in the instance of a legally armed citizen successfully defending themselves with a gun, and therefore saving their life, that would justify loosening gun restrictions. Do you agree or disagree? Why?

You say you are a teacher. I don't know what subject you teach, but, in the context of a student debate/discussion in your classroom, would you allow such a discourse between students as your little outburst here? Is that the logic and thoughtful application of facts you are trying to promote in your classes?

Again, my sympathies go out to the family and friends of your student's cousin.

[HiDemGunOwner]

78. Don't want to let us know where you live?

Or where these tragedies took place?

[radioburning]

101. Very Well Put

Unfortunately that is gonna be a little too much actual logic, and therefore will probably be discounted with the attitude that "you're just a gun nut".

[radioburning]

102. How Many Kids Have Gone Through Your Class Since You Started Teaching?

Anytime a life is lost it is hard to talk about the surrounding situations without sounding callous or insensitive. I apologize in advance if anything I say right now comes across that way, but for the sake of this conversation let's delve a little deeper into the big picture. How many kids have gone through your classroom doors since you started teaching? How many of those kids have been innocent bystanders to gun violence? How many of those kids went on to be responsible gun owners? How many of those kids have had their lives, or well being, defended by guns? How many of those kids went on to defend somebody else's life or well being with a gun?
Oh, and I don't know how it is exactly where you live, but almost every state nowadays requires you to go through some sort of registration/background check/waiting period. The problem is not guns. The Problem is an economic and cultural situation that tells some people that the only way they're going to get ahead in life is to resort to crime.

[Jack_DeLeon]

105. I've known more people who died in car crashes...

It would be as much a knee jerk response for me to blame cars as it is for you to blame guns. The blame should be on the person responsible for the action not an inanimate object.

[Possumpoint]

6. Bought Mine

in the summer of 2006. I had lived 60 years without one. My wife requested it since we are both getting older and it would even the odds if a younger intruder entered our home. Target shooting is fun. God help the intruder.

[mike_c]

7. even the language provides clues to how blase we've become...

...about murdering one another just to make a point. You'd kill someone for "intruding."

[bossy22]

11. i think you may be looking to deeply into his comment

i think it was made to be more of a "im so angry im going to kill someone" type of comment that people make day after day. and its not killing someone for intruding, its killing someone while intruding. When a home invader strikes, you cannot be sure why he is there, maybe hes just there looking for jewlry and will leave at the site of anyone in the home, maybe he is has a gun, a knife, maybe he is looking to attack the homeowner to force the homeowner to give up valuables. You dont know and in a home invasion situation, there is no time to play 20 questions. I believe that anyone breaking into a home is there to due grave bodily harm and should be treated as so (lethal force is justifiable). Now if that individual decides to retreat, thats a different story, i dont think its right to shooting a fleeing home invader for invading your home

[gorfle]

14. Exactly, Bossy22!

You dont know and in a home invasion situation, there is no time to play 20 questions.

This is precisely the problem with a home invasion scenario, and why I also agree that lethal force is justifiable just for "intruding".

If I find someone intruding in my home they are most likely going to get shot. I would have no idea what that person's intentions were and I will assume the worst. I'd like to think that perhaps I could "hold them at gunpoint" but I can just see me fixated on keeping this guy painted with my firearm, fumbling to call the police, and have his buddy, who I didn't see, come up behind me and bash me over the head with a lamp.

I hope I'm never in such a situation.

[SteveM]

12. Wow, I didn't read "...murdering one another just to make a point."

A little over the top, wouldn't you say? If there is a "blase" attitude about the whole gun debate, it is over self-defense: most folks who despise guns really hate the gun-owner's willingness to engage in self-defense, using a gun if necessary. I did NOT grow up with this attitude, but it seems like many millions of Americans of my generation listened to a lot of "peace" music, mis-read theories of non-violence and came up with some limp allegiance to the crudest kind of pacifism: let a criminal have his way lest the criminal be injured in any way. Gandhi would have (and did) condemn this philosophy.

BTW, I have not so much as threatened anyone with a gun. But I have a gun ready-to-go.

[gorfle]

15. It's not murdering just to make a point...

...about murdering one another just to make a point. You'd kill someone for "intruding."

I don't think many people would kill someone just to make a point. Killing someone for "intruding" is not about making a point. It's about the fact that you have encountered someone who clearly and demonstrably has no respect for you or your property, and you don't know what their motives are beyond the fact that they have decided to intrude your home. I'm going to kill the intruder not because I want to make some kind of point, but out of fear that the guy may be planning bodily harm to me or my family.

[east texas lib]

17. Indeed!

And being a good liberal, I'd sprinkle their ass liberally with .45 slugs!

[Plague]

19. Safe to assume...

I believe it's safe to assume that if someone is breaking into your home, that they don't have any kind of positive intent towards you. Depending on the neighborhood in which you live, it might be expected that burglars would be armed with firearms themselves. I don't think it's unreasonable to own a firearm with the intent of using it to protect one's home and property from harm. Especially if the firearm only ever leaves the property to be practiced with.

Would beating an intruder to death with a crowbar or stabbing them repeatedly with kitchen knives be more reasonable? Removing firearms from one side of the equation just means that a private individual has one less option when it comes to a violent confrontation with an intruder.

[Tejas]

21. Correct, people that....

You'd kill someone for "intruding"



.........owe me money usually don't climb through a window at 2am.

[HiDemGunOwner]

23. And what exactly would you do if someone broke into your home at 0200?

I don't know if you have family in the house, but in the hypothetical posed, how would you protect them? Sure, you could "cooperate" and maybe they would only take your material possessions, but what if they decided that they wanted no witnesses to their crime? Or that raping your significant other or child was also on their agenda? Now what would you do and, and how would you know this at the point your door came crashing down or your window was smashed? Quick...make up your mind...you only have a few seconds to save yourself and your family.....

[mike_c]

24. I understand your motives for posing this question...

...but as much as I've tried to wrestle with it I cannot answer it. The truth is that I live alone and any answer I offer about "my family" would be hypothetical at best. I think what would happen, if I woke up at 2:00 AM and found someone in my house-- I'd yell "What the fuck are you doing in my house?" and confront them. I'm a big guy and I hope they'd freak and run out the door. If they attacked me, I'd fight, and who knows where that would go. If they're armed, well, I doubt that I could prevail, and if there's going to be a victim, it would likely be me. I'm comfortable with that. Not happy, but I'm certainly not interested in killing or maiming someone to protect stuff in my house, or even to protect myself from someone desperate enough to harm me to access what little stuff I have to protect.

I'm not a coward. I have fought for things that are important enough-- to me-- to fight for. But there is nothing in my house worth killing anyone to preserve. Including my own safety.

[HiDemGunOwner]

25. Good luck with that...

I find your response interesting, and somewhat contradictory, in regards to the statements about having "fought for things that are important enough" but feel "comfortable" with being a murder victim. Just out of curiosity, what exactly is more important to you than your life that you would have fought for it in the past? Not trying to be sarcastic, I just do not understand the dichotomy. Personally, if I have to fight, for whatever reason, I fight to win. I stack all the odds in my favor to the degree I am able to do so. Part of that is that I do have family/loved ones and the thought of some criminal lowlife hurting them is intolerable. So, if you want to rely solely on your physical strength and size as your means of protection, go ahead. But don't expect me, nor anyone else without the blessings of your physical endowment, to so readily allow someone to take our lives. Next to my family and loved one, my life is the most important thing in the world to me and I refuse to allow some low life miscreant to take it away without exhausting all means at my disposal. So, answering my own hypothetical...I act pro-actively when the door comes crashing down or the perp comes crashing thru the window and assume he (or she) is there with the worse possible intent. I arm myself, gather the family, and call 911...from there it's the perp's choice. But leaving quickly would likely be in his (or her) best interest.

[SecularNATION]

29. You can do what you want.

"if there's going to be a victim, it would likely be me. I'm comfortable with that"

Fine. Just don't expect others to feel the same. Some of us have a strong sense of self-protection.

[pipoman]

30. Wow

My sense of self preservation drives me to wear my seat belts and practice a defensive approach to driving, keep smoke detectors and smoke alarms and make a plan for escape in case of fire, and keep defensive weapon(s) and practice their use...I hope to never need any of them.

[sabre73]

51. Sorry to hear that.

I am surprised at the frequency of such comments where a person does not feel that their life is all that important for them to fight for. I wish you knew how important your life was and I say this without knowing you from Adam. All life is important to me.

However, I must add that all life does not fall into the same level of importance to me. I will shoot an intruder to save my family.... I have (I can only imagine what this is going to stir up) been forced to do so in the past and as a result I get to spend my remaining days in the joyous company of my wife and children.

I did not "Murder" and my gun did not kill. I took the life of one who was going to do the same to me and mine. I will not judge you for your decision Mike. In fact, I respect it.

I value the lives of my family far above mine and I value mine far above any who would threaten to take it from us.

I wish you the best in your approach to the dangers we all must face.

[HiDemGunOwner]

62. Good job!

I don't mean to sound like a rabid "ammophiles" as referenced earlier, but I think it takes great courage to protect your family the way you did. I hope you are never put in that position again.

I have been shot at a couple of times myself, and starred down the barrel of a loaded gun in the hands of psychotic meth user...not fun. I know how frightening it can be. My stance on self-defense has always been favorable toward gun ownership, but after enduring that last event, with the crazy meth addict, and having the police, who were located only 1-2 blocks away, take forever to get there, I know that I was lucky she didn't shoot me. She did pop a few rounds into the ceiling and floor immediately after waving it in my face and disappearing out the rear stairway.

Aloha

[sabre73]

69. I am glad to hear that your event ended as well as it did.

A lot of people are not so lucky as that and I can truly appreciate the levels of stress that you were enduring at the time of the event and a good while after as well.

The sad thing about events like these is that had I been hurt that would have been bad enough but had my three year-old or one-year old been hurt, well that would be unbearable. Yet that is what could happen if our rights are taken away. I pray no one else is ever in that position but I fear that the more "control" we mandate the more likely these events will occur and with less desirable outcomes.

Two examples I like to use are (as you already mentioned) Vermont, also known as one of the friendliest places to live with low rates of violent crime. And China. Guns are forbidden. Yet their murders by stabbing are more than three times higher than our shooting and stabbing murders combined on the average here in the U.S..

[HiDemGunOwner]

77. Yep, I was pretty lucky....

It's funny, like the guy who noticed that there were no atheists in foxholes, similarly, there seems to be few gun-control advocates at the scene of a violent incident where a gun was used to thwart or limit the violence, especially by the intended victims.

Here in Hawaii we have strict gun-control. Concealed carry is unheard of, although a bill is in the legislature again. Recently we had two violent murders witnessed by bystanders. In one instance, the perp beat a very small female (ex-GF) with a shotgun. When an elderly guy tried to intervene, he too was assaulted by the thug. Multiple calls to 911 at the onset of the assault failed to get anyone out there in time to prevent her killing. The second instance involved a guy stabbing his wife repeatedly. Same general scenario and outcome: dead woman and police arriving after the perp fled. In both instances an armed citizen could have intervened had they been allowed the option of carrying. Oh, and the guy with the shotgun, of course he was a felon and prohibited from possession of the weapon in the first place.

Another factoid: I believe Russia also has draconian gun laws with civilian ownership virtually impossible. But, it has one of the highest murder and gun violence rates in the world. I believe Mexico has a similar situation.

Aloha

[sabre73]

80. I have been meaning to ask you

about the CCW in Hawaii. The last I checked the "shall issue" status is pretty much a farce and that currently there are only 2 people in the state that actually have them. I am referencing an article written by Massad Ayoob in the "2007 Concealed Handguns" laws for every state article.

Is this still the case? I know that he has personally been at the forefront of this issue in your state and that is always a good thing for gun owners. It could very well happen for you all in the near future and I hope it does!

I was a CCW instructor in Texas and have since moved to Montana so I must re-cert up here.

Good luck with it and I would love to know of any changes over there especially with regards to the CCW and reciprocity for other states CCW.

[HiDemGunOwner]

81. Hawaii is a "May Issue" state

And has been for quite some time. The only people that get CCWs are those with the appropriate influence at the highest levels, and even then, I believe there were no permits issued last year or the year before, and only one permit issued on Kauai the year before that. I think Massad has be involved in the general push for relaxed CCW in general, but I am not sure how active he has been here, at least recently. I wish we could get him here to talk to the lawmakers as I hear he's good at that. Heck, I wish we could get him over here for some LFI training as well.

We have had a CCW amendment before the legislature for the last several years, as we do again this year. Maybe this year it'll be different and the lawmakers will listen to facts and reason instead of emotional goobly-gook like what the Prosecuting Attorney commented, after a news piece on the pending CCW legislation. He(the PA) said he would not support the measure because he was afraid armed citizens, if forced to use their weapons, might miss, thereby endangering those nearby. I guess he's never read the stats on LEO shootings (no offense...) that demonstrate most officers miss more than they hit. Heck, a case a couple of years ago here witnessed the police firing over 130 rounds (in 2 separate salvos) and only hitting the suspect once. Oh, they did hit the uninvolved passenger twice.

As far a reciprocity, don't count on it. Even LEO on official assignment here (unless with a a federal agency) need special permission to carry. Additionally, Hawaii has failed to enact provisions to comply with the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act.

[ac2007]

33. No, the goal is to STOP someone from intruding

A lot of folks who hear about people having guns for self-defense assume they want to kill anyone that intrudes on their abode. This is technically incorrect.

Good self-defense training emphasizes the need to STOP a threat and render it a non-threat. By any means. It just so happens that guns are the most effective means to do so. But if you wielding an open umbrella against an intruder causes them to retreat, so be it.

It is once an intruder makes anything you (or the grand jury that will hear the DA's arguments) reasonably believe to be a threat towards you, you make every effort to neutralize that threat. What it does NOT mean is "I'm going to KILL THEM!". No, it means you are going to STOP them. If the intruder happens to be killed as part of that process, so be it.

This may seem like hair-splitting but it isn't. All self-defense strategies involving firearms involving going for "center of mess". It's the largest, easiest place to aim and hit and under stress, you want every advantage you can have. A pistol in a shaking hand in the dark will scatter rounds over 6-10 inches even a few yards away. The general idea is once the first one arrives, you hope the critter approaching you might decide better of the attempt and seek prey elsewhere. If they leave, great.

If not, the emphasis is on continuing said resistance until the threat is NO LONGER MOVING TOWARDS YOU. If they are a moaning blob in front of you bleeding profusely on the carpet or one that is no longer moaning and assuming room temperature, so be it. The threat has been stopped.

Nowhere does self-defense training teach "Shoot to kill!". You aren't taught to shoot for the head. Or shoot to wound. Both acts are foolish and dangerous. You shoot to stop. Aim for the center of the big shadow and keep pulling the trigger until that shadow is retreating away from you or has ceased all motion towards you (save for falling to the floor). If that involves emptying the magazine and continuing with a fresh one, do it.

I don't want to kill anyone. I want to stop them from threatening me and my own. The intruder could be a stone cold killer, a nervous kid pumped on adrenaline and simply not notice the arrival of the first couple large caliber pistol rounds. Or an addict high and looking to rob for the next fix and simply not care about the rounds hitting them. Who knows? You want to gamble with "playing 20 questions" a such a disadvantage?

None of us wish to kill someone for simply "intruding". The intruder will make their motives, which are already suspect, clear based on their actions. Not leaving my house indicates they are there to harm me and failure to respond to the first demand to exit will not be followed by a second. They will make the choice for me. They always do.

You are the VICTIM, not them. Never forget that.

I say this so you understand the mentality of self-defense. It takes enormous soul searching and deep questions of yourself understand the cost of self-defense and mentally prepare yourself for the physical possibility. It is not psychotic or sociopathic. It takes a sobering amount of personal courage to go through this.

Anyone who states they would simply submit or try to reason with someone under such stressful circumstances is literally gambling with their lives and those of their family. If you live alone, make that choice. At worst, you become another crime statistic. If not, then you are potentially condemning your spouse, roommates, parents and/or children to your way of thinking and that I think is a failure of duty of the worst sort. Guess wrong and you and them won't get a "do over".

Pacifism in the face of potential lethal harm is moral cowardice, pure and simple. I, for one, will not be party to it. I have a responsibility to those I love to protect them so we don't become crime statistics.

It is not murder under such circumstances.

[bossy22]

41. Perfect

Couldn't have said it better myself.

and for a little anecdote, my father back when we lived in New York City was stopped at knife point and the assailant asked for my fathers wallet and car keys and if he didnt threatened to stab him. My father gave in and as he put it "the bastard stabbed me anyway". To make a long story short, the police peddled method of "give them what they want" doesnt always work and should not be counted on for your safety. Remember these people are usually mentally unstable, or so afraid that they dont want any witnesses.

[EricTeri]

87. If you break into my home...

I have every legal and logical reason to believe you're not coming over for a cup of coffee, or any other non-violent purpose.

Expecting someone to wait until AFTER they've been attacked in that circumstance is retarded.

[radioburning]

103. What are you? A level 5 vegan? You won't eat anything with a shadow?

Your stance is so dogmatic. Absolutely anything any gunner says you automatically twist into something completely negative. It's like, somebody says "I just feel safer with a gun in my house" and you're like "Great, so now we all have walk around with your gun pointed at our heads because you're afraid of the dark". What is that? How do you go through life seeing things so absolutely one sided?

[Tejas]

20. Not hard to figure

2. Not all gun owners are bad people, many own guns to make up for a lack of "equipment" but most are really nice.


the reason she left. Use of typical anti-gun rhetoric like the above probably didn't go very far with her either.

[olefty]

47. That's a newly formed opinion

After a few visits to the range. There are dudes there that have high dollar guns, and can't help themselves from telling me how great they are with a gun and then can't shoot half as well as I can. YMMV.

[SecularNATION]

26. Welcome to the Club

What club? Democrats who own guns, of course.

I was anti-gun for years, as well. Not rabidly so, but anti nonetheless. My opinion evolved and I finally decided to purchase a firearm. That was 6 years ago. I'm convinced many firearm-phobes would be cured by a trip, or two, to the range. Your case bolsters that belief.

[Endangered Specie]

28. You also learned another good lesson apparently:

don't date the Republican girls!

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

32. Wrong. One good thing you can get from a Repug girl -

marksmanship lessons, and the rules on gun safety.

"Happiness is a warm gun"

:hi:

[Endangered Specie]

37. Different experiences I guess...

i havent had much trouble with the democratic ladies and guns... and guns sure ain't the only 'issue' when dating!

[olefty]

48. She is an awesome shot!!!

Maybe I can do an intervention and we can reprogram her. She's got a lot of god stuff going on!

[olefty]

46. She was a latent or "closet" repuke NT

[Deny and Shred]

42. I grew up with a kid who blew two fingers off his hand

when he found his Dad's gun in 1st grade. If I had one stashed in the bedroom in case of the 'intruder' scenario, I'd be too worried about a niece or nephew finding it, and doing the same, or worse.

I've been mugged twice(NYC), not pleasant, but I still know I wouldn't be able to sleep at night knowing I shot someone and ended their life. I only keep a few ones in my wallet, any bigger bills and credit card in a second wallet. Should it ever happen again, fork over the one with singles.

Maybe I am naive. What is truly naive is the occasional thought that I'm reducing the violence in America - leading by example.

High-powered hunting rifles? Any opinions? In November I believe, a couple in their 60's from Maryland had their morning coffee interrupted by a bullet that struck an empty chair at the table. The hunting grounds from whence it came are over a mile from their house. Makes ya think. All enthusiasts, gun and otherwise, will aspire to getting the coolest thing, the next step up. If one own a Lou Gehrig signature baseball, one wants a Babe Ruth ball next. Perhaps this natural tendency ought be curbed with respect to the Gun Show, Guns & Ammo or whatever outlet is able to offer bigger and better.

[ac2007]

43. Hope the parents were found negligent then

Deny, I can respect your decision. If you can't handle the possibility of ending another person's life, don't retain the means to do so and hope for the best. It takes a lot of honest self-examination to reach a level of acceptance with the concept. Even then, someone ok with the theory may fail when forced to actually act. Reflection doesn't necessarily translate into reaction.

On the subject of kids finding Dad's gun, all I can say is I hope the parents were found negligent. Firearms owners who are serious about gun responsibility assume that Junior will find the gun and then take steps to make it not happen. I would never leave a loaded gun in an unsecured location that I wasn't physically present in and within sight of with children around. Part of raising kids around guns is teaching them proper respect. The other part is follow safe storage practices (which are often required by state law when minors are present in a home).

There are ways to keep guns readily available in a home with children. A weapon that cannot be reached and used quickly in a self-defense scenario is useless. For me, the solution will be education and a quick access safe that Junior won't be able to unlock. But if he does, he'll know not to touch the gun inside. Nor should he try since with proper education, there will be no curiousity or fascination with the contents of said safe.

Gun ownership is not having them as mere possessions. It (should) become part of your lifestyle even if you only one for casual plinking.

[Deny and Shred]

45. Thanks for the response, ac

The reflection part of your comment is what I can't get past, I've reflected and I know where I stand. You say "It should become part of your lifestyle" and it has no part in my lifestyle. I know that most gun owners are responsible, probably never have cause to use them in their lives. For others, it DOES become another option for conflict resolution, and I've experienced a couple instances where high emotion has caused someone (usually at a social gathering) to 'go get his gun.' When in an argument, many people only talk for so long, then they get violent. There is only so much damage done with fists or lesser weapons, particularly to bystanders.

America is a dangerous place, and I totally understand responsible gun ownership. I just refuse to submit to the notion of boogeymen, drug addicts, crazed serial killers, etc. who are hellbent on breaking in and killing everyone home. It has always struck me as more of an excuse to do or own what one wants, a way for manufacturers to push the market, the last bastion of the NRA - protect the family from the nutcases, we'll make the AKs readily available. I know it happens, Sean Taylor is a recent example. Again, maybe I'm naive and tonight's my night (knock on wood), but I lived in NYC, taught in the South Bronx, had addicts in my building, been mugged, had a girlfriend whose apartment was broken into, but through it all still don't believe arming everyone is the answer.

I have a good friend in London. He says the attitude over there at an argument is "have a go" - fisticuffs. Both parties know the other guy won't go get a gun, so they have a go, get it out of their systems, and either go their way or buy the other bloke a pint. Sometimes I think they are on to something.

[HiDemGunOwner]

64. You can deny it, but it still happens

"I just refuse to submit to the notion of boogeymen, drug addicts, crazed serial killers, etc. who are hellbent on breaking in and killing everyone home"

I am sure these folks never thought it would happen to them either....http://www.courttv.com/news/2007/0807/komisarjevsy_ctv.html

As far as your friend in London, he needs to read the paper. Violent crime in London has exceeded that in the US in almost all tracked categories. Firearm violence, despite a near complete ban, is at it's highest levels. The rate of "hot" burglaries (home invasions) is skyrocketing. Could it be that the bad guys know they have less to fear from a disarmed society? How many mugging in NYC resulted in death or serious injury to the victim? I don't know off the top of my head, but I bet it was more than a few.
here's one I found in about 10 seconds...http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/12/nyregion/12stab.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

How about Washington D.C., guns are practically banned there. What's their rate of firearm violence? What about Chicago and California...all of these places have stringent gun control yet have high violent crime rates.

I live in Hawaii and we are fortunate that hurricanes only infrequently make a direct hit on us. Does that mean that every year when I prepare for the worse by stocking up on supplies I am falling victim to baseless propaganda about the dangers of hurricane season?

Arming everyone is NOT the answer, but neither is disarming everyone. As responsible adults you should be able to choose how you wish to provide for and protect your property and family. If this includes arming yourself, so be it. If you choose not to, it's OK by me.

[SteveM]

63. Even a .22 has a range of over a mile...

and could have killed either person if it had struck them in a vital body area. The event you mentioned is rather rare; in fact, hunting accidents (where the firearm is directly involved) have been on a steady and drastic decline for years. I'm not sure how a "natural tendency ought be curbed with respect to the Gun Show, Guns & Ammo or whatever..." But whatever "curbs" are used most identify a true social problem and a solution which directly addresses, and can be measured vis-a-vis, the problem.

Our culture goes through waves of "next step up" acquisition: muscle cars in the early 60s, separate component stereo output from the 60s on, computer speed from the late 90s, gun power off and on, etc. I find it ironic that old lever action rifles of minimal "high power" status are still popular after all these years, and that my .270 (1925) and the .30-'06 (1906) remain the two MOST popular big-game cartridges to this day. And there are a surprising number of magnums at rather affordable prices in pawn. Half a box of 7mm or .300 will make you slink off to the hock shop with a bruised shoulder and bad groups at 100 yards.

It's hard to criminalize bad taste and ego tripping.

[Tejas]

91. No, you're not naive

you simply encountered an event that apparently shaped your life/beliefs. It happens to everyone, some develop "fears/phobias" due to these events. Nothing to be ashamed of, nothing for anyone to hold against you.

Me, I almost lost an eye as a child while playing with a BB gun, I still turned out okay ;)

[derby378]

49. Welcome! And I've got another site for you to visit...

Contains essays, candidates' positions on gun legislation, and more. Is John Nocita a Democratic candidate for Congress in your destrict? If so, we've got his take on gun issues. Check it out!

[Tejas]

92. Highly recommended! n/t

[fightthegoodfightnow]

50. THREE OUT OF FOUR

You write:

'1. It is very difficult to purchase a firearm in Illinois. "

AGREE

2. Not all gun owners are bad people, many own guns to make up for a lack of "equipment" but most are really nice.

AGREE

3. Many Progressives own guns! A slim majority may be repukes, but there are millions of good Dems and Indies that own guns.

AGREE

4. A political reality that I have always been aware of, but I didn't want to admit that gun control efforts harm our party and candidates.

TOTAL NONSENSE


.

[sabre73]

54. What!?!

Do you even follow politics??? Gun control efforts absolutely harm your party! "TOTAL NONSENSE"? Please.

Look, the bottom line is that your political party is undeniably trying to TAKE AWAY OUR RIGHTS as laid out in the bill of rights. Well not all of our rights, just the one.... For now. Until another form of control is needed to manipulate the masses. Maybe then we will not be allowed to write in forums such as these. Maybe Uncle Sam can just walk right into our homes and go through our private belongings "just because."

If we the people compromise our rights in any way then we forfeit ALL of our rights. What a non-Democratic Democracy we will have then.

It will be slavery. Don't think so? it is called gun "CONTROL6" for a reason.

So please tell us again how that is not hurting your Political party? We subservients would like to know.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

67. Compromise Your Rights?

Give me a break. You write my 'political party is undeniably trying to TAKE AWAY OUR RIGHTS as laid out in the bill of rights. '

You write: 'Until another form of control is needed to manipulate the masses. Maybe then we will not be allowed to write in forums such as these. Maybe Uncle Sam can just walk right into our homes and go through our private belongings "just because."

WHAT? Get in front of your shadow and you'll see there are no black helicopters. Walk into your home? Get anchored in reality....read the rest of your constitution regarding unreasonable searches and seizures.

It's amusing to hear you speak of slavery and rights since the Constitution as written during the time the Second Amendment was adopted permitted slavery.

Gun control as defined by background checks, waiting periods, gun registrations do nothing but protect the public.

[HiDemGunOwner]

68. OK...What do you call warrentless wiretaps and confiscation of legally owned, private property?

I suppose all of that fuss over the NY Times story of warrentless wiretaps (which were subsequently ruled illegal) and the confiscation of firearms from law abiding citizens in the aftermath of Katrina doesn't rise to the level of eroding constitutional rights. I bet those videos of LEOs breaking into homes in NO to look for holdouts and those with guns are just a hoax. And the one with the LEO tackling an old lady reluctant to leave, stating she had plenty of food and a gun to protect herself with, that wasn't excessive and didn't deprive her of her property, nor did it subject her to cruel and unusual "punishment" for legally owning a gun. What about Guantanamo...certainly no constitutional rights are being lost there....No, don't mind these things...it couldn't ever lead to having any more rights being trampled....

Don't forget that gun control has some of it's nexus in the whites trying to keep control of the blacks in the south.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

72. Search and Seizures

I believe warrant-less wiretaps without court supervision violates the Constitution and the same is true of warrant-less gun searches without court supervision.

[HiDemGunOwner]

79. but yet you continue to insist that erroding the rights in the 2nd

won't lead to further errosions to other rights within the Constitution? And, so you know my answer to your likely response that the Second Amendment doesn't support individual rights: It does, and many SCOTUS decisions and constitutional experts have agreed that it represents an individual right, not a collective or quasi-collective right as developed in the early 1900's.

[sabre73]

70. Do you really want to talk slavery?

The democratic party has no room to spout about SLAVERY!!

Read your history as well as your constitution and you will find out about slavery and who supported what.

I am by no way implying that the dems would condone it now (in the historical sense) but read and you will see who the strongest supporters of slavery were then.

For the record I have read the constitution and I can site for you any part you want I was just using quick reference to make it short enough to post. If you want to battle who's more thorough with there knowledge of the U.S. Constitution I will be happy to oblige.

Since I teach the constitution as a major part of my job I would relish it.

Black Helicopters!! (LOL) It alway entertains me to no end how those of us who want our guns are portrayed as saying such things but the truth is I have only ever heard such comments spouted by liberals and Hollywood screen writers!

Lastly, I am not anti background check. Not that you bothered to ask. I am not and NRA advocate. You will find that a lot of gun owners do not throw in with them. I wonder if anyone will ever ask the average gun owner what we believe or will they just continue to spout hate propaganda?

[Name removed]

71. Deleted message

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

[fightthegoodfightnow]

76. DISRESPECTFUL INDEED

How easy it is and DISRESPECTFUL of your own party and liberals like me to hold Democrats responsible for slavery and liberals responsible for black helicopters. Based on that, I could care less what you think of the Democratic party or me.

As for the subject of guns, there is nothing in the Constitution that does not allow for waiting periods, back ground checks, gun registration, or restrictions on who is qualified to own a gun.

[DeadEyeDyck]

98. You may be quite wrong

there is nothing in the Constitution that does not allow for waiting periods, back ground checks, gun registration, or restrictions on who is qualified to own a gun.

all of those limitations are infringements.

[bossy22]

74. boy

waiting periods and gun registrations do nothing but cost government money and hassle gun owners....background checks i agree with you.

[Tejas]

90. FTGFN still ignoring history, still saying it didn't happen and

still living in a dream.

If you didn't wake up from that dream in 1994, then you probably never will.

[sabre73]

55. Nice to hear it

I am glad you have found a sport that you like! It can be a lot of fun and educational. Not to mention a very good exercise if you join shooting competition groups like IDPA or IPSC!

Now if you will excuse me... My sensitive nature has been wounded and I must shed a tear in private for being called a "Repuke". :sarcasm: :patriot:

[Name removed]

73. Deleted message

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

[cgrindley]

75. You wanna meet gun toting Dems? Go hunting

there's nothing more blue collar than going deer or game bird hunting.

[Xenotime]

83. What?!?

[Name removed]

85. Deleted message

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

[Spoonman]

86. What's up with the personal attack?

Your post certainly has nothing to do with the post, but everything to do with this persons profile.

[iverglas]

88. goodness gracious me

Someone starts a thread that focuses on his inability to hook up with nice "liberal" chicks who like to play with guns and wonders aloud what the problem is, and a post is added that suggests an answer based on what said person has said, in his own words, and outrage ensues??

Colour moi confused.

If people don't want to know why they may be experiencing a lack of luck in attracting partners who are to their taste, maybe they shouldn't ask. If they ask, surely it is reasonable for someone to offer helpful suggestions.

[Spoonman]

89. OK

I hereby colour you confused!

But with a statement like:

If they ask, surely it is reasonable for someone to offer helpful suggestions.

I'm just being redundant.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

93. So You Bought a Gun Because of Your .......... Girl

Let's hope you survive the relationship.

Good luck with that.

[ManiacJoe]

94. I am sure that you meant

"with the help of" when you said "because of", right?

Otherwise, it seems odd that one would stay in a relationship where you think you might actually need protection from your partner.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

95. Reality

No.

What seems odd is marrying someone whose values you do not share prior to getting married.

[Turbo Teg]

96. For a begginer, you dove right in

with the H&K USP. Not a bad pistol. It's nice having the iron (er, plastic) there if you need it. I hope it serves you well, I'm glad you saw the light.

[DeadEyeDyck]

97. many own guns to make up for a lack of "equipment" but most are really nice.

you looked at their weannies???

[radioburning]

104. Pervert!

Us gun owners aren't just objects to be judged by our packages! Hello! My eyes are up here!;)