Gun Poll

[Adsos Letter]

This is posted because the recent debates have sparked my curiosity. If the question, or choices, seem ill-considered, please say so.

ON EDIT: I realize that this poll will only refect the opinions of those who actually answer, and will in no way reflect a breakdown of gun-ownership on DU. If you believe this to be an unwarranted intrusion into privacy, please say so.

If the poll is poorly worded, or tendentious, I apologize. I mean this to be objective.

This is not intended to be a debate about the legitimacy or right-headedness of the recent SCOTUS decision regarding the D.C. gun ban.

[Tunkamerica]

1. options five and six are the same, i assume the "no" was a typo

[Adsos Letter]

2. Thankyou Tunkamerica, I have corrected the option.

:hi:

[Speck Tater]

3. Other.

I have owned guns in the past for recreational (target) shooting. I do not currently own any guns, but I would not be happy about having my right to do so taken away.

[Adsos Letter]

4. Thankyou for taking the time to explain your position.

:hi:

[krispos42]

5. I own guns, would use them to defend me and mine...

...and hope to god that if I ever have to, it is so obviously justified that I'm not too emotionally scarred by it.

[Adsos Letter]

6. Thankyou for taking the time to explain your position.

:hi:

[AndyTiedye]

7. I Don't Like Guns, So I Don't Own Any

I don't want to take away yours, unless they are pointed at me.

[Adsos Letter]

8. Thankyou for taking the time to explain your position.

:hi:

[Blue State Bandit]

9. And I will cling to my gun and my religon...

if I ever have to sit at the top of my steps praying to god that I don't have to shoot the burglar climbing thru my window.

[Adsos Letter]

11. Thankyou for taking the time to explain your position.

:hi:

[LWolf]

143. Do you have reason to think that

your home might be targeted?

[Newshues]

10. I own no guns

I have no problems with others owning guns for defense or recreation.

The reason I own no guns is that I recognize that I am not a good candidate for gun ownership. I am too quick to anger over trifling things which is funny because I'm very slow to anger over important things.

There is a long family history of "blind rage" that takes the form of complete cognitive black outs to the extent that no recall of the situation which lead to the "blind rage" and there is no rational thought going on when it happens. Having experienced that myself as a teen ( and seriously injuring another teen who rightly deserved it ) and recognizing that what sets me off is often what, in hindsight, I find to be trivial things, I acknowledge that I am not a good candidate to have easy and ready access to any firearm.

That does not mean that I do not know how to use a firearms, nor does it mean that I wouldn't pick one up under any circumstances. It just means that I love my freedom and my family more than I feel the need to own a gun.

If I believed that serious restrictions on firearms was going to occur I would run out and get one so as to be grandfathered. I would not turn over any firearms for an outright ban of all guns.

[Adsos Letter]

12. Thankyou for taking the time to explain your position.

:hi:

[Fox Mulder]

13. I'm a peace activist.

I'll never own a gun. And I do have problems with people who do own them, but that's another discussion.

[Adsos Letter]

14. Thankyou for taking the time to explain your position.

:hi: and your website link is quite cool.

[peacebutterfly]

30. I believe in ahimsa

I'm with you. I too am a pacifist and I know for a fact that violence only increases violence, as hate increases hate, and on and on until we fail to see our beautiful connections to each other, and how very essential every life truly is. The only way to resolve conflict is through the conscious efforts toward peace for all mankind. Peace, love, and sunshine!

[Adsos Letter]

34. Thankyou for taking the time to explain your position.

:hi:

[Tunkamerica]

44. quite a first post to live up to

welcome

[Lisa0825]

83. Welcome to DU!

Nice to have you here! :pals:

[defendandprotect]

113. Best message here --- !!!

[Xenotime]

107. Same here.

[Super Soaker Sniper]

15. If I Ever Call 911 because of a burglary

someone is dead. The lives of my family and my own take precedence over anyone else's. Within the confines of my house, the life of anyone who comes to steal or do us harm is, in my view, forfeit.

[Adsos Letter]

16. Thankyou for taking the time to explain your position.

:hi:

[Tunkamerica]

45. i understand and am not anti-gun

but i have to ask... are possessions worth more than a life? If it was a choice between a tv and someone's life would you choose the tv?

[old mark]

52. A problem with this idea is:

Do you KNOW for sure that the person sneaking into your home at 3 AM is just after your TV? Would you trust the lives of your family to the kindness, mercy, sense of fairness, good judgement of womeone who has broken into your home? Would you put the lives of your family in that persons hands for political sentiment or principle?

That's a lot to think about atr 3 AM.

I own guns, and am licensed to carry them and I have had one occasion to take one out of my pocket to defend myself. Fortunately the simple fact that I had a gun in my hand was enough to make my 2 potential attackers back away, and run down the block.
I am very glad I had it at the time, and very glad I didn't have to fire it.
FWIW, the occasion was the second time I was allowed to drive a car after quadruple bypass surgery. It was at 1 PM, about 2 blocks from the main police station.


mar

[Wcross]

53. It isn't about a T.V. set.

If a homeowner is at home and a criminal enters the home how does the homeowner know WHAT the criminal desires? It isn't as if the criminal shouts out "I'm just here for the TV set, not to rape & murder everyone" Who knows why a criminal is entering your home?
It is a non issue if the home is burglarized since nobody is at home property is the only thing that can be lost. Why would a criminal enter an occupied home? I am not going to ask him, I am going to assume the worst.

[Super Soaker Sniper]

55. He is in my house

he does not belong there and I will assume he intends my family harm. I refuse to assume anything else when the safety of my family is at stake. I will not even consider any other option for him than he is a threat to my family and will be treated as such.

As far as possessions, he has no right to them and they better be worth his life because that is what he is risking.

[Hangingon]

76. That is also a question for the home invader.

For my part, if you are in my home and I feel my family is threatened, i will act to protect them.

[salin]

79. I will stick with my alarm system

and the knowledge that there is a police station within two blocks. I feel quite safe, and wouldn't want to deal with the emotional aftermath of taking another person's life if it was avoidable. ymmv

[Super Soaker Sniper]

92. I respect your views on this

but my standard of unavoidable is he could avoided coming into my house. I protect my family and I let the police clean up the mess. You know what they say, "When seconds count, the police are only minutes away."

[LWolf]

145. I understand that.

At least the part about defending my family. I don't own anything worth a life, and I would not kill to protect stuff.

I notice on this thread an assumption that people coming to steal stuff also mean harm to the living on the premises. I'm not sure I understand that.

There are a few situations where that might be true, but I believe they would be rare.

What I don't understand is the world view that assumes that people are out to get us, and our stuff, and that we'd better be prepared to kill them to prevent it.

If I'm ever faced with someone who wants to harm me or my family, I'll do whatever I have to do to defend us. That scenario is too unlikely to spend my life planning for it, though.

[Ikonoklast]

17. I own rifles, shotguns, and handguns

I've known how to use all three from a very early age.

As do my three adult children, who were taught firearm safety, along with a great many other things that responsible adults teach their children.

I would use whatever force necessary to protect my person, and my loved ones, from harm.

I hope I never need to do so.

[Adsos Letter]

19. Thankyou for taking the time to explain your position.

:hi:

[Mugu]

18. Come in my home uninvited

and something quite unpleasant is going to happen.

[Adsos Letter]

20. Thankyou for taking the time to explain your position.

:hi:

[greenvpi]

21. Never realized there were so many violent, hateful people here!

WTF!

[Adsos Letter]

22. Thankyou for taking the time to...uh... explain your position.

:hi:

[riverdeep]

24. Actually, the violent, hateful people are the ones these people here are trying to stop. n/t

[Adsos Letter]

28. Not everyone is opting for the "defense of self or another" option, although the majority of respond

[Ikonoklast]

27. Question: Have you ever been the victim of a violent crime?

If you were, how did you respond?

If not, would you let the criminal do whatever he wanted to your person, and remain non-violent, even if it meant your life was forfeit?

Self-defense is not 'hateful'. It is one of the most basic of human rights.

But passivity in the face of physical violence directed at your person will get you dead.

[greenvpi]

31. "self-defense" is escalating the violence.

Just because you feel you have an excuse to commit violence doesn't make it right. If you decide to commit violence because you feel it is right, then what is stopping others from doing the same. I don't understand why people just don't get this?

[Ikonoklast]

37. So a jerk with the baseball bat gets to beat me silly?

And I take it, or 'I'm escalating the violence'?

Wow.

I'm not calling you naive, but in my world, there are bad people. I've run into such people. They would take your life for the change in your pocket.

I won't let them.

[Two Americas]

41. it is?

I can't imagine how self-defense escalates violence.

Failing to stand up to bullies, to use a fundamental lesson as an example, does not end the bullying and misery.

Human beings have a right to defend themselves and their loved ones, their children. Many animals will fight to the death to save their cubs - is that "violence?" Does that make the predator more or less likely to do violence in the future to the prospective victims?

It seems highly immoral, as well as dangerous, to deny any creature the right to self defense.

Perhaps you are among the fortunate and have proxies to defend you, in the form of a armed-to-the-teeth well-staffed and highly responsive local suburban law enforcement agents.

Someone is defending your life. Someone is standing out on the perimeter. I would bet that there are people you are close to who would lay down their life to save yours.

How does any of this "escalate the violence?" Just today I was watching a dog terrorize and torment a cat. Finally, one vicious swat to the dog's nose from the claws of the cat, and like magic all violence immediately ended.

[Mugu]

42. Resisting an attack is escalating violence?

You're prey, I'm not.

[hack89]

46. No - it is ending a crime

the difference between you and me is that I see the moral difference between protecting my family and some criminal preying on the innocent. If your moral compass does not enable you to tell the difference between right and wrong then of what value is it?

[Jack_DeLeon]

47. holy fucking shit...

are you one of those "violence begets violence" types?

Cause I agree with that completely. If someone commits violence against me or those that I care about I can only hope it begets more violence against them. Cause when someone commits an act of violence for no reason and they get away with it without any harm that will only encourage them to do it more.

[cherokeeprogressive]

61. Turn the other cheek?

[virginia mountainman]

65. If you really WAS a pacifist...

You would do what ever it took, to stop the killing...INCLUDING KILLING THE KILLER, before he kills more people....

Since you are unwilling to do that, that makes you a hypocrite.

Your perfectly willing, to allow a murder go on killing Innocent people, because of your "moral beliefs" tell that to the people he kill and maim AFTER you allow him to run free...

That is cowardice, plain and simple. It is cowardice, because you refuse to even follow your own pacifist views, and stop the killer, from killing more..

[Pavulon]

71. I like my life..I enjoy living it..

someone forcing me to choose between my life and theirs by placing themselves in that situation is the responsible party. I will choose to be able to wake up the next day.

If that means using force as a last option I will do so.

Very simple.

[Hangingon]

77. "Self-defense" ends the violence.

Please remember that the home invader is the aggressor. It is the aggressor who causes my response to his actions.

[Xenotime]

109. Agreed. I'm also amazed at the number of paranoid people here..

that justify self-defense as a reason to own guns. Are you all THAT high profile that you need protection where ever you go? I just don't see it.

[New Dawn]

114. ROFL, are you serious?

So if a fascist was trying to kill you, and you had a gun, you would not use it to defend yourself? That is simply irrational, not principled.

[Wcross]

54. Violent hateful people?

Because someone is willing to defend their life they are violent & hateful? I didn't know there were some here who support the rights of criminals to rape & murder without the risk of being injured.

[pt22]

58. Indeed...all those loving, peaceful guys breaking into the house are just

misunderstood and need some cuddling.
:eyes:

[Edweird]

72. This place is FULL of hate.

They hate you:
if you're from Florida;
if you own guns;
if you have a pitbull;
if you eat meat;
if you see a use for any motorized transportation bigger than a soda can;
if you think illegal immigration is anything less than the greatest thing since sliced bread.....

I'm all the above, so I get "hated on" a lot around here by the "holier than thou's" quite a bit.
If it were up to them, I'm sure I wouldn't be allowed to be a Democrat or post here. But it isn't.
I'm sure you'll fit right in.

[Lorien]

135. Hmmm, I've heard the very same sentiments

on another site....

So, why are you here?

[Edweird]

149. I am a Democrat.

I am a Liberal.
I absolutely fucking despise the RW and everything they stand for.
Got it?

Who the fuck are you to question why I'm here?

[Xenotime]

108. Exactly. It's not very progressive.. It almost reads like a freeper site.

[old mark]

136. so you think criminals are progressive

and those who decide to defend against criminals are not?
Where did this idea come from?
mark

[Lorien]

134. Welcome to the "Big Tent" that is the Democratic party

Republicans= far right extremist wackos.

Democrats= everyone who isn't a far right extremist wacko, including conservative hawks, greens, libertarians, socialists, NRA members...you name it.

[Lisa0825]

23. Other... I have no guns, but have *some* issues with those who use them for defense.

Since the choices are only have issues or have no issues, it makes it sound like having issues means you think it's wrong on all accounts. I think many people are too quick to depend on a gun for defense of property. I have no problem with using a gun to defend a person, but property can be replaced.

[Adsos Letter]

25. Thanks for your feedback on the question. You are correct, the choice is poorly worded...

I cannot edit it at this point. I actually thought about including the "defense of property as opposed to life" option, but thought the poll was getting too long as it was.

I wish now that I had included it.

:hi:

[Mugu]

39. Step over the threshold of my home uninvited

and intent ceases to be an issue. I can retreat no further and I'm not a mind reader.

[Lisa0825]

57. But if you saw someone leaving your house with a TV, would you shoot him on the way out? nt

[Edweird]

66. That would most likely net you a murder charge.

Shooting people in the back is generally frowned upon.

[Lisa0825]

68. Yes I realize that.

But the reply sounded as if anyone caught on the property in any state was fair game, so I thought it was a fair question.

[Hangingon]

78. I don't think all property can be replaced.

The Craftsman tool box that was stolen from my garage was pretty easy to replace. The tools my garndfather left me can't be replaced. A diamond can be bought, but my grandmother's ring can't be replaced.

[Lisa0825]

86. Property does not hold equal value to life.

I am perfectly at ease with the concept of protecting lives, and even assuming an intruder is going to hurt you rather than just rob you, but there are times when it has been obvious that ALL that was going on was a burglary, and a homeowner has killed the the criminal. I don't think taking life PURELY to keep property is justified.

(I'm not 100% sure if I have these details correct... but this is at least close to what happened) A man in the Houston area a year or so ago saw two guys robbing his neighbor's house (no one there was home). He called 911 and gave them the play by play. He confronted the men outside, after telling the 911 operator what he was going to do. He shot and killed them both, and I believe at least one was shot in the back.

That man is a murderer.

edit for link to the story: http://www.click2houston.com/news/14643409/detail.html

[Hangingon]

94. The Houston man is Joe Horn.

A grand jury is now considering his actions and should decide next week. I believe it is the second grand jury. I hope they will decide to indict. It will take a jury to determine that he is a murderer. Personally, I believe he acted within Texas law although he stretched it about as far as it will go. The odds are that a jury will find him innocent. If the grand jury does not indict, he will be subject to continuing grand jury actions.

How do you know that it is obviously just a burglary? People have invaded your home. They are taking things from you. When you challenge, you have a very short time space to determine the level of danger. To err is to suffer injury or death for yourself or your family. I would call 911, leave the phone on and issue a challenge stating that I am armed and afraid for my life for the operator to hear. Then rounds go down range.

[Lisa0825]

104. Exactly what I said....

"How do you know that it is obviously just a burglary? People have invaded your home. They are taking things from you. When you challenge, you have a very short time space to determine the level of danger. To err is to suffer injury or death for yourself or your family."

I said that in that moment you have to decide, I understand erring on the side of being in imminent danger. But if you see someone leaving your house with a TV, shooting him in the back is no longer self defense. In fact, confronting them at that point probably puts you in MORE danger than letting them go.

I think Joe Horn is most definitely a murderer. He shot people who were LEAVING, who were not posing a physical threat to him. He took their lives for the sake property that was not even his own. If life is of so little value to him, then he is more of a danger to society than the burglars.

[Hangingon]

123. Well we differ.

You do not approve of taking a life for property and "think" Joe Horn is murderer. Just because you think he is, does not make hime one. It is interesting that you have no problem with people taking something from someone else. I guess I think of defending the right to private property as defending my (our?) culture.

Because someone is leaving doesn't necessarily mean they are no threat. They are avoiding being caught, afraid, mad and/or under the influence of drugs or alcohol. You do not know. They may well fire at you. Remember that you are dealing with a different mentality - drug addicts, gangs. Around here these people whoo spray a hosue with gunfire.

In Horn's case, Texas law all allows for the defense of a neighbors property. I guess it is part of a sense of community. The five neighbors who live around me would defend my property as I would defend theirs. I guess some would deem this archaic and out of place in our new sophisticated society.

[Lisa0825]

133. In MY OPINION he is one.

That is what "I think" means. Of course I have a problem with people stealing, but that doesn't mean I think that material possessions are equivalent to LIFE. I would even grant that more force is acceptable depending on the value of the property... for example, if someone is stealing a tv or computer, I do not think deadly force is warranted if they are leaving the premises, and are not confronting you (most likely thinking you are asleep). However, if someone is about to steal or destroy what amounts to your life savings, or the whole basis of your income, that threatens your ability to provide for your family. But I don't think even you can really think that a petty thief running out the door with your TV is worthy of a death sentence.

In fact, that brings up a good point.... who in this topic is in favor of the death penalty? It seems most progressives are not. So, are you in favor of the death penalty for stealing a stereo? Or only if you get to pull the trigger?

[Hangingon]

140. I don't favor the death penalty for burgulary.

Defense of property does not equate to dealing out justice in my mind. Courts pass out justice. If someone invades my home, I am not passing a sentence of death when I defend myself, my family and my property. In fact, I am using force - potentially deadly force - to stop the invaders aggression.

[benEzra]

154. I am very pro-self-defense, and would not use a gun to protect property...

that's what we have insurance for, IMO.

[Irreverend IX]

26. History and legal precedent make it clear...

That people in the US are not owed protection by the government or any other entity. That is a major reason why I own guns and would use them in self-defense, though I hope the need never arises.

[Adsos Letter]

29. Thankyou for taking the time to explain your position.

:hi:

[Adsos Letter]

32. I HAVE TO LEAVE NOW...keep voting, and giving your reasons for your positions...

...PLEASE DO NOT ALLOW THIS TO TURN INTO A FLAMEFEST...

I am quite pleased that people have responded to the poll with civility and have, for the most part, refused to engage in flamebait or arguments.

Thankyou for keeping it civil. I will check in tomorrow to see how things have shaken out

[devilgrrl]

33. I don't own any guns and don't have any issues

except for my own of course. :crazy:

[Adsos Letter]

35. ...lol!... Thankyou for taking the time to explain your position.

:hi:

[east texas lib]

36. I'm a gun owner...

And while I believe that using a gun should be the last resort, I would indeed use deadly force to
preserve the lives of my loved ones, the lives of innocents around me, as well as my own if ever
becomes necessary to do so.

[Adsos Letter]

38. Thankyou for taking the time to explain your position.

:hi:

[Two Americas]

40. own no guns, have no issues n/t

...

[beevul]

43. I own 1 (or more) guns, and would use them to defend myself or another

I own 1 (or more) guns, and would use them to defend myself or another

Thats me.

I hope I never have to use a firearm that way though.

[TexasObserver]

48. It's reassuring to see that a large majority here understand and support the second amendment

[depakid]

49. Response bias isn't reassuring

it's simply an artifact of these sorts of polls. For similar reasons, pro gun sites usually overwhelm other information on google keyword searches on the internt at large (due to the nature of the PageRank algorithm).

Neither of these reflects the actual public opinion either on DU, in America or especially abroad.

[Edweird]

64. Response bias? Deluded much? 200+ million guns. 60 Million residents.

Gun owners are not some fringe minority. You've spent too much time in the echo chamber.

[depakid]

75. No, if anything I've spent too much time abroad in SANE nations

and yes, the vocal pro-gun proliferation sorts across the net ARE fringe groups that are way out of touch with the mainstream, even in America.

Moreover (perhaps because I've not lost my ability to think critically and abstractly) I know BS like response bias when I see it.

Good stuff to think about, btw: as Americans are by far the most unquestioning poll manipulated people in the western world.

[Edweird]

88. Using insults instead of facts doesn't prove anything but your character.

200 million guns. 60 Million residents.
These are privately owned firearms, no military or police weapons.
Those are numbers provided by the FBI and The Census Bureau.
All you've offered is "I'm right and you're wrong because I say so"
Same old authoritarian nonsense.

If gun owners are a "fringe group", surely such a well traveled, abstractly and critically thinking, BS detecting, poll resistanting, braniac such as yourself (c'mon tell us what a "great catch" you are while you're at it, LOL) can offer some FACTS to substantiate that position, no?


I expect not. The gun grabbers/haters here resort to insults and lies because the FACTS don't support their positions.

[depakid]

95. Typical projection that I've long since come to expect

from folks who have their roots in right wing causes like gun proliferation. Goes with the territory.

The majority of gun owners in the states are most assuredly NOT among the vocal fringe groups (or the paranoids and obsessives) for whom no regulation, no matter ho benign is reasonable.

Moreover, as I mentioned, people in other western nations- Canada to the North for instance- and Australia to the south- both of which have a "frontier" history in common with the United States have profoundly different- and far more rational and functional attitudes towards firearms- particularly hand guns, high capacity rifles (assault weapons) and pump action shotguns.

And while it may come as some surprise to those who demand their unfettered "rights" irrespective of the costs to others- most folks IRL or around the world don't feel that way.

[Edweird]

99. Just as I thought. No facts, just cheap backhanded implications.

Furthermore, you keep trying to change the goalposts, which is also lame-o.

I do not live in Canada, nor do I live in Australia. We have had this exact exchange before, and it bores me.

As far as my rights go (this also ties in to your pussyish attempt at calling me a RWer) it's not the LEFT crying "give up your rights or people will die" it's the RIGHT. The RW supports guns FOR THE RW. Eric Prince is about as fundie RW nutjob wacko as you can get. If you recall New Orleans, his guys were CONFISCATING firearms. So your pathetic attempt to tie my support for the bill of rights, ALL OF THEM, to some "roots in right wing causes" is more of the same old "gosh golly gee, I just *feel* so strongly about this that I *must* be superior and therefore can rely on passion instead of FACTS" attitude that permeates many gun grabber/hater post like the putrid stench of rotting flesh.

Lastly, you keep harping about how Australia is *SOOOO* much like the US. Fine. Tell you what. I'll fly to Australia if you will go to the bar of my choosing and walk up to every person individually and tell them they are just like Americans and Australia is exactly like the US. If you're right, and we are so much alike, then you'll be fine. If not.......
I'll buy you whatever beer (or other drink) you want. Hospital and ambulance fees are on you.

[depakid]

101. "Hospital and ambulance fees are on you."

Actually, as Americans- they're on you, but that's besides the point and obfuscates the issue.

Here's some cool facts adduced in a peer reviewed publication called the British Medical Journal:

Australia’s 1996 gun law reforms: faster falls in firearm deaths, firearm suicides, and a decade without mass shootings

Background: After a 1996 firearm massacre in Tasmania in which 35 people died, Australian governments united to remove semi-automatic and pump-action shotguns and rifles from civilian possession, as a key component of gun law reforms.

Objective: To determine whether Australia’s 1996 major gun law reforms were associated with changes in rates of mass firearm homicides, total firearm deaths, firearm homicides and firearm suicides, and whether there were any apparent method substitution effects for total homicides and suicides.

Design: Observational study using official statistics. Negative binomial regression analysis of changes in firearm death rates and comparison of trends in pre–post gun law reform firearm-related mass killings.

Setting: Australia, 1979–2003.

Main outcome measures: Changes in trends of total firearm death rates, mass fatal shooting incidents, rates of firearm homicide, suicide and unintentional firearm deaths, and of total homicides and suicides per 100 000 population.

Results: In the 18 years before the gun law reforms, there were 13 mass shootings in Australia, and none in the 10.5 years afterwards. Declines in firearm-related deaths before the law reforms accelerated after the reforms for total firearm deaths (p = 0.04), firearm suicides (p = 0.007) and firearm homicides (p = 0.15), but not for the smallest category of unintentional firearm deaths, which increased. No evidence of substitution effect for suicides or homicides was observed. The rates per 100 000 of total firearm deaths, firearm homicides and firearm suicides all at least doubled their existing rates of decline after the revised gun laws.

Conclusions: Australia’s 1996 gun law reforms were followed by more than a decade free of fatal mass shootings, and accelerated declines in firearm deaths, particularly suicides. Total homicide rates followed the same pattern. Removing large numbers of rapid-firing firearms from civilians may be an effective way of reducing mass shootings, firearm homicides and firearm suicides.

Full paper: http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/12/6/365

[Edweird]

103. Ok, so you're an expert on Australian gun control. Pat yourself on the back.

Now, back to the US.

Australia is *NOT* the US.

Gun owners in the US are not a fringe element.
Left wing gun owners are not a fringe element.
Supporting the second amendment is *NOT* a right wing cause.
The RW would happily and enthusiastically revoke every right we have, including the second amendment given the opportunity.

"Give up your rights or people will die" is a right wing talking point.

[depakid]

105. I'm no different than anyone who can read and think critically

Sometimes we have to look askance and accept that certain beliefs we may have held aren't rational when confronted by valid data and observations (both personal and collective from other peoples observations) over time.

A lot of what we "think" is emotional- and there's dichotomy there.

Facts are different than emotion though- and it seems to me at least that looking at the facts- the repeated mass shootings, the daily senseless violence and tragedies made all too easy by easy access to macho guns, the conclusion is unmistakable.

And is well reflected in the comparative stats.

[Edweird]

111. Yeah, because Chicago and D.C. were beacons of safety and longevity,

models of crime and violence free society, until the USSC went and ruined everything, right?

I don't think so.

[sl8]

124. A few comments about that study

At least one of the authors, Simon Chapman, was, or is, affiliated with the Coalition for Gun Control. I haven't check the co-authors affiliations.

A study in the British Journal of Criminology, "Gun Laws and Sudden Death: Did the Australian Firearms Legislation of 1996 Make a Difference?", came to rather different conclusions. From the article abstract:

"AutoRegressive Integrated Moving Average (ARIMA) was used to predict future values of the time series for homicide, suicide and accidental death before and after the 1996 National Firearms Agreement (NFA). When compared with observed values, firearm suicide was the only parameter the NFA may have influenced, although societal factors could also have influenced observed changes."

Both of the authors, Jeanine Baker and Samara McPhedran, seem to be affiliated with shooting organizations.

Here's a link to the transcript of a television interview with Chapman and McPhedran:

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/lawreport/stories/2006/1776336.htm

[TexasObserver]

98. They're intellectually dishonest about this issue, AND they can't count

[Hangingon]

80. I have a had time seeing DU as a "pro-gun" site.

[Irreverend IX]

132. Forget this poll...

I think a better barometer for pro-gun vs. anti-gun support is the number of blogs dedicated to the two viewpoints. I know of dozens of pro-gun blogs. Here's a list of more than a hundred:

http://truthlaidbear.com/communitypage.php?community=gunblogs

As for anti-gun blogs, I know of three: the Brady Campaign blog, the Gun Guys blog (actually written by just one guy), and a blog by a guy who goes by JadeGold. Of these three, the first two are written by paid lobbyists; only the first represents an individual's opinion.

Also, you can compare the NRA with the Brady Campaign and other anti-gun organizations. The NRA is the very definition of a grassroots organization, with its funding coming from its 4 million dues-paying members. The Brady Campaign, VPC and their associated network of anti-gun sites are run in a top-down fashion, receiving the majority of their funding and their marching orders from the Joyce Foundation. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see which viewpoint enjoys deeper public support.

[ldr65]

50. I own guns and will use them to protect my home and family.

I own several guns, including evil black rifles. Although I would hate to use them in self defense, I would not hesitate to do so. To me protection of home and family is just something you do.

[LWolf]

63. I agree, to a point.

Do you feel that your home and family are under threat?

I have a hypothesis: that those who who feel threatened, who live in fear, are more likely to attract threat than those who don't.

[ldr65]

117. Anyone who enters my home uninvited, I consider a threat.

[LWolf]

142. That could be.

Or it could be the local cable company, who came through a closed gate, dug a trench to my power pole (in a pasture,)did some work, and left, without ever notifying me that they would be on the property.

It could be the neighbor or friend who wasn't invited, but, finding the place unlocked, came in to leave a note.

I'm a very private person, but I don't automatically assume that anyone who steps onto my place is a threat.

I have some friends who regularly stop by to pick up stuff they've borrowed, and borrow other things. All things they can get in the barn or the shop, but they come in to use the bathroom, too. They'll usually call me to tell me that they've been there, but not always.

If I lived in an area that might be subject to break-ins, I'd probably use the locks. Have you experienced people coming into your home uninvited, getting past locks?

[cabbage08]

51. Interesting results

....

[last_texas_dem]

56. I don't own any guns

- If I ever lived in an area where I felt truly unsafe I might consider owning one for the purpose of self-defense, but can't see myself owning one for any other reason. The idea of owning a gun does not interest or appeal to me.

- I don't have issues with, specifically, others that own guns owning guns.

[bvar22]

59. We own "one or more" guns....

...and would use them to protect our stock from varmints (coyote, bear, coon, weasel, opossum, other), or to put down injured stock, or to put down a rabid wild animal (rabies way up here).

I guess "varmint" could include the human variety....never really thought about it.
We still leave our doors unlocked here.

[LWolf]

60. Other:

I do not own guns, and I have never own guns. I have no issue with people who own guns for practical purposes. I have issues with people who own guns for "recreational" uses that kill things for no purpose other than sport. I have issues with people whose guns are phallic symbols, or symbols of status or defiance. I have issues with people who think that guns make them safer, and whose insecurities are soothed by gun ownership. I am ambivalent about gun use for self-defense. I don't oppose it in the rare instance where it will prevent loss of life, but I believe that there are more accidents and irresponsible shootings than there are legitimate self-defense shootings, and I think there should be a better way.

What that better way might be? I'm not sure. I'd start with a shift in consciousness regarding fear, aggression, and competition. Without that, I don't have answers.

[L0oniX]

62. Home invasion murderers ...I have a surprise waiting for you.

"I disagree with what the majority of the American people want." John McCain

[MilesColtrane]

67. Anyone breaking into my home will be introduced to my little friend.

The first shell is bird shot. If that doesn't get their attention, it's 00 buckshot after that.

[-..__...]

74. Say ello to my little frien...

(picture was taken before I mounted a Surefire light under the barrel)



Mossberg 500 Cruiser loaded with 5 Winchester Super X 000 buckshot shells in the tube, and 1 Super X deerslug in the pipe.

[Selatius]

141. Heh, I like the little Hello Kitty sticker on the side. nt

[Hangingon]

82. I keep the chamber empty.

Racking a pump is an attention getter. No bird shot, the tube is full of XX.

[Thothmes]

139. Also my choice, Mossberg pump 12 gauge shotgun with 00 buck

[OhioChick]

69. I own 1 (or more) guns,

Protection/Self Defense purposes. Home invasions and rapes are on the rise here. In these situations, I wouldn't hesitate to use them. C'mon....a 100 lb. chick hasn't got a chance in hell trying to over-power a 200 lb. guy. I took several NRA courses and am properly trained to use a gun.

[sammythecat]

102. A perfect response,

and why your reasoning doesn't make perfect sense to absolutely everyone is beyond me. If I were your friend or relative, I'd be badgering you to take the very steps you've taken. Not to do what you have done is foolishly negligent.

In my own case, although I take care of my body, I'm 5'8" and 57 years old. Me and a baseball bat versus a young thug and whatever weapon he has, is not a match up I want to have anything to do with. Plus, I live in a rural area and the nearest police barracks is 14.2 miles away. I'm sure they'll do a bang up job of investigating what happened to me, but they ain't gonna do shit to stop anything.

I think having a firearm, and knowing exactly how to use it, greatly increases peace of mind whenever hearing mysterious bumps in the night. I know that I have, at the very least, an even chance of defending myself should the unthinkable happen.

Why anyone would not want to have, or be AFRAID to have, that kind of assurance is a mystery to me. The fact that some would want to prevent me or anyone else from having that assurance is downright offensive to me. How dare they. The odds of me ever having to defend my life, or anyone else's, with a gun are probably millions to one, the only certainty is that if such an unfortunate event ever occurred, the anti-gun people aren't going to be there to help out. It'll be me and my baseball bat. If I'm forced to use a deadly weapon against an assailant, then, goddamn it, I want an effective deadly weapon. I want to stop the assailant before I can smell his breath.

For the record, I want to say that in my 20's and 30's I was very much opposed to handgun ownership. Obviously some will argue differently, but I think I've become a little wiser and a little more sensible and realistic as I've grown older. I have a .40 Sig p239, I know where it is and I'm glad it's there.

[OhioChick]

130. Thank you for taking the time to respond....

To be quite frank, I thought I'd be reamed for my response. I feel that I have a "right" to defend myself, and those I care about. My family came from PA, so gun ownership was never a issue.....everyone owned one, or several. From a young age, my Father taught me how to use various rifles and handguns.

I don't believe that people should just go out and purchase a gun without taking a few classes, as well as trying several guns at a firing range to find what suits one best. I taught my Son from a young age (as well as NRA classes) how to use a firearm if the need ever arose, in which I hope it never does. When I say this, I don't mean for one to leave their guns lying around for their children to find. If someone has young children and owns guns, they should be kept locked up...as young kids "find" things, no matter where hidden. With that being said, my Son is older now and quite responsible and knows where mine are hidden.

As for a baseball bat and being so petite, a large man would likely pry the thing from my hands and beat me with it. Like you, I want an effective deadly weapon...one with "stopping power." I have one for every floor of my home. (If you're in the basement and hear someone upstairs....and your gun is up there...what good does that do you?) Plus, the Cleveland police are known for taking quite a bit of time to show up.....time which I wouldn't have.

One of mine is a Springfield XD 40. I feel safe in my home with it....it supplies me with "peace of mind." I don't feel that anyone has the right to take that "right" away from me. One shouldn't have to live in fear.

[Edweird]

70. I own guns.

[WindRiverMan]

73. I own a few guns, mostly for hunting

as I am a firm believer in "living off of the land" and still raise my family on meat that we hunt and kill both ungulates and birds, as well as salmon, garden crops,and eggs from the chicken coop.

I only have one handgun, and that was given to me as a gift a long time ago. I never even fired a round through it. It is the only gun that I keep readily handy and with ammunition stored nearby (both in my bedroom), but never loaded.

If someone enters my home late at night, I wound assume that they were there for no good reason, and intend to do me harm. Mostly I would make that assumption because if they just wanted to steal my stuff, they could easily enter during the day when I am most likely not at home. Anyone coming into my house in the wee hours of the morning has a pretty good idea I am home, and probably intends to do me or my family harm.

Yes, I would readily defend myself, and have no problem with anyone defending themselves. If you have never been the victim of a violent crime, consider yourself lucky, but realize that when it happens, defending yourself becomes paramount, and when you cannot, it is the most helpless feeling in the world.

[tammywammy]

81. Other

I own no guns and have no problem with people owning them for self-defense, target shooting or hunting. I agree with the SCOTUS ruling this week.

[krabigirl]

84. Wow. I do have issues with guns..they make me uncomfortable, but banning I don't agree with.

However, I am amazed that most people own one or more guns. I don't, and never will, own a gun, and growing up, no one in my family ever owned one. Ok, my Dad had a BB gun.

[Madrone]

85. Other -

I have more than one gun and do not know if I could/would use them to defend myself or another.

If someone broke into my house forget it - I'd never find a gun, ammo to match it, get it loaded, etc - unless the perp decided to sit down on the couch and hang out for 6 months. :) Maybe.

If I had something in hand and it was me or them? Possibly - but who really knows what you're capable of in a crisis situation until it occurs? I think if I were to shoot someone I'd at least attempt to aim for something non-vital - like a kneecap. But when it came down to it, could I really shoot another human being? I just don't really know. I don't really believe I'll ever be in that situation though - and if I am ever attacked firearms will not even enter the equation. Even though I have a CC I've never carried - and I don't have ready access if something ever happened I'd need to defend myself against.

[MasonJar]

87. I chose number 2 because I do agree with it, but I'd have to buy bullets first.

[Adsos Letter]

89. Thankyou to everyone who has participated so far...please be aware...

that the "other" option is there to try and compensate for my obvious lack of nuance in setting this thing up.

Or, alternatively, to castigate me for creating a non-sensical poll...

[Maine-ah]

90. We own 2

usually for target, can be used for hunting if we did go hunting, but we don't. I also would have no problem using them in self defense. Shot guns btw, not hand guns.

[MrSlayer]

91. Why have a gun if you wouldn't use it for it's intended purpose?

I have a few guns and would certainly use them to protect myself and my family.

[papapi]

93. As long as criminals have access to guns law abiding citizens should too....

I guess then that means forever. That is all.

[defendandprotect]

112. NRA has been successful at spreading that idea . . . as though we

couldn't control that if we really wanted to ---

For another reason, whenever we increase poverty we increase the dangers of every kind for ALL
of us --- including crime.

[papapi]

115. I do doubt we could ever control it.

My opinion, of course.

[defendandprotect]

116. I think the past belies that --

and, again, you also have to reduce poverty which produces crime.

[Edweird]

129. If drugs and illegals can get in, so could guns. The NRA has nothing to do with that.

[Irishonly]

96. I Own No Guns

but my husband does. I hate them while he loves them. He feels you should be able to own any gun you want. I think you only need a gun powerful enough to kill a herd of wild animals if you are being threatened by a herd of wild animals.

His brother committed suicide a couple of years ago using a gun. Since that time he hasn't held a gun but still wants the right to have them. If you were to walk into our house you wouldn't know there were any guns here. They are locked in a gun safe way back in a closet. There's no NRA or gun magazines around. My husband used to be a wonderful skeet shooter. He may again but for now, no. He has three generations of guns.

[Xenotime]

110. Interesting. sorry for your loss and suffering

[papapi]

118. That's a sad story. I don't have a gun handy around the house....

but I do have a Colt revolver packed away in the storage shed. Some might think I'm nuts, but I'm glad It's there in case I ever need to start keeping it around. I can perfectly understand why you hate the guns though.

[fascisthunter]

97. Other: I Own No Guns and Take Issue with those Spreading Them

by helping to deregulate access to them and giving people the ability to carry in public. I believe those spreading them are actively promoting a less safe society.

[Wcross]

120. Yet in EVERY STATE that has passed shall issue carry permits violent crime has declined?

edited to change it from gun deaths to violent crimes.

[fascisthunter]

121. sure... we'll see

and I'm sure your NRA will be doing it's own research. :eyes:

[Wcross]

126. No MY DOJ (Justice department) has confirmed this fact already.

There is no "research" that needs to be done. Have a nice evening Fascist. (BTW, if you are still "hunting", look in the mirror)

[Wcross]

127. I edited my original response, I meant to say violent crime has declined in every state.

My bad.

[Mz Pip]

100. I grew up around guns.

My dad had several and would take me to a shooting range for target practice.

I don't own one now and haven't in years. I didn't want them in the house when my kids were growing up, though I managed to do alright growing up in a house with guns.

I probably would get one if I lived alone. That and a big dog.

[defendandprotect]

106. I own no guns, but would like to see them regulated for safety . . . and safety locks . . .

and fully licensed . . . no advance purchases . . . and complete and available records
on ownership --- are fingerprints required . . . ?


I have concerns about people who hunt for "recreation" ---
but have no desire to have my feelings about this enacted into law.

I also have concerns about people who have guns for "protecting" themselves
or family and feel that doesn't generally work out well; often for the family.
I have no desire to have my feelings about this enacted into law.

I also have concerns re areas where we have "concealed" weapons.
Think this will be disastrous for communities eventually and would like
to see laws keeping this idea from spreading.

We've always had a few people among us who had weapons for business reasons --
never felt threatened by that.

Overall, I think this new ruling makes me feel threatened.

Paranoia is driving this country --- they've been raising the paranoia level via TV
for decades now -- and it works!

Additionally, where are we with lawsuits now if a "family's" gun hurts a neighbor's
child?

One of the major concerns I have about the new SC ruling is that we will have many
groups who will feel the need to stockpile weapons.

ALSO . . . for those suggesting the 3am visitor, unfortunately, from what I've been reading
over the past 30 years or so it's most frequently the police on wrongly-directed drug
searches who invade your home in the twilight hours, often without knocking, or asking any
questions.

AND . . . any minute now it could be Bush or Fatherland Security --- !!!



PS: And I'll tell you what just scared the HELL out of me . . .
I put NBC on looking for a program someone said is on CNBC and suddenly there was a
picture of Mike Wallace on --- I thought he was dead!

[fascisthunter]

122. Maybe the Next Right Wing President will give a cry to all arms

you know... rally up his own base. Oh and they can carry too!

[Wcross]

119. The ONLY reason I own firearms is personal defense.

I own quite a few guns, none are used for hunting or recreation. I consider "self defense" shooting predators who are harassing my animals or predators who are a threat to my life. Four legs, snakes or two legs. Anything that is a threat will be shot.
If there weren't any predators in the world I wouldn't own a gun. Since there are predators I am armed.

[RB TexLa]

125. I've posted and been flamed for this before, I'd protect family, but I will never use a firearm to

defend my own life.

[Edweird]

128. I'm curious, what about that did you get flamed for?

[RB TexLa]

137. People wrongly saying I'd be putting the murderer's life above my own because I'd let her or him

shoot me instead of shooting them.

[Edweird]

148. Wow. That's very lame of them.

I personally would shoot an intruder under certain circumstances. HOWEVER, I have no issues about how anybody else handles the same situation. Each of us has to live with the consequences of our actions for the rest of our days.

Not all gun owners are assholes.

[benEzra]

153. No flames from me. I would not choose that path myself,

but you are certainly free to choose your own way with no condemnation from anyone else.

And yes, I am a gun owner with a CHL.

[Adsos Letter]

131. THANKYOU, AGAIN, FOR PARTICIPATING ...AND FOR KEEPING A GENERALLY

civil tone on a subject which is, by nature, subject to emotion.

[MiniMe]

138. I don't own a gun and probably never will. I generally have no problem with others who own one.

I do believe in a waiting period to get a gun, IMHO there is nothing that you absolutely need a gun for that can't wait for 3 days. I also believe in background checks, no guns for the mentally ill and possibly those with anger issues, I have to think about that one though.

I would also like to see some sort of gun safety course that includes markmanship and general care and safe storage of a gun course go along with gun ownership.

Flame away, I don't want to take away your guns or your rights, but I think in some cases, it does need to be controlled.

[MicaelS]

144. Why wait?

If you can pass an immediate background check, what is waiting 3 days going to accomplish? And I agree with the safety course idea, no guns for the mentally ill. But the "anger issues", just how are you going to determine that one?

[MiniMe]

146. I'm not sure about that..

that's why I said that I had to think more on that. On the anger, I think you would have to go by convictions for certain crimes. That is where I think the 3 day waiting period comes in, I think that some of the absolutely, have to have today gun purchases are purchased out of anger. If they had to wait a few days, the anger probably would have subsided. So I would say drop the part that I posted about anger and just keep the waiting period. Even if it was only a 24 hour waiting period, I think a lot of anger would have a chance to dissipate. Of course, it won't do a darn thing for those that have guns already in their possession, but at least its a place to start.

edited to add: and thank you to be willing to have a reasonable discussion about it. I think for the most part this has been the best discussion I have seen on this board on guns, its been a positive demeanor.

[Adsos Letter]

147. Kicking for those who may have been gone over the weekend

this will be my last kick.

[Dukkha]

150. 1 but not for self-defense

It’s a custom built Bushmaster M4 carbine rifle. It’s just for recreation used for target shooting. A bit too powerful for home defense, particularly due to it’s over-penetration abilities. It would probably get me in more trouble than it’s worth in a home invasion scenario. That said I should also get a 12GA Mossberg or a Beretta 92FS for protection.

[benEzra]

155. Actually, with suitable defensive ammunition, a .223 penetrates less than 9mm...

If you compare .223 FMJ to 9mm JHP, sure, the FMJ will penetrate more, but .223 JHP vs. 9mm JHP actually favors the .223 as far as mitigating overpenetration risk. That is one reason why police SWAT teams have largely ditched their 9mm MP5's in favor of M4's. My personal preference for home defense would be Federal 55-grain JHP.

From Police Marksman:

Roberts G.K., "Law Enforcement General Purpose Shoulder Fired Weapons: the Wounding Effects of 5.56mm/.223 Carbines Compared with 12 ga. Shotguns and Pistol Caliber Weapons Using 10% Ordnance Gelatin as a Tissue Simulant, Police Marksman, Jul/Aug 1998, pp. 38-45.

"INTRODUCTION

"Until recently, the 12 gauge shotgun has remained the universally accepted shoulder fired weapon for United States law enforcement use, despite the shotgun's limitations as a general purpose weapon--short effective range, imprecise accuracy, downrange hazard to bystanders, small ammunition capacity, slow reloading, and harsh recoil. While 12 gauge shotguns still have a valid law enforcement role, especially to deliver specialized munitions and possibly in close quarters combat (CQB), recent recognition of the shotgun's significant limitations as a general purpose weapon have prompted many American law enforcement agencies to begin adopting the more versatile semi-automatic carbine for general purpose use.(12) Semi-automatic carbines offer more accuracy, less recoil, greater effective range, faster reloading, and a larger ammunition capacity than the traditional shotgun.
...
"Less well known is that 5.56mm/.223 rifle ammunition is also ideally suited for law enforcement general purpose use in semi-automatic carbines.(5,6). It offers superb accuracy coupled with low recoil, and is far more effective at incapacitating violent aggressors than the pistol cartridges utilized in submachineguns and some semi-automatic carbines.
...

"CONCLUSION

"A 5.56mm/.223 semi-automatic carbine with a minimum of a 14.5" to 16.5" barrel may be the most effective and versatile weapon for use in law enforcement. When used with effective ammunition, the 5.56mm/.223 carbine simultaneously offers both greater effective range and less potential downrange hazard to bystanders than a 12 ga. shotgun, handgun, pistol caliber carbine, or SMG , as well as far greater potential to incapacitate a violent criminal than any handgun, pistol caliber carbine, or SMG."

That author actually concludes that the lightweight .223 JHP's don't have enough penetration for police use (off-angle shots, cover, etc.). In my opinion, they are just about perfect for civilian home defense, though.

[Mike L]

151. I would use my gun(s) on a home invader, but would feel bad about the

fact that I would have to clean up the mess later.

[caraher]

152. I don't currently own a gun

I also have no problem with people owning guns for any and all of the reasons listed... BUT I don't think all guns are created equal. I think it's legitimate for people in a community to decide collectively that certain classes of weapons are not acceptable.

[benEzra]

156. My wife and I both own guns, and are proficient with them.

My guns:


SAR-1, a NON-automatic civilian carbine (no, it's not a NFA Title 2/Class III restricted AK-47), 7.62x39mm


Smith & Wesson 3913 Ladysmith, 9x19mm

My wife shoots a Glock 9mm and an SKS carbine.