Heartened to hear that a kid straightened me out on saying retarded? Not that I used it often. Once was enough. I was much younger then ;)

I'm well pleased you find me level-headed as it's been my life's lesson to learn.

LOL, no, I meant I am heartened that there is some morality and ethics among the younger generation. LOL I didn't realize your son was straightening YOU out!!

I was totally kidding that you meant that. Highly tongue in cheek.

;)

Morals...lessons...gun training...good guys...bad guys...blah, blah, blah. You cannot DO anything about any of it!

You cannot know which currently stable individual will *lose his mind* (or act hastily in anger) tomorrow.

We can restrict military weaponry to the police and military. Nobody's hobby has any weight against the risk of allowing these weapons to circulate in a society.

I haven't read this whole thread because it's depressing to me. I do not believe the writers of the Constitution had any desire to see all citizens armed to the teeth, but rather the opposite. The vast, vast majority of us have no need for a gun; some, waayyy too many, just wannum.

The key to a solution to this awful problem is Chisue's second paragraph, just above. There is no way on God's Green Earth to know who's going to go nuts with a gun and who isn't.

I still don't understand how restricting weaponry to police and military will keep criminals/murderers/the insane from having guns. Could someone please explain that to me?

Suzieque is spot on.

Further, I say, unless you have a magic wand and you can take them away from all criminals and make it so the magic continues to keep them out of their hands, give up on "gun control". I'm not advocating everyone gets a gun if they want it, some restrictions, but it's so unreasonable to think there are good ways to ban people from getting them. They'll get through. They always do. Like it or not.

Do you not remember when nobody had a gun? There is no reason to make it easy for any member of the public to buy or own a military weapon.

This 'bad guys with guns' is a specious argument. Of course they CAN get weapons. Right now, they can KEEP them, too. Do two wrongs make a right? As it stands, police cannot remove these from the street when they find them -- because there's no law against it.

Chisue- nope, I most certainly don't remember when no one had a gun, are you referring to the 1700s?

Also, convicted criminals can NOT own guns and police can and do confiscate them.

"I still don't understand how restricting weaponry to police and military
will keep criminals/murderers/the insane from having guns. Could
someone please explain that to me?"

Suzieque, you're being disingenuous. Any starting point is better than no starting point, solutions need not be perfect to improve the ridiculous situation we have today. For example, by impounding all existing weapons now and in the future when discovered, they will henceforth be harder to obtain. Make possession a felony with a mandatory multiyear jail sentence. That would be a start.

Or, let's agree to start slowly and just target a reduction in the number of guns in our communities, without regard to who owns them. We don't know what will work, so we may need to try different things. What approach would you like to suggest using? Don't say "there's no ideal solution so we should do nothing".

TG, the rest of the country isn't like Texas and other parts of the South. Maybe it's different elsewhere, but in my area legally owned guns are much more numerous today than they were even 20 years ago.

I wonder where your cities 'rank' in violent crime. I was shocked to see cities with strict gun ownership restrictions so high in this list!

http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2015/10/22/violent-crime-statistics-for-every-city-in-america/

Elmer, I wasn't being disingenuous and don't you dare put words in my mouth. My suggestion would be to do much more investigation and validation (including psychiatric issues) before giving people licenses to carry, make gun possession without a license a felony, and enforce the laws that we have. There is more to be done but I am not an expert nor a lawmaker.

I would never have said that there's no ideal situation so we should do nothing. What a totally black-and-white thought that is, and I am not talking race, Elmer, and silly of you to think that somebody doesn't agree with you would say that.

Elmer- while legal gun ownership might have increased markedly over the past 20 years, to suggest that no one had a gun back then is bordering on ridiculous.

The fact that the general population doesn't seem to want to acknowledge is that crime rates are, and continue to fall nationwide since it peaked in 1993.

This includes gun crimes.

Do I think it is because MORE people own guns? Hard to say but I doubt it.

What has changed in the past few decades is the globalization of our media.

Back then I probably wouldn't have heard about the Alton Sterling or Philande Castille shootings, the Oklahoma woman who stabbed her kids and herself, the Florida toddler with the gator, etc etc.

Is it a bad thing that we now hear about EVERYTHING happening everywhere in our nation? No, not at all! But it gives some people the perception that our world is spinning out of control, that violence is happening everywhere when in fact, crime rates are falling.

Perhaps it is BECAUSE we hear about every bad thing everywhere that crime is falling, I don't know.

What I do know is that now everytime something happens it seems to open up a discussion and dialogue throughout the nation and that, in my opinion, is never a bad thing.

suzieque, we seem to have misunderstood each other in turn. My view is that without a significant reduction or elimination of the tens of millions of guns now in private hands in the US, the carnage rate is unlikely to change much. Do you have a different opinion?

Let's reduce dramatically the number of guns out in the general population. Changing screening does nothing to the existing totals. Let's do something dramatic, what and how?

TG, news reporting is faster today but it's not any more thorough than pre-internet. If anything, it's maybe the opposite. Aside from that, my view is that the more guns in legal circulation, the more guns in the hands of the bad guys because they're easier to obtain. I'd be happy if there were none in circulation at all.

Elmer, really? No guns at all? So when all the guns in the world have been destroyed, and a 300 pound rapist kicks in my door wielding...oh...I don't know, a knife, a bat, or just his giant rapist body that can easily overpower me, what should I do? I guess just lay down and take it, eyes closed,hoping he doesnt wish to kill me with his knife or his hands when he is done because at least there are no scary guns in the world. I guess that's a small price to pay right? Fact is, these shootings are happening in gun free zones. Law abiding citizens do not carry their guns into such places,thus making them sitting ducks. Making guns illegal will absolutely not stop criminals from having them and using them to victimize others. The fact that it is illegal for felons to possess a firearm certainly does not stop them from doing so,illegally,as is the way of criminals. When regular people are barred from having them, it makes them much more vunerable to predators. Should my 75 year old widow neighbor have to give up her pistols, so that she cannot protect herself from the scum that would take advantage of her age and inability to defend herself? I guess you think so. Regular,law abiding, good people who want to own guns to protect themselves from the bad guys of the world should be allowed to do so,without question. It's not the good guys doing mass shootings, and the bad guys who are would get a gun,legal or not. Or do you think they would just say"Aw shucks, I'm not allowed to have a gun. I guess I'll just go and save some orphaned puppies instead of going to murder a bunch of people as planned. Gee Willikers I hope they make guns legal again soon so I can go kill innocent people. That would just be swell." If they for some reason, cannot get a gun, they will build a bomb, they will set the place on fire,they will wait in the darn parking lot to run them over with a car. It's illegal to murder a bunch of people, no matter what method this is used. That is not stopping the bad guys from doing so. But one good guy with a gun could have stopped any of the mass shooters from doing as much damage as they did. Duh.

ETA: By the way, bows and arrows can kill people too.

amylou, you're okay that we have mass murders every few weeks? I'm not. Do you have any ideas how to make our country safer by, say, next year?

I'm in my mid-60s now, I've never had a gun or wanted or needed one, and anyway, I wouldn't have one. When younger, I lived in a number of not so safe neighborhoods, but never had even as much as a baseball bat for protection. Do we live in different worlds?

You feel at risk to 300 pound rapists at your door? Seriously?

VERY well said, Amylou!

Rusty

Elmer, of course not. But I would rather they be attempted mass shootings, put to a swift end by an armed good guy. I can not offer any grand solutions to the world's problems. There will always be bad people. Those bad people will always have a way to cause harm. That is why it is important for good people to be able to defend themselves from it. That is the only way people can make the world safer for themselves. Not by relying on the government to change the world, but taking steps to protect oneself from its inevitable dangers.

Your decision to not own a gun, or a bat, or anything else for your protection is just that, yours. I am glad that you have never been in a situation where you live (or not) to regret that choice. I hope you never are. I would rather not take a chance, and respect others right to do the same. Regular gun owners do not have a burning desire to use the gun on another person.

One in 5 women is sexually assaulted in her lifetime. One in 5. It is unwise to not be aware of the possibility and to take measures to prevent it. Everyone is at risk for being a victim of a crime. Everyone on earth. Like it or not. It is much better to be prepared to defend oneself against a threat then to be an easy target for one. I suppose the rapist doesn't have to be 300 pounds, but even a scrawny little creep could overpower me, if the creep was motivated enough. He would have a harder time overpowering my shotgun though.

If you use stats, use them carefully,

"In a study published by the
Department of Justice, 82% of the victims were raped by someone they
knew (acquaintance/friend, intimate, relative)." (from a UCLA Med Center site)

The same site says the DOJ study put the stat at 1 out of 6, but no matter. That's too high.

Standing at the door with a gun doesn't help much because the overwhelming likelihood is the perpetrator is already inside. Perhaps just like with gun deaths, we should accept that there are bad people out there and so there's no need to do anything to reduce the incidence of
rapes?

Uh.

..If i knew them, and they tried to rape me, I would shoot them anyway. A rapist is a rapist. A threat is a threat. And what about the other 18%? What is your solution for them? "Close your eyes and think of england?" Are you of the belief that if the victim knew her rapist, it doesn't count? Was her shirt to low cut? Did she flirt? Were they asking for it? If you're not of that belief, I don't see your purpose for bringing that up. A gun is a tool for use against those who would cause harm,whether you know who they are or not.

And you're right. Statistics can be deceiving.The one in five refers to woman who REPORTED being sexually assaulted. It did not include those who are to ashamed or afraid to report it, or those who were murdered during or after the assault,and therefore couldn't report it.

No one stands at the door with a gun silly. You keep it where you can access it quickly should the need arise.

I thought proper storage of a gun in a home is in a locked gun safe? It's the guns that are out that wind up killing family members and kids.

I'm done with this conversation. Some number of you have demonstrated with your attitudes why nothing will ever change and why the US is the laughing stock of the civilized world, because of our unwillingness to protect ourselves from civilian gun violence and tragedies.

A gun safe is easy access if there is a clear path to it and you know the code. Me, personally, i have no children and none are ever in my home, so i usually keep the shotgun out, and the pistol in the safe.And no one is talking about kids and family members. But if you want to bring that up,firearm safety should be an integral part of raising children, if you are a gun owner. Cases of unattended and uneducated children shooting someone are examples of people who are,quite frankly,idiots. It does not make them bad people though. Just irresponsible idiots who probably should have taken advantage of any one of the numerous methods of birth control available today. And they are also accidents. Like a car accident thay ended up killing someone. Or like when BIL fell off a.ladder,onto my sister. Mostly preventable, tragic accidents. (Okay the ladder fall did not end tragically, BIL came away with a twisted ankle,and an earful from sis)You want us to believe that disallowing good people from owning guns will somehow stop the lunatics from killing people in mass murders.

The reason you are done with the conversation is because you're arguments do not have any merit, and you cannot provide any answers to the relevant questions you have been asked to validate those arguments or clarify your stance on certain topics. But the "I'm done with this conversation you people are beneath me" stance is a common dodge,and not surprising.

And as for your edited comment above,there is already something in place that can be done about a rapist. It's called gun ownership. If you accept there are bad people who will do bad things no matter what,as you suggested, you would agree with that. It is a fact, and a perfect example of a good reason to NOT outlaw guns. And no one is suggesting nothing should be done about gun VIOLENCE. However, banning guns altogether will do nothing but make it easier for the bad guys to hurt everyone else.

Elmer- it is blatantly apparent that you are a white, middle to upper class male so you have most likely never experienced a situation that left you in real or perceived danger where you might want a means of protecting yourself.

The same could be said of chisue who also seems to demonstrate a very privileged lifestyle.

I'm a white middle to upper class female and thankfully I've never been confronted with that situation personally either but I can easily recognize that others don't have the same fortunes I do and I have known people who were in those precarious positions.

I can recall in just the past 2 months at least 2 stories in my area where a criminal was stopped and apprehended by a law abiding citizen with a firearm.

They caught the criminal in the act and held them at gunpoint until officers arrived.

No one went gun crazy, no one was shot but a crime was not only stopped, the criminal was apprehended and jailed.

Under your proposal, these criminals would have completed their crimes and gone on to victimize others.

If we were to follow your utopian idea and all firearms were to be surrendered and/or confiscated, who would heed that directive?

The law abiding citizens would, the same ones who peacefully carry for protection, the same ones who, while licensed to carry, will NOT carry in a gun free zone because they follow the law.

Who wouldn't? The criminals, the same "bad guys" who already overwhelmingly target gun free zones for their mass shootouts.

So, according to your plan, those weapons would, over time, eventually be confiscated from the criminals.

In the meantime though, you've left thousands to millions of peaceful citizens unarmed and unable to protect themselves.

You've presented the criminals with many groups of sitting ducks to target.

How many violent crimes would occur between the seizure of lawful citizens firearms and the confiscation of criminals firearms?

How many people would be harmed or killed in this interim period?

"When seconds count, the police are only minutes away."

It's cliché to use that saying but there is some truth.

The truth is, in my opinion, we don't need a reduction of firearms, how shall we possibly fight off the invading zombie horde ;), we need to continue with the social and ethical aspect.

We need comprehensive medical and psychological care provided to those at risk. We need programs in place to identify those at risk persons and prevent them from gaining access to firearms. We need to change society as a whole. If guns were suddenly outlawed tomorrow, I'm fairly certain that we would see a rise in knife and/or bomb attacks.

The weapon of choice isn't the issue. ANYTHING can be made into a weapon.

The reasons behind the attack are what ultimately need to be addressed.

I

ZOMBIES! I FORGOT ABOUT THE ZOMBIES! I need to go practice my Charlies angels style ninja kicks just in case two or more come at me at once from different directions,and they do indeed,outlaw guns. One can never be too safe ya know. (I haven't quite gotten the 360 degree spinning kick down whIle I have my stiletto boots on) I'm still holding out hope that common sense will prevail,and instead of possible muscle strains and looking ridiculous,I'll always be able to possess a firearm. But one never knows.

Off to put on the boots and practice practice practice. ;op

I'll need to think of some sassy one liners to say while I'm vanquishing them too. Any suggestions?

I grew up on a farm in another state, but since leaving there, every neighborhood I have ever lived in has been a nice, clean, quiet neighborhood. Not a place where one would expect crime. Well, about 30 plus years ago, in one of those nice, quiet neighborhoods, also a historic district, there was a rash of rapes. Including an attempted rape in my house. I don't know how he got into the back yard, it had a 6' privacy fence. I admit, the back door was foolishly left unlocked, I thought the fence was enough at high noon, in broad daylight. It wasn't. He was a skinny little pipsqueak kind of guy, but he had me on the floor with his hand in the waist band of my jeans when my yellow Lab broke through the screen door. Between me screaming at the top of my lungs and a 60 lb. dog coming at him, he left in a hurry. A rapist doesn't have to be 300 lbs, or even very big or strong to be able to get the advantage when taking someone by surprise. No, a gun would not have done me a bit of good in that circumstance, because I would not have been carrying it around in the house with me. My reason for telling this is simply to point out that living in a nice neighborhood is not insurance against crime.

I have been a member of Gardenweb for a pretty long time, but only recently discovered this forum. This has been a very interesting thread to follow. I do NOT believe in outlawing guns! I DO believe in thorough background checks for anyone buying a gun, better treatment of our veterans, more and better help for the mentally ill, getting the illegal immigrants out of our country, and getting illegal immigration stopped. (Yes, they did catch the guy that tried to rape me. And yes, you guessed it, he was an illegal immigrant. And the rapes stopped when he was sent back to Mexico.) I won't go deeper into what I believe, because both Texas Gem and Amylou have already expressed my thoughts, and done it a lot better than could!

I will say this. I am a firm believer in the right to own and carry firearms, and no one has the right to take that right away from me. For those that don't believe in that right, well, you have just as much right to NOT own one.

Take a good hard look at history. World War II in particular, and how Hitler was able to do what he did. It seems to me that many of the things going on in this country now are very similar. Way too similar. SCARY!

Rusty

Only national gun laws will keep straw buyers from driving a few miles over a state or city line to bring arsenals of guns 'home'.

Virtually all of the gun violence in Chicago takes place in a few square miles on the city's SE side. Good guys, bad guys, EVERYONE there has guns. The result? Not less violence, but more.

The only guns I ever saw growing up were rifles. They were used for hunting. I saw them in the hands of hunters and on gun racks in New England and Wyoming. One suburban neighbor fired a rifle into the air on New Year's Eve. "Nobody" had, wanted, thought they needed guns for 'protection' -- not in suburbia, not in the city, not on the farms.

My great grandfather was a doctor in mining towns in Colorado. He was delighted when Law & Order arrived, so that he could let his wife and daughter go into town without fear of being shot by some yahoo with a gun. We've reversed that now. It's not 'better'. It's worse.

I'd like to see a daily column listing how many people died and how many were wounded by guns in the previous 24 hours, with a cumulative year-to-date number and the circumstances.

Oh, wait. The NRA has in$tructed Congress not to allow the collection of such stats.

Chisue,

Do you have a solution for homeowners who wish to protect themselves from intruders? Cross your fingers and hope the scumbags have a change of heart? Expect the cops to get there in 15 seconds? (provided you can get to a phone.) It's much faster and safer to go for a gun.

Would you care to know how many people die in car wrecks, drownings, accidental drug interactions, or any other tragedy? Or do you want to avoid those numbers because you want to use a car, go swimming or have access to medication? How many alcohol related deaths are there? How many stabbings? No more knives? How ever will I mince my garlic? I know of a local man who was beaten to death in his own home by an intruder with a crowbar. Should those be outlawed as well? That poor man who got killed had an anti gun sign in his yard. He might as well have told the bad guys to come in, there would be nothing he could do to stop them. Maybe we should outlaw bombs......o wait,building bombs is illegal isn't it? Hmmmmm.....I see how that has stopped the bad guys from making and using them (NOT!) A lot of violence stems from drug use. We should totally outlaw drugs....o wait, we already did that didn't we? That totally put a stop to the bad guys making and selling drugs didn't it? Wake up honey. When you outlaw the only means good people have to protect themselves, those good people will follow the law and give up their arms, and the bad guys will not, (because they are CRIMINALS who have NO RESPECT FOR OR FEAR OF the law,it's consequences,or other peoples safety,as long as they get what they want by any means)so you accomplish nothing but make it easier for them to be victimized. The criminals will have all the power, and good people will have NOTHING. Thise good guys in chicago you speak of will be the dead guys.The people who are hurting people deliberately would not give a hoot if their weapons were made illegal, many of them are carrying illegally anyway,because again,they don't care about the law. There lies the importance of being able to defend oneself,ones home,and one family from such riff raff.

You don't like guns. Fine. Don't get one. Just call 911 and wait.

I still haven't read anything here about how limiting the legal purchase of guns will keep guns out of the hands of people who will obtain them illegally and do bad things with them. I am very open to learning and very eager to learn. But so far nobody has been able to answer that. How do we keep guns out of the hands of bad people? Simple question, not a simple answer.

Elmer, may I ask, respectfully, that you change your name back to Snidely? Somebody very close to me was named Elmer and you and that person couldn't be further apart in personality. On various threads I agree wholeheartedly with the things that you say and on other threads, such as this one, not so much. I do believe that the name Snidely fits you well. Somehow I just can't reconcile with your name being Elmer.

I think people should be able to own guns, but I think it should be a much, much stricter process. Including mandatory mental health exams, detailed background checks, heavy documentation and licensing and any other safeguards that could help. Law-abiding citizens of sound mind will be able to get their guns, even if it's less convenient.

No, it won't keep all guns out of the hands of criminals, but it might help stop someone from getting angry, going into Walmart, buying a gun and killing some people in a fit of rage. People shoot other people for a wide variety of reasons, and many of them are not premeditated, planned events.

There's no simple solution. But a partial solution is better than no solution. The whole "criminals will still obtain guns illegally so let's do nothing" philosophy baffles me. There are many things we can do that might help save some innocent lives, even if it's unrealistic to save them all.

No one is saying to not do anything. But simply enacting stricter guidelines to get a gun,while not a bad idea,will only impact people who go through the proper steps to legally own a gun anyway. Felons cannot own guns, yet many do. A better solution than outlawing firearms would be to enforce much harsher penalties on offenders that break that law than they do now. While it will probably not deter them from taking the chance, since most dont care about the law anyway, such penalties will keep them where they belong for much longer when they are caught. Illegal guns seized from such criminals should be destroyed. In the meantime, legally obtained guns provide good people protection against dangerous criminals if needed,and even if never used for such,piece of mind at the very least. Guns are not the problem. The lack of personal accountability and a broken system is.

The only time I have ever fired AT something was a wild boar, that was on my property,very grumpy and charging at one of my dogs. Without that gun, that evil swine would have killed that dog,and probably the others too. They are not just for defense against humans who want to hurt you and yours. I wish I had had it with me when I ran across that rattle snake,but I didn't. So I had to back away. By the time I got back with the gun, he was gone,still alive and free to terrorize the world. Still regret that.

"If guns kill people, then pencils misspell words, cars make you drive drunk, and forks makes people fat."

-back of a t-shirt some lady was wearing at the farmers market last weekend

I've debated responding in this thread since you first posted it. I have carefully avoided reading any of the other responses that have been posted here so as to not be merely parroting others' responses. Also this is not intended as a personal attack on you, merely an attack on the positions in your original post which I will paraphrase as: You are a "responsible gun owner" who is exercising your "second amendment right" to keep firearms because doing so makes you feel safe.

Firstly although having a firearm may make you feel safer, your feeling-more-safe is hardly a compelling argument. I had a security blanket as a child that I felt protected me from any monsters that might emerge from beneath my bed. However that danger was entirely in my mind, that fact that no monsters ever emerged means the protective powers of the blanket were untested and entirely speculative. So until and unless you actually encounter a situation where an intruder is breaking into your home (which I sincerely and genuinely hope never happens), the protective powers of your firearm is, similarly, speculative.

I agree that the thought of a home invasion is scary, but the likelihood of such an occurrence is much lower than most people believe. One study counted 100 "homicides resulting from a burglary" over the course of a year across all of America. That is approximately twice the rate of death from lightning strikes, but you don't hear people carrying on about their right to bear lightning rods.

I believe the most likely outcome involving a burglar, a homeowner, and his/her firearm is the homeowner returns home from somewhere and finds that their house has been robbed, the burglars are long gone and that the firearm is one of the items stolen -- which results in the rest of us becoming just that tiniest bit less safe. Other possibilities are the burglar finds the weapon before you do or takes it from you and uses it against you, or you think it a burglar, but it is a family member sneaking into the house late at night, or a child finds it and does like they do on TV. A properly run epidemiological study could assign probabilities to these and other unlikely outcomes, but Congress, at the behest of the Gun Lobby, has prohibited the CDC from doing any such epidemiological study of guns in the home. My guess is the gun companies suspect that such a study would show that having a gun in the home actually makes everyone there less safe rather than safer, which would go against the gun companies' mantra of "the only answer to any question is more guns"

Secondly, the Second Amendment doesn't say what you and so many people think it does. It consists of a single sentence with two clauses. The first clause says "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State". The second clause says "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." These two clauses taken together delineate the meaning of that amendment, and while it has never been clear to me what the first clause is intended to mean, it is clear to me that it is intended to mean something -- otherwise those that wrote the Constitution would not have put it there in the first place. The idea that because the initial clause isn't entirely clear, the most reasonable way to interpret the meaning of the Amendment is to ignore that clause entirely and keep only the second clause, seems like shaky reasoning. While this view has been upheld in some key court decisions over the past few decades, any and all of those decisions can be overturned by subsequent court decisions. So rather than being an "Inviolable Right granted by the Constitution" it is more properly viewed as a "Right currently supported by court decisions made by a handful of activist judges based on a questionable interpretation the Constitution".

In any case the contention that since it is in the Constitution there is no way to limit the right it grants except through another Amendment is unsupportable. The Rights in the First Amendment are regularly abrogated, often based on the rationale of "public safety". One oft used example is shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater. The right to "peaceably assemble" is set aside on a daily basis, usually with claims that participants weren't being sufficiently peaceable. So if "public safety" is sufficient reason to curtail those rights, the ongoing and escalating epidemic of gun violence is without a doubt an issue of public safety.

Third, although I have nothing to fear from a "responsible gun owner" I feel certain that my definition of a "responsible gun owner" differs from that of many who would consider themselves as such. The hunter whose stray bullet went through the kitchen wall and ceiling of my step-uncle’s house probably thinks he is "responsible", I don’t. The family who keep the gun safely inaccessible except for that one time little Johnny was playing it, probably think they are responsible, I don’t. The person who straps on a gun and parades around with it in public, hoping something will happen so they can be a macho hero, probably thinks they are responsible, I really, definitely don’t.

The gun owner who contemplates a hypothetical future situation where law enforcement officers come to their house to legally confiscate one or more of their firearms, and states something akin to "When they pry it from my cold dead hand", if it is merely bluster and hyperbole, well fine, but if it is a genuine statement of intent in that unlikely eventuality then, to me it is a clear statement that that person is not a responsible gun owner.

The bigger problem is that basically zero effort is made to ensure that guns are only sold to responsible persons. The entirety of the screening process is "Is your name on some poorly maintained list? " and "Do you have money? " Even though this weak screening process is easily step-stepped through going to a gun show, or using a fake id, or getting someone else to buy the gun for you, it is decried as a horrible intrusion of gun owners’ rights.

While I think there should be more "gun-control" I’m not going to offer any specific measures to be implemented. The fact of the matter is that any measure even one that somehow magically managed to keep guns out of the hands of those that shouldn’t have them without affecting "responsible gun owners", would result in fewer guns being sold. Therefore the gun manufacturers and the NRA would oppose it, and would snap their fingers and threaten their threats, and their bought and paid for members of Congress would quash the idea without even letting it come to a vote.

It is not speculative at all. A gun can and will protect people from the REAL monsters out there. They are real you know,or don't you? Not a product of imagination. And if one does encounter a situation where an intruder does in fact,enter ones home,what do you suggest they do? Why is it that people who are opposed to gun ownership never have an answer for that? Is it because they think it couldn't happen to them,and the others that it DOES happen to, don't really matter? You talk about 100 innocent lives that could have been saved as if they were faceless,soulless throwaways. I would imagine those people who were assaulted or killed by such scum in their own homes would have been very happy to have had a firearm at the ready while it was happening,or better yet,before any harm could have been done to an innocent person. All that being said, I do urge you to read what others have said here. But in won't hold my breath, you might be faced with common sense opinions that contradict your own,obviously,.staunch views on the subject. I hope it never does happen to you. While i wish you would open your mind to another take on the subject , i fear its unlikely. And even so,I hope you are never proven wrong. I hope you can go peacefully to your grave,after a very long,very happy and peaceful life never having to know what it is to be at the mercy of a dangerous criminal. I wish that for all. Some of us would rather not take that chance,and would not gamble the lives of our loved ones on it either. (Not me anyway)

I hope I never have to my gun to kill or harm another person,but would not hesitate to do so to protect myself and who I love. As no one has provided an alternative way to be able to defend myself against such danger in my own home, I will continue to be grateful for the right to defend it in the only way there is. And I will do it legally and yes RESPONSIBILY.

Threads like this are pointless in my opinion. They are made simply to encourage an argument.

I just don't get it.

If you tell me it's all about opinion and interesting facts and free speech, I disagree with you.

bob- first of all, I want to thank you for your well thought out answers.

I think one of the biggest issues society faces is that when it comes to hot button topics, most, or at least the loudest, of each side simply reduces the argument to the basest level and doesn't really listen to what the other side is saying.

As to your first point, I can certainly appreciate your monsters under the bed analogy but some people really ARE at an increased risk, living in a dangerous area or being a person more likely to be targeted. It isn't an imaginary monster, it is a real threat.

I will agree that the lobbyists (and I would include ALL lobbyists from ALL angles) have too much say in what goes on. The government should not be run or influenced by special interest groups.

Regarding the second point though, I will say I'm confused. I have always understood that amendment to be a recognition that this country was literally built on our rising up and fighting back against our "oppressors", those who would tax us without representation and sought to confiscate our weapons resulting in clashes at Lexington and Concord which ended up starting the American Revolutionary War.

From my understanding, our country was founded by those who fought the oppressive government and as such, the founding fathers recognized that as a right, to be a well armed militia to guarantee a free state, to "fight back" against a government in the wrong.

As to your third point, I think you would be hard pressed to find any "truly" responsible gun owner that would state that the hunter, the family that didn't properly educate little Johnny about gun safety or the fool who wears an AR-15 to a parade like an idiot is a responsible gun owner.

I (obviously) live in Texas and yet I haven't met or spoken to a single person who thinks this ridiculous"open carry" that became law in January is a good idea.

I'm honestly shocked by it and can't help but question which idiots where thought it was a good idea.

To your last point, I agree completely. It is ENTIRELY too easy for some hot headed idiot to legally obtain a firearm these days. That was exactly my point when I made my earlier statement about increased screening and identifying of mentally unstable persons and providing appropriate care.

Is taking a tool away from responsible citizens the answer? No, I truly don't believe it is.

Is limiting access to that tool to only those who have shown and proven themselves to be responsible citizens the answer? Yes, I believe it is a large part BUT...it must happen in conjunction with addressing the very reasons those citizens felt so driven to the edges of sanity in the first place.

The tool used to commit the crime isn't the problem, the reason the crime happened in the first place is. Take the tool away and you may decrease the total number of deaths but you don't create an overall more peaceful, happy and productive society.

Isn't it better to focus on the root cause and remedy it than to focus on which particular instrument was used?

Kjbjw

Then don't participate in the madness.

What would compel someone to go on a thread,which title clearly states the topic,and knowing the nature of the discussion,and ones own resistance to such discussions,proceed to offer no opinion on the subject and call it pointless. Not nice! How odd to suggest that the discussion was started with the sole purpose of starting an argument.

I'm sure OP did not start the thread with the intention of retreating to her lair,drumming her fingers against each other, and laughing at the mayhem unfolding.(MWAHahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!)

Oh puhleez amylou.....

I simply stated what has already been stated.

Anyone with a brain would know that this was started with the intent of causing an argument...

Argument: look up the definition if you don't understand it.

Yeah...you stated that, and nothing else.. Just pop up, "Hey everyone,I think this whole discussion is pointless. Done" You contributed nothing of value to the discussion. So.....your comment was pointless. Especially if it was simply stating what had already been stated, as you stated,thus making it redundant and therefore,pointless. Google pointless if YOU don't understand it smarty pants.

I don't find threads like this pointless. I think we need a place to talk about these sorts of things, and often, I find a new facet to an issue I might not have thought about at all before. Those seem like good objectives. If that helps any.

I don't think these threads are pointless either. One thing I appreciate is a well-reasoned argument that doesn't devolve into emotions and name-calling. Several people here have made some compelling statements that were informative to read. I wish our schools taught people how to listen to opposing viewpoints and have a well-reasoned discussion without losing their cool. The US is a big place, filled with an amazing array of people. We will never - and I mean NEVER - all agree on what the "right" answer is. But until we learn how to disagree with each other without hurling invectives and getting all angry, we're basically screwed.

Well said, Patrice! Schools have made a large effort in attempting to teach kids how to recognize and report bullying, so let's hope they now concentrate on teaching kids how to debate with decorum.

Thanks, Bob. I've saved the tiny scrap that is all that's left of our DS's security blanket. He's grown up now. He lives in (gasp!) Chicago. He doesn't have a gun. Our DIL doesn't have one either, not even during the years she taught in the Englewood district of Chicago (gang central). The Chicago police officer who lives next door to them is completely opposed to a gun in the home. In his long experience, a gun in the home is usually detrimental to the safety of the family in the home.

Average Joe has nothing to do with 'a regulated militia'. Moreover, there is no way to know, when Joe buys a gun, that Joe has been, is, or will remain mentally stable -- or even capable of being responsible for what becomes of it.. That can't be adequately addressed by laws. However, laws can limit the type of gun readily available to him -- and hence to all of society.

I don't believe Average Joe needs *any* gun, but we can at least agree that public need for a military style weapon is extremely rare. It's rare enough that Joe should have to present a compelling argument for buying or owning one. He needs to demonstrate how he will prevent the weapon from being misused...or stolen by that phantom burglar, who will target Joe *because* he has the weapon.

amylou321 -- More guns available to the public = More guns available to 'the bad guys'. They are part of 'the public'. Guns are intended to be lethal weapons. No comparison can be made to knives, ropes, etc. Nothing else carries the very human emotions of depression, anger or fear so instantly or so irreversibly to death.

Chisue said. "Phantom burglar". Maybe you think so, but let me tell you about what my neighbor went through about 5 yrs. ago. Some guy came into their house around 3 am. He had cut the telephone line before entering the house. Their door was not locked. Her husband slept in one bedroom because of health problems and she slept in the other bedroom. The intruder came in to her bedroom (these people were in their eighties). And just as she woke up, he fell alongside of the bed. Thinking it was her husband that needed help, she turned the lamp on and here was the intruder, passed out (thank God) with a knife in one hand and rope in the other hand. What was he going to do...what was his intention??? To this day, she still has nightmares about it. phantom...I think not!! My house is always locked and if he had busted in at that hour, or anytime, well, too bad for him!

Hi, OP here. I am impressed with the rational expression of your thoughts on this topic. For the most part, it stayed civil. The point of my starting the topic is because I wanted to state my point of view and hear yours.

marylmi -- What an incredible story. They don't lock their doors? Some drunk passed out in this old lady's bedroom -- after he'd cut the telephone lines? (Is there some documentation for this story? I ask because it is so bizarre.)

Thank goodness there was no gun. The woman could have shot the stupid drunk -- and remembered *that* forever.

Chisue, they didn't lock their doors then, but you can bet she does now(he has since passed away). I had heard he was high on drugs and who knows what else. And YES, there is documentation for this " story" as you put it. So I guess if someone breaks in you wait to shoot just in case they pass out first? Yeh, right!

Ignore chisue's story comment marylmi, I found it highly believable. If she believed it, she might worry that bad people do get in and one does need to protect themselves. I don't have a gun because of what chisue said last--I am not willing to kill anyone. One must be darn certain they can live with all the consequences of owning, good and bad, before owning.

If I was worried, that is precisely why I'd own a gun, home break-ins. That is, not one to carry it around. My military sharp shooter medal brother has a permit and he does carry. Some. Not a lot. He could do what needed to be done if there was a crazed gunman in the area. He's been tested on it and didn't need to do anything, but he would've.

I just saw this on the news. I am not a big fan of open or concealed carry, but I'm sure that the folks in this Waffle House are fans now.

Concealed Carrier Takes On AK-47 Wielding Gunman

Wow! If it could always go this way.......................there might be less objection.

But like it was stated before.....you have to be prepared to take a life.