What are gun owners afraid of?

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

I cant do a poll, so let me do it this way:


What are some gun owners afraid of:

1. gangs of people or individuals attacking them in their homes?
2. gangs of people or individuals carjacking them?

So to answer you would have to explain the area where you live (not so as to identify your actual location) and exactly which type of people, specifically, you are concerned will harm you.

Please be as specific as you can, do you worry about a group of meth addicts or manufacturers misidentifying your home for that of one of their competitors? I know that kind of thing does actually worry me at times.

Do you worry about a specific type of people?

Exactly who is it you are defending yourself from?

[hack89]

1. I don't own guns for self defense - I live in a safe town

I own guns purely for recreational and competitive shooting.

[NYC_SKP]

7. Hoisted by their own petard.

The OP question is one that fails to launch, took a sort of shotgun approach!

Is shooting blanks, went off half-cocked, or was shooting from the hip, but I'm loaded for bear and they're looking down the barrel of my reason rifle.

Argumentatively speaking, I'm keeping my powder dry, but am loaded for bear.

I got 'em in the cross hairs of logic and they might get the whole nine yards because this ain't my first showdown!

What am I missing by way of metaphor?

[Fred Sanders]

10. That would be...humor?

[NYC_SKP]

12. No. For humor see reply #9.

[NYC_SKP]

181. I wish I'd posted this old clipping when this OP was fresh:

It's a myth but it still makes me smile and it answers the question in a comical way:

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

182. ^^^ +skaety six mogzillion

[Maedhros]

2. Not having a gun. [n/t]

[Fred Sanders]

11. ...to finish the thought....not having a gun reduces your odds of dying.

[NYC_SKP]

15. Actually, no. But that's OK, I know the only talking points y'all have are hollow and unproven.

Correlation is not causation.

Statistics 101.

Peace, bro.

[Straw Man]

32. Odds.

Last edited Sat Nov 29, 2014, 06:45 PM - Edit history (1)

....not having a gun reduces your odds of dying.

But not nearly as much as eating a low-fat diet and refraining from alcohol and tobacco consumption.

Ah, the quest for immortality: such touching faith in the prophetic powers of actuarial tables...

[acalix]

112. Death does not scare me. "I am the captain of my soul, I am the master of my fate."

I don't care if guns increase my risk of suicide. Suicide is a human right and whatever I do with my own body does not concern you.

I ride motorcycles despite it being one of the most dangerous activities statistically speaking. I still smoke cigars even though it greatly increases my risk of cancer. I will continue to own guns.


What scares me is the control freaks that forcibly dictate what you can do with your own body, or what activities you can partake in. That's what truly scares me, Fred.

[samsingh]

128. caption of .....

you can believe what you want, there is no proof of anything beyond the physical

[acalix]

137. Agnostic, actually.

[petronius]

3. The gun owners of my past and present acquaintance are neither more nor less

afraid of those things (or any other things) than my (apparently) non-gun-owning acquaintances, generally speaking...

[cantbeserious]

4. Never Owned A Firearm - I Do Not Live In Fear

eom

[kioa]

16. I'm surrounded by people who own firearms.

None of them live in fear.
Wherever did you get such a ridiculous idea.

If you don't live in fear, then I can only assume that you don't support magazine & gun bans.

Good to see another opponent of the AWB!

[cantbeserious]

20. I Support Gun Control Because Of Others That Do Live In Fear Of Gun Owners And Their Guns

eom

[kioa]

50. What other rights should be taken from innocent people because of other's unreasonable fears?

Same sex marriage?
Reasonable search & seizure?
Right to a fair trial?

I do agree with you that gun control is based strictly upon fear.

[louis-t]

56. Why should I be forced to live around people who own guns

out of fear (unreasonable or not), and shoot every time there's a knock at the door? Plenty of people have shot their own family members because they "thought is was a burglar". My own father almost shot his brother in our house because my mother told him it was ok to come by after working 2nd shift and crash on our couch. She forgot about it and when my uncle came in, she woke my father and said "someone's in the house." My father picked up and loaded his hunting rifle and nearly shot his own brother.

I just saw a documentary on the '90s and Y2k. People emptied the gun store shelves out of fear. One jackass bought a fenced-in retreat and stocked up on guns and ammo, dehydrated food, etc. The gun dealers loved Y2k.

By the way, gun control is based on statistics, not fear. NRA rhetoric tells you "an armed society is a polite society, more guns means 'safer'." Nonsense. The chances of you ever 'protecting' yourself with a gun are miniscule compared to the chances of that gun being stolen from you, used against a family member, having a child find it and shoot themselves or a friend, going off accidentally while 'cleaning' or simply when showing off or fooling around. And please don't reply with "but I'm a responsible gun owner and I take precautions, blah, blah." There are plenty of jackasses around that aren't careful, leave guns where children can get at them, leave them loaded and under beds, or carry them around with the safety off and simply drop them (yes, guns can and do go off sometimes when dropped).

My favorite is when some idiot tucks a loaded gun in his belt and it goes off into his own leg or foot or worse. Or the idiots who shoot themselves while teaching a gun safety course. Yes, accidents happen, mistakes happen. I just don't want to be on the other end of someone's 'mistake'. "I'm sorry" just doesn't cut it when some idiot blows a hole in you.

[kioa]

59. You're not.

I don't share your fear of life in the USA & I am unwilling to support your attempt to take rights away because of your unreasonable fear.

Perhaps a free society just isn't for you.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

75. I hate to tell you this but...

...you're just a careless accident prone violent pre-criminal showoff. Statistics probably prove it.








...and it isn't apparent:

[acalix]

113. Why should I be forced to live around smokers, or drunkards, or drug addicts?

Whatever I do with my own life or what I choose to own is none of your business. You are a control freak.

[backwoodsbob]

132. how many people where you live

shoot every time someone knocks on their door?

*Why should I be forced to live around people who own guns

out of fear (unreasonable or not), and shoot every time there's a knock at the door?*

[cantbeserious]

62. The So Called Right Is A Red Herring Argument - One Of Logical Fallacies

eom

[kioa]

63. It is a right.

It was even listed in the "Bill of Rights" to clear up any confusion.

[cantbeserious]

64. Maintaining A Well Regulated Militia Is The So Called Right - Always Duly Forgotten

In this unending right-wing debate.

[kioa]

67. "right of the people" not "right of the milita"

That's why the Democratic platform, President Obama and the vast majority of the American people all realize that the 2nd protects an individual right.


When your entire argument is destroyed by basic literacy, perhaps its time to revisit your argument.

But nevermind such trivialities as basic literacy for now; You are honestly trying to argue that without the 2nd the govt of the USA wouldn't have the 'right' to arm itself?!
Apparently without the 2nd, the military would have to solely consist of ninjas & WWE Superstars.

[cantbeserious]

69. The Right Of The People - Army - Air Force - Navy - Marines - All Well Regulated

eom

[kioa]

72. Starship Troopers wasn't a documentary.

Rights aren't dependent upon military service.

This is why President Obama, the Democratic Party platform and essentially everybody with basic literacy recognize the 2nd protects an individual right.

[paleotn]

76. Simple english, really......

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Our modern day "militia" is called the National Guard and Army Reserve. Regardless, if one wants to exercise their right to bear arms, as stated in the amendment, then they should be subjected to regular training and drill, like any well regulated militia. Plinking in your back 40 doesn't count.

[cantbeserious]

79. Yes - Spot On

eom

[kioa]

86. It is simple English.

That's why the President the Democratic Party & the vast majority of the Amrrican people recognize that it is an individual right.

You Apparently you think that the Bill of Rights is like a Fortune cookie, but instead of adding "....in bed" you add "...in the military".

1st Amendment. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances....in the military

Really shocking this ingenious "idea" of rights hasn't caught on.

[paleotn]

96. Then apparently you cannot understand simple English....

....oh, and by the way, he's President of the United States, not the Democratic Party. Regardless, that's fallacy of authority. Like one of your fellow gun strokers below, I don't give a shit if the Pope says it. I read and conclude on my own, thank you very damn much.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Are you a member of a well regulated militia, trained and drilled regularly and possessing weapons for possible military purposes? If not, yours and my private ownership is a privilege not a constitutional right. Press, speech and religion are called out as specific rights without qualification. Firearm possession is mentioned WITH qualification....being a member of a well regulated militia. Thus local authorities, duly elected by the local populace, have the power to limit or not limit private firearm ownership not linked to one being a member of a well regulated state or local militia as they see fit. I personally chose to take advantage of that privilege granted me by my county and the State of North Carolina, since guns make some of my activities much less taxing than with spears or swords. Now, if that's still hard for you to understand, then I think remedial English is in order.

And since you started the authority fallacy, you should take up your argument with John Paul Stevens....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-five-extra-words-that-can-fix-the-second-amendment/2014/04/11/f8a19578-b8fa-11e3-96ae-f2c36d2b1245_story.html

[Nuclear Unicorn]

164. The militia consists of the organized and unorganized militia.

The organized militia is the National Guard. The unorganized militia is all males 18 to 45 and all similarly aged females with prior military experience.

And, in order for them to be able to equip themselves the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

179. To make sure the NRA could sell hundreds of millions of guns, the 2nd amendment

had to be wrongly interpreted.

We are a joke and a scary joke to most of the civilized world when it comes to our gun problem...

While we argue about guns or abortion or race, the Oligarchs are laughing all the way to the bank

[Nuclear Unicorn]

184. The NRA doesn't sell guns anymore than environmental groups sell solar panels.

We are a joke and a scary joke to most of the civilized world when it comes to our gun problem...

Except we don't have a gun problem.

And which part of the "civilized world" are you referring to? The Mosin-Nagent part? The Hechler and Kock part? Walther? Beretta? Sig Sauer? Fabrique Nationale?

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

185. NRA exists to make sure their corp supporters can sell guns, this isnt even controversial

in the real world..

While that is still part of the organization's core function, today less than half of the NRA's revenues come from program fees and membership dues.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/gun-industry-funds-nra-2013-1#ixzz3L3mZiyVr

[kioa]

186. The NRA's single biggest source of income is membership dues ($100,500,000)

Their 2nd biggest is fundraising. ($71,100,000)

From 2005-2010 corporations gave $14.8 million.

That is over 10 times more money from donations & dues in a single year than they recieved from corporations over 5 years.

Your abject ignorance allowed Bloomberg, Gates & their fellow 1%ers to take advantage of you & make you believe a ridiculous & easily disproven conspiracy theory.
Educate yourself.
Stop being a tool of the 1%.

http://mobile.bloomberg.com/news/2011-12-29/nra-raises-200-million-as-gun-lobby-toasters-burn-logo-on-bread.html

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

187. LOL tool of the one percent LOLOLOLOLOL

[kioa]

188. Bloomberg speaks. You obey.

Myself?
I prefer standing up for the rights of innocent Americans.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

183. Yes simple English

Pardon my intrusion but would you please define 'right'.

[cantbeserious]

77. The Government - The Military - Is The People - Operating A Well Regulated Militia

eom

[kioa]

87. Nowhere does it say that a person needs to be in a militia.

It says "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Milita=necessary to a free state
The People=right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

If you can't manage basic literacy, allow me to refer you to the President & the Democratic Party platform.

[sarisataka]

89. The Government - The Military - Is The People???

I swear I just heard the founders roll over in their graves.

You may have heard of the Declaration of Independence. It is from the time of the Revolution.

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it

It should be clear the Government is separate from, and subject to, the People.

[NYC_SKP]

107. Crazy idea, right?

Are the corporations also the people?

Just silly twisting of the language, it kills me!

[sarisataka]

110. By such standard

corporations are people and money is speech...

I cannot believe such levels of ignorance, as are on display throughout this thread, are genuine. I can only assume that a few posters are just trying to get others riled up. The use of insults and invective in reply to civil debate seems to indicate ulterior motive.

[hack89]

121. And corporations are people too? Nt

[NYC_SKP]

80. Lordy, you couldn't be more wrong. That's bass-ackwards!

The militia was never ever envisioned to be a national force, an federal army.

It's a waste of time trying to explain this to someone who obviously is not a student of basic history.

Even the Democratic president in office disagrees with you.

Obama sees it as an individual right: "The Constitution confers an individual right to bear arms".

Do you think you're smarter than the president?

[cantbeserious]

82. SCOTUS - Gave Us Citizens United - No Institution Is Infallible - Even On The Second Amendment

eom

[paleotn]

84. Argue with the text...not with me....

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. The English is easy for anyone familiar with the language to understand.

Even if you think the National Guard does not fall under the definition of A well regulated Militia, the intent is clear. I'm not against private ownership in most circumstances. However, since private ownership outside of being a member of a well regulated militia, isn't a right such as freedom of speech, press etc., which are called out specifically and without qualification, local jurisdictions are free to restrict or allow private ownership as they see fit.

And please stop with the Fallacy of Authority. I don't give a shit if the Pope says it, I'll read the amendment for myself and make my own conclusions. I'm not running for President and thus I'm free to state my own opinion, political fallout be damned. Lets hope you don't think everything Obama says is the God's honest truth or even his own personal opinion verses political speak intended for a political purpose. Otherwise you're extraordinarily naive.

[kioa]

90. So...the 2nd was written to allow the govt to arm itself?!

Gosh....good thing it was written or the US would have had to storm the beaches of Normandy with ninjas & WWE Superstars.

Great argument.
Really.

Meanwhile, myself, the SCOUS, Constitutional Scholar President Obama, the party platform & anyone with a working knowledge of the English language will understand that "the rights of the people" refers to "rights" of....ya know..."people".

[cantbeserious]

94. The Government Is The People - The Declaration Of Independence Provides Guidance

eom

[kioa]

95. So only the govt has the right to a free press, religion or speech.

Brave new world you've envisioned.

Thankfully your imagination is where it will stay.

[cantbeserious]

97. Those Rights Are Granted To The People By The Government They Control - One And The Same Entities

eom

[kioa]

101. Not even kind of.

Rights are "endowed by the creator".
I.E. they exist whether or not the govt tries to take them away.

You don't even know what rights are.
No wonder Bloomberg was able to use fear-mongering in order to convince you to give them up.

[Eleanors38]

144. Oh, wow: "Those rights are granted by the government."

Do you wish to correct or witgdraw that position? That ain't what the Constitution was or is about. The Constitution charges the government with the protection of the rights as listed in the BOR. Federalism 101, American Government 101, Con Law 101.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

165. If you think the people have practical control over the government you

have laughably disqualified yourself.

[paleotn]

99. Are you really this stupid or is this a joke?

So...the 2nd was written to allow the govt to arm itself?! Not sure exactly how you contrived that, but didn't the SCOUS give us Dred Scott v. Sandford? I rest my case.

[kioa]

105. I'm sorry, son.

The intent of the2nd amendment is clear & agreed upon by everyone of consequence.

It's even written down in case there's ever any sort of question about what the rights of the people are.

[paleotn]

106. You're terribly wrong....

....and I'm not your son. Nor am I your "friend."

[kioa]

109. No?

Strange, every time I see one of your posts it puts a big smile on my face.

[paleotn]

135. I'm old enough to possibly be your grandfather....

...and wise enough to know a fool when I see one.

[kioa]

138. I recommend you get rid of the mirrors in your home in that case.

Until then, enjoy spending time with your fellow political dinosaurs in the tar-pit of failed authoritarian ideas.

Innocent people don't lose their rights because of your ignorant fears.
Deal with it.

[cantbeserious]

92. I Am Not Arguing - Two People See Different Things In The Same Words

eom

[kioa]

98. You are entirled to your own opinion. You don't get to have your own facts

There is a reason that the only people who have a problem with what the 2nd Amendment says are the same ones that has a problem with the rights it grants.

[cantbeserious]

100. You Are Entitled To Your Own Facts And Opinions However Flawed They May Be In The Eyes Of Others

eom

[paleotn]

103. For those with difficulties in reading comprehension....

...Unless you are a member of a well regulated militia, there is no damn right. I have a right to state my opinion on this subject, without fear. That right is not QUALIFIED with additional text. What, did you flunk English or something? Do I have to figuratively stick your nose in it to help you understand the meaning the words actually convey?! Do I have to draw you a picture!?

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

[kioa]

111. The bolder part says Militia is necessary for a free state.

The other part says "the right of the people to keep & bear arms shall not be infringed"

I'm a person.
Ergo....

[Straw Man]

116. Reading comprehension.

For those with difficulties in reading comprehension....

...Unless you are a member of a well regulated militia, there is no damn right. I have a right to state my opinion on this subject, without fear. That right is not QUALIFIED with additional text. What, did you flunk English or something? Do I have to figuratively stick your nose in it to help you understand the meaning the words actually convey?! Do I have to draw you a picture!?

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

I hate to burst your little bubble, but the bolded section indicates the reason why the right should not be infringed, not the set of conditions under which it is to be granted. If it were the latter, the second half would read something along the lines of "the right of the people to raise and arm militias shall not be infringed."

Let's try a little analogy: Imagine an amendment that reads as follow:

"A well-informed electorate being necessary to the functioning of the nation, the right of access to government documents shall not be infringed."

Would you interpret that as meaning that non-voters shouldn't have that right of access?

CREDIBILITY TIP: If you're going to lecture people on their English language skills, you may want to avoid using multiple end punctuation.

[beevul]

126. Another anti-gun type...

Another anti-gun type, that fundamentally misunderstands how rights work, and how the bill of rights works.

Color me shocked.

Exhibit A:

That right is not QUALIFIED with additional text.

(gee, where have I heard this line of argument before? )

You, here, are proceeding from the standpoint that rights are those things which are "authorized".

You are incorrect.


Rights are things people like you haven't managed to forbid, actually.

The default position for every right under the sun from the silliest to the most serious is " not forbidden" , which is quite a different thing than "authorized, allowed, or permitted".

Exhibit B:

You, like so many before you, are trying to sell people who know better, the idea that the bill of rights is a list of authorizations. It isn't. Its a laundry list of restrictions, aimed at forbidding certain government excercises of power.

Amendment 1 "Congress shall make no law..."

Amendment 2 "...shall not be infringed" By whom? Government of course.

Amendment 3 "No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house..." Whos soldiers? Governments of course.

Amendment 4 "The right of the people to be secure in their persons..." Secure from whom?


I could go on, but there really just isn't any need is there?

Ones position is like a building, in that it can be constructed by the most polished stone, the prettiest oak, the most weathertight shingles, and the most weatherproof siding. And yet, just like those buildings, if it is built on a poor foundation, none of that matters.


That describes your position here: Built on a poor foundation.

Exhibit C: Backing up my assertion about the bill of rights, with factual historical proof that the bill of rights is exactly what I said it was:

THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution

http://billofrights.org/


Now, I can hardly wait for you to tell me how the above actually says that people rights are that which have ben "authorized".

I have a right to state my opinion on this subject, without fear.

Yes, and we have the right to point out just how disconnected from reality your opinion is.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

166. The part you keep ignoring is the fact that a militia cannot exist unless the people are free to

keep and bear arms. The militia has always supplied its own arms and the institution of the National Guard never abolished the unorganized militia.

[sarisataka]

65. The Supreme Court,

President of the United States, the Democratic party platform and the majority of the citizens of the United States all believe that the Second Amendment is an individual right.

But they are all wrong so we should listen to you, correct?

[cantbeserious]

70. Well Of Course - We Are Debating Opinions - Here At DU

eom

[sarisataka]

73. If it's all the same to you

I will stick with the majority opinion. Especially since that group also agrees that regulation is permitted while still keeping it as an individual right.

[cantbeserious]

78. Ah Yes - Remember That SCOTUS - Gave Us Citizens United - No Institution Is Infallible

eom

[sarisataka]

83. I also include

Barak Obama, the Democratic party, and the 72+% of American citizens (that's the lowest support poll I could find) as part of that majority.

[cantbeserious]

91. Obama Has Proven To Be A Defender Of The Status Quo On Many Topics - This One Included

eom

[ileus]

118. Yes they're all wrong because they don't understand "guns kill people"

It's not like individuals have owned firearm for hundreds of years....that's just silly, the supreme court just made it an individual right a few years ago.

[stone space]

120. What do guns have to do with who marries who?

Same sex marriage?

We aren't talking about actually marryin' gunz here, are we?

[kioa]

122. We're talking about the individual rights of innocent people.

Something I support & you do not.

[stone space]

124. Marriage is not a deadly weapon.

The comparison is offensive.

[kioa]

125. I find comparing rights to....ya know....rights to be very apt.

Further, 1 in 3 murders are current or former partners.

As you are such a proponent of the 'effectiveness' of bans & prohibitions to eliminate murders, it would seem your path is obvious.....foolish, politically unachievable and ineffectual, but obvious nonetheless.

[stone space]

155. Marriage is not a deadly weapon. (nt)

[kioa]

156. Marriage plays a part in a third of murders.

But it is a right.
Thus I support it, regardless of the actions of murderers.
I am consistent.
Why aren't you?

[stone space]

157. Again, marriage is not a deadly weapon. (nt)

[kioa]

159. Never mind the fact that marriage plays a part in a third of murders...

You're saying that deadly weapons need to be banned?

Seeing as how knives are used in six times as many murders as all rifles combined are ("Assault Weapons" are a mere subset of rifles) and bare hands are used in twice as many murders as all rifles combined, you still have an awfully lot of banning to do.

Good luck with that.

[stone space]

160. Marriage equality kills. (nt)

[kioa]

161. Looks like you need to ban it......

Meanwhile, I will support individual rights.

Get used to losing.

[stone space]

162. It's your claim, not mine. (nt)

[Nuclear Unicorn]

167. "Marriage is not a deadly weapon."

A deadly weapon can be the best thing to have when dealing with a stalker who refuses to deal with the fact that the marriage is over.

[NYC_SKP]

5. Fail. Try again. What makes you conclude from the outset that fear is in play?

You might consider rewording your question, unless you want worthless and skewed replies.

Your question presumes that gun owners are afraid of something, which is a conclusion before gathering data, and thus a pointless question, or a provocative one, unnecessarily.

You go further and assume that gun owners are afraid of people, thus excluding:

People who like to collect fine or historic firearms;
People who like to harvest their protein;
People who want to protect their food stuffs from predators and pests;
People who like the various shooting sports: clays, targets, etc.
And others not listed above.

I'm glad you asked, however, because you CLEARLY have a lot to learn.

[MisterP]

6. hmm, a lot of the ones I know are in the sleepiest, gated-est suburbs

and over and over they tell the same story: one day there'll be a race riot and the, uh, urban masses will swarm all the way out past county lines and then everyone mocking them will swarm to their doors begging for the only protection around

it's a combined fantasy of race war, power-tripping, "going Galt," self-sufficiency, and survival: it's a debased mythos of the pioneer days (since the mountain men were just the outer tentacles of an industrial superpower even during colonial times)

in the countryside it's for shooting bears (to keep the competition down), and they're even more racially tinged ("THEY shoot each other every day, and there's never any protests THEN!&quot : these are the ones who'll send you stories from ChimpOut, and not just use the tropes there

[Nuclear Unicorn]

168. Well. That was -- illuminating; but probably not in the way you had hoped. nt

[harun]

8. Not about fear, history.

[Fred Sanders]

9. They are scared of Michael Browns.....and ISIS and Obama's gulags. To name a few, Fox has a list.

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

21. Didnt get a single one of them to admit it, did I...stunning

Why cant they be honest?

Not a single gun owner on DU is afraid of someone hurting them?

[kioa]

52. We are. Your attempts at mind reading has failed.

What are you do scared of that you support taking rights away from innocent people?

How many rights do innocent Americans have to surrender before you lose your irrational fear of life in the USA?

[Duckhunter935]

53. so you are saying we are lying

how very classy.

We answered your slanted question and you just did not like the answers you received.

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

176. No, you are right, not ONE PERSON who owns a gun on DU owns that gun for self

protection

sure

you betcha

[sarisataka]

177. Post # 51

among others. It just seems you do not like the answers you are getting.

[Fred Sanders]

173. But you got them swarming with their swarmy deflections and lame justifications, there is that.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

169. Michael Brown was unarmed and shot by the police you want to enforce gun control.

[sarisataka]

13. Centipedes

Anything with that many legs is just creepy

[NYC_SKP]

14. And bears. And, of course, clowns. (warning, graphic pic)

[Duckhunter935]

18. Clown bears are the scariest

I think I peed myself when I saw that picture. You should put a warning up.

[sarisataka]

22. Pleasant dreams...

[Duckhunter935]

24. noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

[kioa]

17. I know many gun owners. They don't own guns because of fear.

Get out more.
Lose the ignorance.
Lose your irrational fear & distrust of your fellow citizens.

[Fred Sanders]

57. I know many gun owners. They do own them out of fear. And paranoia. And the power...man, the power.

[kioa]

60. Oh? How unfortunate for you.

Meanwhile those of us that live in areas with high guns per capita will continue to know better than your laughably paranoid rants.

Life in the USA isn't scary.
Get out more.

[Fred Sanders]

61. Your laughable love of guns and hilariously silly comparisons marks you for what you are.

[kioa]

66. It marks me as someone who respects others rights & whose viewpoints doesn't get

the beJesus kicked out of the Democratic Party.

Your viewpoint marks you as just the opposite.

I am very comfortable with our respective rolls.

[Fred Sanders]

68. You do not respect the right of innocents not to die by gun violence, that is not respect, that is denial.

[kioa]

71. Of course I do.

Hence the crime of 'murder'.

[Duckhunter935]

19. Nothing

I live in a fairly safe area, except for the meth heads around the area.. Do not caryy but use my weapons for target shooting at paper plates. I love the old historical bolt action rifles.

All of my coworkers that have firearms are also not scared also.

So try a different question and you might get an answer that you so badly want.

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

23. Got it, so nobody here who owns a gun does so for self protection?

If you are concerned (do you like that word better) that someone is going to hurt or shoot you, cant you admit that?

Are you NOT scared because you have more guns than the bad guys?

[Duckhunter935]

25. A weapon can be used for that purpose

I also have a first aid kit and a fire extinguisher

I hope I never have to use those either.

Like I said, the main reason I have weapons is for shooting at targets. Self protection is one use but not why I purchased them.

I know you do not like the answers you are getting. Keep trying, maybe you would get the answers you want from the other group.

[branford]

114. You better watch out for those assault first aid kits and

high capacity fire extinguishers . . .

[hack89]

33. There is nobody to be scared of where I live

My town has very crime of any sort.

I own guns because I enjoy shooting them. That is it.

[Eleanors38]

153. I do! I do! But I'm not scared, partly because I am armed...

... a reasonable course of action for a Senior, who can no longer run fast enough in accordance with Plan B.

Who/what am I afraid of? No real stereotype comes to mind; more importantly, I have a concern with some two-legged-type(s) blowing through my door while I am there, esp. at night. Not scared of a B & E while I'm away.

My neighborhood? Some punk was trying doors at night, even when the owner's car was there. Now, that is a HyperPunk™, something to be concerned about. They got phoned in by residents -- some armed -- and are now enjoying baloney sandwiches, courtesy of the taxpayers of Texas. BTW, the punk was as white as the inside of my wrist.

Besides the SD .357, my other guns are for hunting. All clear, now?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

170. Yeah. All those women who carry a gun for protection are just lying about rapists and stalkers.

And business owners never get robbed. And houses never get broken into while the owners are home. In fact, there is no crime anywhere at anytime just gun owners needlessly killing people. If we could could just ban all guns we could probably just disband the police and decommission our prisons since there is no crime, just gunner paranoia.

[benEzra]

26. Ah, the assumption that anyone who chooses differently than you

must be acting out of primitive emotion, because if "they" were choosing intelligently, then OBVIOUSLY "they" would agree with you on your pet issue. So "they" must own guns out of deep-seated fear or something.

Years ago (back on Common Ground Common Sense, originally the John Kerry forums) I encountered this same claim and posted the following in response. I don't own guns out of fear, and I don't think many people do; the defensive utility is certainly part of the picture for most people, but it's more about competence than about fear. Since CGCS is (alas) no longer operating, I'll repost it here.

Proficiency with firearms is a martial art just like isshinryu karate, tae kwan do, kenpo, or tai chi, and can gives a sense of accomplishment and competence just like any other human discipline. The Japanese concept of bushido applies just as much to the gun culture as to other martial arts cultures. I have some moderate experience in the Asian martial arts culture (isshinryu), and there are a lot of similarities between the gun culture and the traditional martial arts culture, and just as with empty-hand martial arts, proficiency in self-defense is a symbiotic benefit that is a worthwhile purpose in its own right.

Just as with the other martial arts, IMHO training and skill development are an end in itself, very much a Zen thing, if you will. To shoot well you must view shooting in a very Zen-like way; breath control, minimization of muscle tremors, concentration, sharp focus on the front sight, smoothness... A lot of the shooters I know also have a thing for archery, which is pretty much the same thing, and my (ex-)wife did fencing for a while.

Some people pride themselves on how well they can smack a small white ball with a stick on a golf course. Others pride themselves on how accurately they can shoot a firearm.

Also, I am a certifiable physics geek, and there are very few inexpensive hobbies that are more physics-intensive than rifle shooting. (Aviation is more physics-intensive, but it's not inexpensive...) Many shooters are mechanically inclined, and I'll bet the percentage of photographers and engineers among shooters is higher than in the population at large. My younger sister is a shooter and she also happens to be a professional engineer, with degrees in both engineering and mathematics.

It's also a "freedom thing." The guns in my gun safe are a tangible reminder of political and personal freedom, a Zen-like discipline, a fun hobby, a tool of personal security, and a locus of camaraderie that crosses political, social, and ethnic lines. I do not own them by a grant of permission from some social elite; I own them because I choose to, and because as a mentally competent adult with a clean record, it is my right to choose to.

...

Here's the root of the disconnect, I think. A lot of prominent gun-control activists are people who have both been impacted by criminal violence, and have not been particularly exposed to the positive side of gun ownership. I think to some degree, they have come to see "guns" as the entity who victimized them, and see gun control as a way to lash out at that enemy. That victimization by people misusing guns also taints their view of gun owners, I think, that we must somehow be either ignorant, or evil, or some selfish mixture of the two, possibly with some sort of sexual deviancy thrown in (because some of those victimized see guns as sexualized power objects). As a for-instance, Sarah Brady's husband was shot by a nut with a .22 revolver; while I don't think that justifies her attempts to ban my rifles, it at least helps me understand it.

...

It's not "any and all guns" that are involved in criminal mayhem; it's actually a tiny subset of guns, mostly illegally possessed handguns, in the hands of a violent few. And in fairness, it's not all gun-control activists that dream up creative deceptions to try to outlaw our most valued possessions, either. I think most of us on our respective sides are not as far apart as our legislative positions on the issue would appear to make us; I think we just have a huge knowledge and communication gap (on both sides).

There IS common ground to be found. The bedrock of that common ground is, NOBODY wants to see criminals misusing any guns. People who hurt other people piss me off just as much as they piss you off. We all agree that bad guys shouldn't have them. The disagreement comes in when people on your side of the issue decide to slap sweeping restrictions (AWB, handgun bans, pre-1861 capacity limits) on everybody in order to affect the bad guys (so they hope), and we respond by opposing all new restrictions to avoid having wrongheaded restrictions slapped on the good guys. Hence the impasse.

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

27. So you dont own guns for self defense, OK

So smart guns would be fine with you, I am sure.

What about guns that dont shoot bullets but rubber bullets, can still do the competitive stuff, right?

So ALL of you who dont own guns for self defense (which requires you to be concerned about something, since bravado wont allow you to admit to the word fear, we will use "concern&quot , dont care if we alter the guns so that they are no longer able to harm anyone?

[Duckhunter935]

29. Wow

what a broad brush you weave. Only a few on DU have answered your question and you do do not like the answers you get to the question you ask. I will use me 70 and 90 year old stock bolt action rifles to target shoot as they were designed and no, you can not modify them to your specifications, whatever that is. I have no problems with smart guns but would not buy one until they are proven to be 100% reliable. I do not use mine for self protection now but who knows what the future holds. Buy a smart gun if you want, I will stick by the proven reliability of the non-smart guns for now.

I guess you do not agree with the legal thing called hunting for food as rubber bullets do not seem to work very well on game, Probably just piss them off and just try and "alter the guns", several hundred million of them to your specific modification, whatever that is. Please enlighten us.

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

30. Wow, still not a single one of you willing to admit you own guns for self defense

which of course brings the next question , the one you dont want to answer

[hack89]

34. Why is fear the only reason to own a gun?

What cartoon world do you live in?

[Duckhunter935]

36. what are you afraid to ask another question?

I have no problems answering questions. At least in this group we let all sides in as part of the discussion, unlike over in bansalot. It is amazing that you think that just a few of of that have cared to reply to your slanted question speak for ALL DU members. We do not.

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

39. I am not afraid to ask it, but the fact is many gun owners own guns for a couple of reasons,

one of those reasons is almost always self defense, the other can be competition, hunting, etc.

The self defense reason which most gun owners include in their reason when they are honest, means they fear they are in danger of something.

Or they are CONCERNED about some sort of danger, and I just was curious if those people, which really is most gun owners, would tell us who they fear or are concerned about.

I mentioned my concern of drug issues where my home could be misidentified, it is a very real fear based on actual life experiences.

[Duckhunter935]

41. Why did you bring that fact up about the question

If you do not want to ask it? What was the purpose?

Ask it and you might get an answer.

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

42. I just did, but since you refuse to acknowledge that one of the reasons you own guns is for

self defense, how are you going to tell me self defense from who?

[Duckhunter935]

46. I do not refuse to acknowledge

I have stated honestly that is not why I have firearms. I have also stated that that is one possibility of a firearms use.

To bad you just do not take my word and must think I am lying.

Young old, white, brown, black, green. If I ever would have to use my firearms for defensive use, race, age, gender does not matter. I have gone through the required CCL training and a firearms use would be the absolute last option, and that would be to stop the immediate threat. I do not see that ever happening as I feel safe and there are many other options first.

By the way most crime by the meth people around here are poor and very white.

[NYC_SKP]

44. Are you trying to bait gun owners?

It looks like you are trying to bait gun owners.

[Duckhunter935]

47. I think so

low post count does not help

[blueridge3210]

48. Of course he's try to bait gun owners.

Hence the focus on "fear" as opposed to concern. BS question.

[branford]

115. "Smart" guns and rubber bullets aren't able to harm someone?

What utter ignorant nonsense.

Do you also realize that some types of guns are more fit for purpose than others. Like most tools, one size does not fit all. Do you only own one wrench or one screwdriver?

The issue with "smart" guns are significant and varied, including very few actually exist, no less available, and their reliability has not been proven. If they (and rubber bullets) are the panacea you believe, first advocate that all police officers and government agents like the Secret Service should only be outfitted with such items. You will not like the response once the laughing stops.

Although I do not personally own firearms, I own a first aid kit, fire extinguisher and a tool kit and duct tape. Nevertheless, I rarely, if ever, even remotely contemplate serious injury, a large fire, the breakdown of any of my possessions or the zombie apocalypse. Guns are tools with multiple purposes, including defensive, recreational and useful to providing sustenance. Your own fear and loathing does not change that simple fact.

[benEzra]

119. I do own guns for self-defense, yes. But not because I'm afraid.

I also shoot competitively with the same guns.

Do you think everyone who puts on a gi and studies practical martial arts for years does so solely, or even primarily, out of raw irrational fear? If so, why?

I get that you don't like guns and don't choose to own them. It's a free country, and I 100% support your choice. I happen to choose differently. That doesn't make me less rational, or less human, than you.

[VanillaRhapsody]

28. What are they afraid of....

They know that if THEY were treated like the African Americans and other minorities in this country were and are treated still today.....they would burn this place to the ground!

They are just afraid every day is the day that Minorities decide to do EXACTLY what know THEY themselves would do! So they "arm up" just in case...."today is that day". They know the kind of things they think and do towards people of color....they expect that Karma to be a....(bad news for them!).

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

31. Exactly...couldnt have said it better myself.

Did I miss something or did ONE of them admit the self defense angle yet?

[Duckhunter935]

37. I have seeen feer mentioned in one post and

it is not from a firearms owner.

Seems to be the control side that is afraid, not the firearms owners that have been nice enough to respond.

[hack89]

35. Really?

So the time and money I spend on competive target shooting can't be because it is a fun and challenging hobby? The only valid reason is me preparing for possible race riots?

Do you have any idea how fucking stupid that sounds?

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

38. No need to get so defensive, did I say the ONLY reason is fear?

This exercise has proven my point.

[Duckhunter935]

40. You seem to think so

A very small number of firearms owners have answered your question and you do not like how they answered and now you seem to be seem to be saying we are all lying.

There are 80+ million firearms owners and you have heard from maybe five or ten?

[hack89]

45. So you admit that fear is simply one of many valid reasons to own guns

You are learning.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

43. I'm guessing...

...that it's hard to hear how stupid that sounds with one's fingers in one's ears going "la-la-la-la-..."

[NYC_SKP]

49. Have you seen Ferguson? We minorities would do well to be armed.

Because clearly the police don't want to help us.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

171. Does the name Otis MacDonald ring a bell?

And what's with this racist nonsense that people of color don't own guns? Shaneen Allen is an African American single mother of 2 who has gone to jail and all but had her life destroyed by gun control zealots.

[sarisataka]

51. Let's see if you really have an open mind

Do I own/carry for self defense- yes
Am I afraid-no
Beware of projecting ones own beliefs on to others i.e. 'I would never own a gun therefore anyone who has a gun must be afraid'
I'm sending this from a laundromat while having a .38 under my hockey jersey (go Wild)
Do I expect to need it-no, if I thought that I wouldn't be here
In the past 18 months I have experienced an attempted robbery and a man trying to get into my car. Both cases I was armed; in niether did I ever touch my gun.
I recognize even the safest area can have crime and I prepare for that possibility. Using a gun in defense is my very last option.

[sarisataka]

55. So question asked and answered

Then it suddenly gets real quiet. My clothes are almost done but I'll be back later. Always willing to have a civil conversation.

[paleotn]

81. You are the True Scotsman then....

I don't have a problem with some owning and C&C-ing, however, I don't like C&C permits handed out like candy. Though I have no problem with gun ownership in and of itself, I don't believe it is a constitutional right, unless one is willing participate in training and drill several times a year as part of a well regulated militia common to the times when the amendment was written. The sentence structure in the 2nd amendment is terrible, but the true intent is obvious.

[sarisataka]

85. I wouldn't mind

a tighter process for getting a carry permit myself. I think most are too lax.

For 20 years I had training and drill in handling modern arms; now I am retired so should I surrender that right?

Let's change a couple words but keep the sentence grammatically identical:

A well educated electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read books, shall not be infringed.

Is the true intent still obvious?
-are books restricted to registered voters?
-do you need to regularly vote to read books?
-should all books be kept in libraries under government control?

[kioa]

93. The structure is fine & the intent is clear.

There's a reason why the only ones that have a problem with what the 2nd says are the same ones that want to deny what it says.

The audacity of authoritarians to try to deny rights by denying the meaning of the language itself fools no one of any consequence.

[paleotn]

104. The structure is fine & the intent is clear.....

...but you STILL can't understand the words? The structure is not fine. Any high school English teacher, worth half their salt, would demand a re-write so morons wouldn't misconstrue the actual meaning of the words.

[kioa]

108. Morons with an inability to understand basic English has always been with us

Fortunately they are a minority (around...say 25%) & there is always credible people as well.

BTW 75% of the US people including President Obama recognize the 2nd Ammendment protects individual rights.

The minuscule number of 'morons' that are unable to manage basic literacy are of no consequence.

[HockeyMom]

139. I am the "moron" wife of this "Well Regulated Militia"

Who regulates? ME. Those guns will not be around me. They will be kept in a combination safe at all times. He goes to a range, then the guns go straight from the safe to car, and visa versa. They will not be left around the house, or in a drawer.

Cleaning them will be done far away from me in gararge or basement. He can go wherever he wants and carry, but I will not go with him. He gets to keep his guns, but they are nowhere around me. While I would prefer that they weren't around at all, is this compromise fair enough for the gun owners? I AM telling a gun owner that guns cannot be around me.

For that other poster "it cannot happen to me", no, because it has almost happened to me twice. That didn't change my mind. NRA wouldn't like that one, but almost ANYTHING can used to defend yourself.

Does this Well Regulated Militia include ALL gun owners? ROFL 80 year old men in wheelchairs too? Some militia. Thank you, militia, but I will find my own way to protect myself against goodness knows WHAT. I absolve you, and my husband, from protecting me.

[kioa]

140. Thank you for the personal story.

Very riveting.

almost ANYTHING can used to defend yourself

Or commit murder.
If bans are the answer to eliminating murders, we will have to ban "almost ANYTHING".

"Does this Well Regulated Militia include ALL gun owners? ROFL 80 year old men in wheelchairs too? Some militia."

An 80 year old is a person. The 2nd specifically states what rights he or she has as a result.
"...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

"I will find my own way to protect myself against goodness knows WHAT".

So will everyone else...and I intend to keep it that way.

[HockeyMom]

142. You didn't answer me

Is that 80 year old gun owner part of this "militia"? Gun owners equal militia equals "good Americans" versus everyone else who chooses NOT to own guns. If you don't exercise your 2nd Amendment "rights", you are somehow less patriotic? Rambo mentality. We are better than the Guard, the Resveres, and especially the Police.

Can you get the hidden message with this? Keep you damned guns, but please stay away from the rest of us in movies, restaurants, gas stations, etc. Your gun is not a part of your body which must be carried around at all times, anywhere, anyhow.

Second, when they take these surveys of gun households, remember to ASK other family members how they really feel. Just because we live in these homes, does not mean we are all gunners, thank you, very much. This infuriates me having to be lumped in with you by default.

I am not on your side. I only do what I have to keep the peace, so to speak. That does not mean that I won't, and don't, work to legislate how I really feel.

[kioa]

148. That's correct. You aren't on my side.

My side protects individual liberties & doesn't lose elections for the Democratic Party.

If you don't exercise your 2nd Amendment "rights", you are somehow less patriotic?

I never said nor implied anything of the sort.

Keep you damned guns,

Were/are you against the Assault Weapons Ban?
If so, good. I would recommend you join me in convincing the party that the AWB is a horrible idea. After all, it's a tough argument to try and convince people that you don't want to ban guns while pushing for a gun ban

[1StrongBlackMan]

54. Me ...

Or rather, the myth of me.

[doc03]

58. I have heard a couple lately that think the unrest in Ferguson will

escalate into a race war.

[ileus]

74. Nothing....you of course meant: What are gun owners prepared for.

Remember trouble doesn't make an appointment no matter how safe your enviroment.



I live in a great neighborhood, and other than a few small time sellers and pillheads there's nothing much to worry about. I have a DVR and 4 camera system to keep the neighbors daughter (on probation in 3 states) from breaking in, but I don't have to worry about her attacking us.

But the lack of crime isn't reason enough to leave my home, family or myself easy willing victims.


Same goes for conceal carry....I carry a personal safety device most days even though the threat level is basically zero. That's still not a good reason to just fold up and hope trouble doesn't find me.

Nope I like being proactive on personal safety, not because I'm afraid but because it's a chance I don't have to take.

Remember Safety First...

Oh and if you really wonder why folks own firearms just do a google search you'll find a whole internets full of "It will never happen to me types."

[paleotn]

88. Not afraid of anything really....

...then again, my view on gun ownership is different than most gun owners (of which I am one) due to where I live. My firearms are tools like my chainsaws, tractor and bush hog. None of my firearms are considered assault weapons by anyone's definition or are even capable of multi-round magazines. Personally, I think such firearms are silly unless one wants to go off to Syria and fight against ISIS. A damn dangerous hobby. The only real fear I have is someone hunting my land without permission, possibly drunk, and accidentally shooting me, my wife or my critters.

[Socal31]

117. Well your tractor is silly to me.

Anyone who has a use for a tractor that is different than mine is silly and dangerous.

[paleotn]

129. I've nver heard of someone...

...fatally shot by a supposedly unloaded tractor.

[Socal31]

131. And the whale has never seen Nebraska. But it still exists.

Tractor Accidents
Farm equipment is often not designed safely, and tractors are especially dangerous.

According to the National Safety Council, tractor accidents are the leading cause of injury and death among farm .
Did you know?

Farm tractors accounted for the deaths of 2,165 farm between 1992 and 2001.

The 2010 U.S. Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries found that the largest net increase in fatal work injuries involved drivers of tractor trailers or other heavy trucks—a 6% rise from 577 to 61

.

http://www.farminjuryresource.com/farming-equipment-accidents/tractor-accidents/

I guarantee you some are unloaded at the time they kill an unsuspecting operator.

[paleotn]

134. Tractors are meant for cutting hay....

plowing fields, etc., and were not designed for killing people exclusively. Can you not come up with anything better than that old, dusty canard? I know it's a stretch, but please try to be a bit more creative.

[Socal31]

136. That's even worse!

An innocent looking piece of farm equipment lulls the unsuspecting user into a false sense of security....and BAM....it kills thousands.

I'm much more comfortable when only the tools designed to be dangerous can put you on the wrong side of the lawn. Then you can take proper precautions.

[beevul]

127. "None of my firearms are considered assault weapons by anyone's definition..."

"None of my firearms are considered assault weapons by anyone's definition or are even capable of multi-round magazines."

So you own break action single shot weapons, fixed/internal mag bolt guns, and muskets, right? No 22 plinkers with a 17 round tube magazine?

Should yours be the standard that everyone has to live by?

[paleotn]

133. If you're planning on murdering a bunch of 6 year olds,....

...shooting up a theater or going on a murderous rampage in a high school, mine wouldn't be all that affective. Bolt action and single shot firearms are all I need. You see I don't derive my manhood or make up for lack of time with daddy by owning cool looking weapons. Some hobby where the blood of innocent children is the price we have to pay for you to get your kicks.

[friendly_iconoclast]

149. "Bolt action and single shot firearms are all I need."

They're also all that James Earl Ray, Charles Whitman (bolt actions), and John Wilkes Booth (single shot) needed.

*Your* deadly weapons are no more or less a public menace than the ones owned by those you profess to despise, authoritarian bloviating notwithstanding...

[Eleanors38]

158. The assassin of King used a Rem 260 pump .30 06...

a moderately popular deer/hog weapon in the East & South.

[beevul]

151. You didn't answer the question.

I couldn't help but notice, you went out of your way to be insulting, so much time and effort, yet expended no such time or effort to answer a simple question before doing so:

Should yours be the standard that everyone has to live by?


Is that so hard to answer? Or is it that the answer is uncomfortable to you?

"You see I don't derive my manhood or make up for lack of time with daddy by owning cool looking weapons."

But everyone that disagrees with you must, right?

"Some hobby where the blood of innocent children is the price we have to pay for you to get your kicks."

So much nonsense.

[Socal31]

102. Specifically the people who invade occupied dwellings.

I don't fear cardboard targets, but thankfully they are all I have ever had to aim a firearm at.

[pablo_marmol]

123. Nothing. NT

[backwoodsbob]

130. more than anything

1)bears


2)raccoons and skunks

[Warpy]

141. They watch crime shows on TV and think the world is more dangerous than it is.

Yes, there have been a few studies on this. Those shows also feature mostly black felons, so white suburbia regards kids like Mike Brown with condemnation, not compassion.

So they buy guns and helicopter parent their kids.

They are so afraid of everything they've also failed to read the statistics that say the biggest predictor of dying in gun violence is having a gun in the home.

Yet one word about sensible gun laws and you'd think you were dealing with a 2 year old whose binkie was being threatened.

I live in what is considered the worst area of a violent southwestern city. My house has been burglarized twice, but that's all. They didn't get much and I've always been really happy that there was no gun to steal.

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

143. Excellent response, your 4th paragraph especially LOL

[hack89]

145. The problem with "sensible" gun control is the phrase "it's a good start"

Washington state passed a reasonable gun control law on UBCs - something most gun owners support. The first thing the backers of the law said was "it's a good start" and proposed even more stringent gun control laws.

So why should we support your agenda when your stated end goal is pass as many gun control laws as you can?

[Warpy]

146. Sandy Hook.

[hack89]

147. CT had an AWB and registration

So what additional law would have stopped Sandy Hook?

[sarisataka]

150. "I'll be pretty clear on this

Mike Bloomberg and I want guns gone. Period. It doesn't matter what it takes." - Shannon Watts

Takes mere seconds to un-sling and shoot.

I say shoot them on sight , just to be safe. No sane person would carry a rifle around a grocery store. Only the insane and the criminally motivated. So, again, I say shoot them on sight, let their bodies rot in the streets as a message to other hell-bent gunners.

Nothing but good could come of this.

-DU post (hidden)

I have often wondered about that, it should be assumed that they are potential terrorists

Maybe if a few of these jackasses get taken down maybe some of the others stop being such assholes.

Gun owners in general are cowards, one or two times should be enough to have them cowering under their bed.

- DU post (allowed to stand)

[Duckhunter935]

154. They will not answer

Because they have nothing unless they start banning and confiscating weapons in private hands.

They forget little facts like you presented and will go silent when asked a legitimate question.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

172. "My house has been burglarized twice, but that's all."

I hope your luck continues to hold.

[Socal31]

152. Pretending your contrary interpretation of the 2nd is the true meaning...

Is as useless as the flat-earthers trying to drudge up Roe v Wade.

[pablo_marmol]

163. Speaking just for myself, I'm not afraid of anything you think I am.

But I am afraid that some day I might suffer a stroke from reading one too many less-than-intelligent statements from a pro-restriction supporter.

Which actually means I might stroke out over anguish at the political damage Democrats suffer as a result of said 'intelligent statements/thought'.

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

175. If you fear a stroke I highly suggest you NOT read the 2nd amendment, cant be any clearer

[AtheistCrusader]

174. Drop Bears.

Sure, I live in Seattle, but one never knows.

[tuhaybey]

178. self defense is baloney

The amount of time both sides spend arguing about self defense is silly. The pro-gun crowd doesn't actually own guns because they're worried about defending themselves. They own guns because guns are fun to play with. It makes them feel tough and powerful and so forth. The self defense argument is just an easier stance to defend than "I like playing gun," so that is the one they toss out there publicly. Then the gun control people spend all this time and effort countering the self defense argument as if it were real. Countering it is easy- of course it makes your house less safe to fill it up with deadly objects. Duh. All the studies prove that over and over and frankly every gun owner already knows that.

The real equation that needs to be balanced is the amount of pleasure gun owners get from playing gun against the gun deaths that would not have occurred without the guns. The pleasure gun owners get from playing gun isn't nothing. As a society, we accept many significant costs to facilitate things that people enjoy. We accept downhill skiing, for example, even though it causes quite a few deaths per year because it is fun. We permit drinking even though it leads to a lot of premature deaths, drunk driving accidents and domestic violence. Enjoyment is worth weighing pretty heavily. But, of course, so are deaths.

As cold as it may sound, some number of deaths are certainly acceptable to facilitate the gun hobby. There are 100 million+ gun owners in the US, so even a small thing like a fun hobby multiplied by 100 million comes in with a pretty significant weight. But, gun deaths per capita differ radically from state to state while the pleasure gun owners get out of playing gun doesn't really vary that much from state to state. So, that suggests that we can dramatically reduce gun deaths without giving up much of the pleasure gun owners get from playing with their guns.

[NYC_SKP]

180. I "like playing gun". Why don't you like playing gun?

Let's play gun!

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

189. Just to clarify....

The real equation that needs to be balanced is the amount of pleasure gun owners get from playing gun against the gun deaths that would not have occurred without the guns.

Are you asking for a way to balance "amount of pleasure gun owners get..." against the number of gun deaths that would occur if there were no guns? There isn't a way to quantitatively measure pleasure and that discussion isn't really worth having.


Now aside from suggesting that there may be a way to remove guns from the US, why would the existence of a hobbies like target and skeet shooting somehow negate the fact that people do actually use guns for protection?