What to do?

[digonswine]

I have been among the many that have thrown up their hands and felt there was nothing to do about the gun problems.

I have no kids, so maybe I don’t tend to revert to the long view.

Reasonable restrictions suggested by others seemed to have been a bit too late for the US.

I was being stupid, maybe.
I THINK that knowing who has what “tool” for killing people would not be so bad.

I THINK that the idea that the government fears an armed populace is fantasy.

Some here have stated that second amendment rights trump all others, and are, indeed, the most important for keeping us free. That, without an armed populace, government or industry would crush us and take away our liberties.

This is silly.
They have more rights than we do already.
We can’t crush our modern army if it was to be turned against us.
That’s nuts.
Armed insurrections have been put down time and time again by those towing the industrialist’s line. Give it up already.

So—the argument that we have to have guns to keep our leaders in-check is wrong. To me, at least.

Personally, I do not have a problem with the government knowing who has what.

I have 3 unregistered guns. They are for fun and for hunting. I have no problem admitting this to the authorities.
I do not think that changes will have an immediate result, but there could be a result.

ASIDE-I was talking to a DNR(Department of Natural Resources) dude about invasive species. I expressed the common thought that invasive species were going to get there anyway. Why the prevention? He stated that the measures taken here(WI) were already halting the spread. ---The idea is that, just because the problem seems insurmountable, and a lost cause to the individual, it is not necessarily so.

[TPaine7]

1. A few questions...

Why do you have tools "for killing people"? You have guns, according to you, for "fun and hunting" but other people's guns are "for killing people." Why the double standard?

Why do you assume that in a battle between the people and the modern army, the army would win? Do you think the army would line up on one side with tanks and the citizens with Glocks? Do you think the people would all gather in one place for battle, as if this were the Revolutionary War? Why do you think Americans are so much more stupid than Iraqis or Afghanistan fighters or Al Qaeda?

Do you assume that all of the Army, Marine, Navy, Air Force, Special Forces and CIA types would side with the government? Don't you think some of them are true believers in the stupid idea that the people are entitled to revolution if the government gets out of hand?

If the people at large were against the government--if there was resistance all over--how do you see the government using the advantage you think it has? Would they carpet bomb all major US cities? (And do you think they would have an arrangement to surrender to Russia or China after destroying the economic system that supplies them with technology, vehicles, guns, etc.?)

I saw a special on President Johnson once. They had taped conversations, where he talked about what he thought would happen if he order a nuclear strike on the USSR. The USSR. To the best of my recollection, his exact, tape recorded words for the response he expected were:

Fuck you sir, Mr. President.

The situation would be very messy if the majority of the US decided a revolution was called for. There would be some very serious warriors on each side, there would be retired military teaching civilians how to fight a dirty, ruthless war. One of the main reasons so many military would side with the people, especially after some of the people you imagine to be pathetic losers had died in combat, is that our government was founded on the right to revolt. There are uneducated, racist, homophobic, stupid people who believe in the right to revolt. There are also Navy Seals, Green Berets, Marines, soldiers and sailors who believe the same silly stuff. Retired and active.

There are also generals, captains of nuclear submarines, and other who believe in the right to revolt. If they believe that the government is in full scale war against the people, you can bet that many of them are going to side with the people. Siding with the people can mean launching a strike on the White House, sending Seals to visit the President, or even the Secret Service acting like the take their oath to uphold the Constitution seriously.

War against the people of the United States of America would be dangerous and unpredictable for whoever launched.

It's one thing to grope people in the airports and read everyone's e-mails when the people are stupidly in favor of it in the interest of safety--and they are. It is a different thing altogether to take the rights they actually care about. I just wish we cared about more rights.

[digonswine]

4. I do not see this as a double standard-

I said that I do not mind if the powers that be know I have these.

Yup--I think that if the US gov went to war with its own people--yes-they win. They have ALWAYS won. A look at history suggests that armed insurrections have had but marginal influences.

I think the government has often done wrong. That is true--

I find that the mindset that adheres to the idea that we are keeping the government at bay on a knife's edge of insurrection and disobedience is one that tends toward the paranoid and, frankly, nuts side of reality.

I do not, in any way, believe that an armed populace acts as any deterrent to those who might abuse our laws. I think it is laughable.

[PavePusher]

6. Viet Nam, Iraq and Afghanistan didn't seem to get the memo.

Perhaps you should go brief them?

Oh, Nicaragua. Les'see, where else....?

French and Polish and Yugoslav resistance movements? Yes, they had outside help. Why do you think an American civil war wouldn't have outside assistance?

[digonswine]

9. So you really--

REALLY believe you could have an effect on policy? Because you are armed?

[TPaine7]

15. Is "you" a single individual, or the majority of the citizens? It matters,

but your questions seems to intentionally misrepresent the idea of armed revolution. Why would you resort to such tactics?

So you really--

REALLY believe you could have an effect on policy? Because you are armed?

Do you really need such arguments to prop up your position?

[digonswine]

48. Not really-

my position is a bit malleable anyway.
It seems to me that an armed U.S. populace does nothing to dissuade evilly types in power from doing bad things.
They have found much better methods of subtle control and have no need to squish us under their thumbs with military might. I know there are local exceptions, but they seem to get what they want through gentler means.
My thought is that justifying one's guns by claiming it is keeping the PTB in check is silly.

[Reasonable_Argument]

70. That's your opinion

You might call it a fantasy that the populace could defend itself from a superiorly armed military but military history says you're wrong. You might feel that gun owners have no affect on policy but I'd point to all the people in the government being afraid to even bring it up due to the consequences to say you're wrong. So while you're entitled to your thoughts, they don't hold much weight when weighed against reality.

[digonswine]

73. Not quite-

Politicians do not bring it up because it is politically undesirable. So, yes, gun owners do have an effect on policy-BUT for different reasons than fear of the power of the guns--they fear political implications ONLY.
I can't say that our recent military history points to us being able to top gov forces. We can learn from the past, yes, but we can't assume it is a parallel to today.

[4th law of robotics]

62. Dictators seem to like disarming their populations

not all do but the vast majority go in for it.

I'll take their word on it.

[digonswine]

66. I am not for disarming the population-

I have never said this, so do not make assumptions, please.

This is a problem-we act like we are different "sides" here--we are not. We disagree very slightly(I think) about what is sensible regarding gun ownership.
That's it.
I do not believe that our situation in this country directly or indirectly parallels any other. Comparisons to dictatorships ring hollow-at least for now.
Do not act like calling for sensible rules for gun owners equates to rolling over for dictators.

[Reasonable_Argument]

71. "at least for now"

That's kinda the point. Once you disarm yourself or give the government all this information what are you going to do if things go badly in the future? Ask for them to destroy the information and give you your guns back? Good luck.

[digonswine]

72. Again-not for disarmament.

[Starboard Tack]

10. How'd it work out during the last civil war here?

Which French and Polish and Yugoslav resistance movements are you referring to?
Way to go Pave. Get that Glock polished.

[Lurks Often]

23. Maybe you should read your history

both Britain and France DID support the Confederate States of America during the Civil War.

[Starboard Tack]

29. So what? Is there some relevance?

[Lurks Often]

39. Ah yes,

you reference the Civil War, are proven wrong and respond back with "So what? Is there some relevance?".

So sorry to trouble you with the correct information.

[PavePusher]

26. WWII ring any bells?

They tied up a lot of troops during the war. Oh, and Greece too.

Did you know that the South almost won the Civil War? They also had material support from Britian: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Britain_in_the_American_Civil_War

P.S. You don't polish a Glock. They are matte composite material. Good luck with that.

[Starboard Tack]

30. OK. I guess you'd better get back to building your bunker

and not polishing your Glock. (it was a euphemism)

[PavePusher]

33. Why should I build a bunker?

I have a nice cave picked out in the mountains.

[TPaine7]

16. Are we, or are we not a colony of Britain?

A look at history suggests that armed insurrections have had but marginal influences.

Those idiot founders. They should have realized that the Revolutionary War was going to fail.

[Starboard Tack]

31. Sorry, I didn't realize you were suggesting armed revolution.

I thought it was about oppression from the US government we were talking about. You know, the system y'all fought for when you revolted against the last one that insisted on folk paying their taxes.

[digonswine]

41. This is a different time-

I do not think it compares much to now.

[PavePusher]

60. So, we'll never have to throw off a bad government?

Lybia, Syria, and a whole bunch of other countries would like to know what your proposals are.

[spin]

32. You are right but the majority of the people in our nation did not support the uprisings ...

we have suffered in the past.

The Civil War was the most important uprising but it was a regional battle. The South seceded and a very bloody war resulted. The North was largely united and had the money and the industry to win the war which the South lacked. Still it was a close war and had Lee bypassed Gettysburg and instead marched on Washington DC we might live in two nations today. Lee's numerous successes in battle caused him to be overconfident.

You might well be right and our government could squash any poplar uprising but I would suggest that the threat is far from "laughable."

Remember that there are an estimated 80 million gun owners and 300 million firearms in our nation. We have the best trained military in the world and a large number of veterans who have combat experience in our many wars fought over recent years. In a popular rebellion I would not expect organized armies to take to the field for the rebels but guerrilla warfare would likely be the most effective form of resistance. Our military history of success against such tactics is marginal at the best.

You also need to realize that our armed forces are a very patriotic group of people who put their lives in danger because they believe our leaders are sending them into battle to fight for the freedoms we have been granted by our Constitution. If a truly tyrannical government were to try to take control of our nation it is quite possible that many in our military would join the rebellion and provide weapons and support.

But we are nowhere close to a rebellion in our nation at this time. Our government is far from dictatorial and is in fact largely ineffective at solving any of the problems we face today. It is possible that a peaceful movement will be formed to replace many of our elected officials and elect others who are capable of compromise and not bought and owned by the 1%. Many long time members of both parties might lose their seats. Such a peaceful movement might take years to be effective and at this point I don't see it happening.

I do need to emphasize that we are nowhere close to a situation in which the majority of the citizens in our nation would ever support an uprising. Some fringe groups on the right seem to believe so but they are simply fools. I don't expect such a situation will ever occur in my lifetime and I am 66 years old.

Is civilian firearm ownership a deterrent to a dictator? History shows that it often is which is why a dictator usually loves draconian gun control.

I once heard a very wise individual express the opinion that the best form of government is a benevolent dictatorship but unfortunately benevolent dictators are extremely rare.

I would also that you consider recent events in the Middle East. Many nations successfully overthrew dictatorial governments and were not as well armed as civilians in the United States.

[safeinOhio]

2. The numbers show that about the only

Gun violence I have to fear is from some crook with a concealed handgun. I'm a legal handgun owner with a permit and I'd be more than happy to see all handguns registered and background checks on ALL gun sales. It would not restrict me in any way. It would only be a pain for those that can't own one legally and for those that suffer from paranoia.

[digonswine]

5. Sounds good-

I want sensible restrictions only

[gejohnston]

3. I don't totally understand the point you are trying to make

It isn't a gun problem as it is a drug prohibition, mental health, urban decay, historical, cultural and several other problems. Gun restrictions will do nothing to address these issues in the US anymore than they have in Jamaica or any place else.

What are these reasonable restrictions are those? Most of the suggestions I have seen either suggest the status quo without knowing it, or based on a total lack of technical knowledge (heat seeking bullets) or guns that are rarely used in crime.

May I suggest some military history classes covering
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asymmetric_warfare

Registration doesn't do anything. That is why Canada dumped their long gun registry twice, after WW2 and this year. New Zealand dumped it in 1982 because the system was rife with errors and took money and cops off the street. There is no positive result unless you are the IT contractor.

What does invasive species have to do with guns or street crime?

[safeinOhio]

11. Long guns are not the problem with crime

And my safety walking down the street. Did Canada dump handgun registration?

[gejohnston]

17. no but the reasons for creating it had more to do with the red scare

in the 1920s and 1930s. They had no problem with machine guns before they started registering them in the 1950s, not since either. Since guns are used in 32 percent of their murders, knives and baseball bats seem to be a bigger problem. New Zealand dumped theirs in 1982.

[digonswine]

14. I suppose-

I do want less people with guns.
I am not sure how to make this happen.
It may require more extensive training with firearms.
Get a licence.--I do not fear government interference here.

Other countries' dumping certain requirements mean nothing to me.

The invasive species reference was about perspective. We CAN do a bit of good in our time and not throw up our hands, and decry the problem as unsolvable.

[gejohnston]

18. to me it is not a

the number of people with guns, but who those people are. As criminologist Gary Kleck put it, the problem is not the number of guns, the problem is who has them and how to keep them out of the hands who should not have them. If the only ones without guns are gangsters and drug dealers and everyone else has a huge collection is no problem. So, I disagree with you on that.
Give the prohibitionists and inch, and they will take a mile. More gun restrictions, history in the US and other places tell us, will not result in fewer murders, violent crime or anything else.
The reason why they dumped the requirements is worth looking at.

Guns are not living things, so it doesn't provide serious prospective.

[digonswine]

42. I would agree--

the problem is the wrong people having the guns. I do not know just what to do about this.
I am not sure that if an inch is given that a mile will be taken. We are not necessarily talking about "prohibitionists," but, perhaps, about sensible people wanting useful measures taken.
I am not a prohibitionist. I would not take the mile. I wish I knew a way to make this a less gun-centered country, but I do not.

[gejohnston]

49. I don't think there is a way to keep guns

away from gangsters, not even the UK does that. I do know that before Nixon's WOD, street gangs in the US rarely used guns. I'm old enough to remember when they limited themselves to switchblades and tire chains. Their guns ranged from home made zip guns to "ring of fire" guns like Clerke (no guarantee it won't fire when dropped, no guarantee it would fire when you pulled the trigger.) Even in the 1970s in places like Montana, knives were the issue. Outside the south, the gun laws were laxer.
What changed?
Nixon made high quality guns affordable?
Change in gang culture that made a pistol a "must have"?
US cop shows and movies that ended in shoot outs, even white collar banksters shooting it out? Since the late 60s, that has been cliche as fender benders turning into fiery explosions. Compare the average US cop show with a UK or Canadian one.
Movies that glorified violence?
I honestly think 1, 3, and 4 created number 2. That is a start. Of course we need to create better alternatives to inner city kids than shooting and stabbing each other.
I don't think the US is that "gun centered". It is a part of our culture, that in itself is no big deal. Of course one could describe Switzerland and parts of Germany as "gun centered" if you show up during Schützenfest http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sch%C3%BCtzenfest.

[digonswine]

51. You may be right-

I completely agree that it is more about our culture and less about the guns themselves.

[twizzler]

19. From the perspective of an LEO

how much good does licensing do if the bad guys don't comply. I'm not particularly pro or anti gun, but what your suggesting is not workable with the criminal element, and I speak from 35 years of dealing with the criminal element.

[HALO141]

27. "Get a licence"

So you would be OK with requiring a voting license? What about a license of movement to allow you to relocate or travel?

In general, are you OK with having to be granted permission to exercise your other rights?

[digonswine]

45. Not the same at all-

Voting = gun-ownership? What a load of hooey.
When you relocate or buy a house, there are many hoops to jump through. MANY more than simply buying a gun, and for good reason, mostly.

[gejohnston]

52. different hoops

If you have cash, you lose a lot of those hoops. I don't think anyone does criminal background checks to buy a house (unless it is some anal gated or deed restricted community).

[digonswine]

53. No-

but inspections are needed, credit checks, etc--for most of us, at least.
The idea is that our privacy is violated all the time and we do not cry foul or raise a stink.

[gejohnston]

54. oh yeah, the inspector

that is an industry in itself, who is partnered with the guy selling it.

[HALO141]

57. It absolutely IS the same.

All those inspections and credit checks and other bullshit are strictly voluntary. If you've got the cash in your pocket you can simply buy the thing and nobody can say you can't. You don't need insurance or inspections or credit checks. Those things are stipulated by the lender to safeguard their investment and voluntarily agreed to by the borrower. Nobody is forcing you to agree to them, it's simply a condition of the loan. Don't like the deal? You can pay cash or look for another lender with a deal you find more appealing.

The nature of a right does not change depending on the right itself. It either is or it isn't. When you have to ask permission, it isn't a right. Or, more correctly, if you have to ask permission to exercise a right you are being oppressed whether you recognize that oppression or not.

[digonswine]

65. I disagree-

you make fair points, ones that point to the idea that if you have more money, you have more rights. I realize, though, that that is not your point. Say you want to rent an apartment-you know-shelter. You might need to submit info you would rather not. You might not call it a "need," but many would.

I feel it is a right to protect one's self. I feel that most folks should be able to do so with a gun, if necessary--and as long as one does so in an appropriate manner, there should be no legal consequences. I guess that my definition of "appropriate" is different from some others'.

My take on the 2nd amendment is that it provides for an armed populace as a militia in order to secure a free state. Again--different times.

I think that liberties are taken with this amendment. I don't really care about that, but it should be noted that self-defense is not the reason to have guns in a constitutional sense.

[HALO141]

69. We may actually have found some common ground.

I certainly agree that shelter is a need. Even so, a rental agreement is entered into on a voluntary basis. Believe me, I do not like sharing personal details with anyone. Not having the available cash to purchase one outright, I have to go through the same anal exam everyone else does when buying a house. I absolutely loathe the process. Still, I'm willing to do so in order to secure the loan. Were I on the other end of the transaction I wouldn't think about lending hundreds of thousands of dollars to someone I didn't know without verifiable evidence of their good character and ability to repay. I don't think you would either.

I agree that the militia and its relevance to a "free state" were of great importance to James Madison when he wrote the BoR but not so important as to diminish the meaning of the phrase, "the people," which has subsequently (and rightfully, IMHO) been determined to be consistent in its meaning and usage throughout the document. I believe that self defense is implicit in the meaning of the Amendment hence the explicit mention of the free state. Self-defense is the most fundamental expression of freedom.

[PavePusher]

7. "Some here have stated that second amendment rights trump all others"

Cite, please?

[digonswine]

12. I will not-

I have no idea how to look for that. The idea, though, is that all rights stem from the force behind the 2nd ammendment. Some stated that the right to carry guns was the most and best. Like, without it, there were no freedoms.

[4th law of robotics]

21. Could you arrange the original bill of rights in order of legitimacy?

Which rights are better than others and more legally binding?

[digonswine]

63. I am not sure why you are asking for this-

I have guns. I have not stated that guns should be outlawed. I have stated that I do not know the best way to have any controls on guns. Some ideas sound OK. I am not the idea man-I really have no dogs in this fight.
Some folks' reasoning for having guns sound to me to be a bit silly.
Actually, even though I find the idea of an armed takeover of our government by our armed populace to be batshit nuts, I must admit that, according to my reading of the 2nd amendment, this is the ONLY reason we are afforded that right. So this is not necessarily an incorrect interpretive reasoning, even though I think it silly in this day and age and country and society.

[PavePusher]

25. So you continue to push a claim you can not support with evidence.

Right.

[Trunk Monkey]

38. I'm going to go with digonswine on this one

You've never heard it said here that " The second amendment is the one that guarantees the rest"?

[digonswine]

46. Please tell me how to get to all my old OP's-

I can find some evidence that some folks here think that the 2nd trumps all others. Sorry I am not so savvy as others in providing links.

see post 43.

[HALO141]

58. If you will not bother to back up

your assertions then why bother to make them? This is the Internet, after all, and there will always be someone to challenge any statement of "fact," be it real or imaginary.

[digonswine]

64. Geez sorry-

I find it surprising that my assertion, based on my memory, that one or more people on this board stated that the right to bear arms is the most important of rights would be questioned.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/11721025

here is a link to the OP I finally found--where some are clearly saying that the 2nd trumps all others.
Another way to say that is that without the 2nd, all others are in jeopardy-I disagree.
I am not going to reference specific posts or link to them-I don't know how and am not going to find out now-read through it yourself.

[HALO141]

68. My bad.

For what it's worth, I think the other example you gave (didn't see it till after my previous post) was a more explicit one.

Still... Unless one has established one's self as a qualified expert, his memory will not be takes as sufficient evidence of fact. Given the polar nature of the RKBA debate, I don't think it's possible for both sides to accept anyone as such an expert. This debate is rife with misinformation, conjecture and outright lies presented as fact. You really can't expect anyone to take what you say on face value.

[digonswine]

74. No-asking for evidence is fair-

I was just annoyed at how difficult it was to find an old post of mine and the whiskey sours don't help!

[digonswine]

43. OK-I tried

I do not know how to send you to a post. Here is one-

"The ability to resist oppression by force guarantees all your other rights.

Thus the right to keep and bear arms is arguably our most important right. It is the one right which gives the people the power to secure all the rest."--Atypical Liberal

I had a thread about opinions about the most important of our rights, and the 2nd was mentioned there also. I have no idea how to find this, though.

[Starboard Tack]

8. Agreed. The whole notion of taking on the government is absurd.

And if that were the purpose of 2A, it would be beyond ludicrous. The main reason claimed by those who worship 2A is self defense, which is also beyond ludicrous.
I'm in favor of gun ownership for fun, sport and hunting (for food, not trophies).
The freaks who insist on walking the streets with concealed weapons are mostly scared, but reasonably sane individuals. Unfortunately, there are more and more loonies joining their growing ranks. Too many boys who never made the transition to men, still obsessed with their toys. They live in a comic book reality of "good guys" and "thugs", which are euphemisms for "fat white guys" and "inner city youth".

[TPaine7]

20. Your caricatures say more about you than they do about your targets.

For example, I have often call Bloomie a thug; how does that fit into your framework?

The main reason claimed by those who worship 2A is self defense, which is also beyond ludicrous.

People whose lives have been saved by guns would probably disagree. No one, at least no one who I've ever heard of (other than in hysterical rants like yours) actually worships the Second Amendment. The idea that people defending themselves with guns is ludicrous is a good one--for our side.

Keep spewing silly venom like that, you're doing great.

[Starboard Tack]

28. Where have I ever opposed defending oneself with a gun?

Nice spin. Nothing hysterical on my part. You know well that I am in the middle on gun issues. I support ownership and DGU. I do not support indiscriminate carry. I do not support the idea that 2A is what our society stands or falls on. I do not support the idea that carrying a loaded gun is a "civil right". If you really need it, carry it and use it. Otherwise, leave it where it belongs, at home or locked up safely somewhere.
If you think that is silly venom, then so be it.

[rl6214]

36. "You know well that I am in the middle on gun issues."

Bullshit. Your posts say otherwise.

[HALO141]

34. Bigot much?

[rl6214]

35. "I'm in favor of gun ownership for fun, sport and hunting (for food, not trophies)."

Which is what you have in your home country, right?

Good for you.

[gejohnston]

37. not for trophies

so why don't you support bans on large calibre high cost rifles double barreled rifles made by UK companies like Purdey and Holland and Holland? Some of these rifles cost more than my house or your boat. Rich people don't hunt elephants and rino for food.

[HALO141]

59. I get your point

and I absolutely agree with it. I do feel the need, however, to point out that nothing of those animals goes to waste.

[digonswine]

44. I do not think having a gun for self-defense is ludicrous-

I keep a gun, safely, in my home in case of a nocturnal intruder. I will never have to use it, almost certainly, but it is there.

But--unless one lives in a notoriously unsafe area, I see the carrying of a weapon in public to be somewhat odd.
That's just me, I guess. I can't imagine living that way.
I think there is a good amount of the loonies with guns, but I resist making too many assumptions about concealed carriers.

[Starboard Tack]

55. I'm with you on this

Keeping one at home for home/self defense is quite rational. Carrying one on a routine daily basis is a tad beyond odd. I would place it in the freak zone, unless one lives in a virtual war zone. I don't make assumptions about concealed carriers. I have dialogued with enough of them in this forum to know that some are very reasonable people who have adopted the habit of carrying for whatever personal reasons and I feel for them, as I feel for anyone who has been duped. I believe they are essentially good people who truly believe they are better off carrying guns around. I see them as victims of right wing propaganda, as I see many who choose to vote Republican. Others, however, are not victims of the propaganda, but perpetrators of divisiveness and come here to disrupt civil discourse.

[spin]

56. When I lived in the Tampa Bay area ...

I did live in a bad neighborhood.

I personally broke up a robbery at the neighbor's house across the street. (No, I didn't use a firearm.) There was a drive by shooting two houses down from me but the shooters only managed to hit the porch and a tree. One of the boys in that house ran a local gang. He was later arrested for murdering his girl friend but got off with manslaughter. He apparently shot her in the head with a snub nosed revolver with other gang members as witnesses.

A store clerk was shot and killed at a gas station 1/2 mile from my home and it was always being robbed. I once arrived at the station to fill up my car in the afternoon and a robbery had just happened. I witnessed cops running down my street with guns drawn chasing suspects twice.

So I started legally carrying a firearm.

Now I have retired and moved to a more rural small town in Florida but crime still exists and there is a surprising amount of criminal drug gang acclivity. It's far safer than where I used to live but I still have a habit of carrying my concealed handgun.

I do not carry because of "right wing propaganda." The liberal media hatred of firearms has also has zero effect on my decision to carry a weapon. I'm quite capable of making rational decisions on my own. You apparently did the same and decided to not carry a weapon which is fine to me.

You stated:

Carrying one on a routine daily basis is a tad beyond odd. I would place it in the freak zone, unless one lives in a virtual war zone.

I could take this as somewhat of an insult but I will chose to believe that you have strong emotional feelings about this subject, perhaps for good reason, that that makes it difficult for you to understand those who have different views about carrying a legally concealed weapon.

[digonswine]

67. I don't know that they have been duped--

generally, all human behaviors fall along a continuum-most falling in the "normal" range.
I have, what I consider to be, normal fears.
Now and again, I think of a possible intruder and have made a malleable plan for dealing with it. I have decided what I would and would not do, and what would be responsible reactions to certain situations. I think we all do this-fire breaks out etc., clear glass-breaking noises, where to take cover, etc--just basic plans for reacting to remote possibilities.
But I know that, what I feel is normal , may be construed as careless to some others. Some people are not so good at assigning likelihoods to the happenings of certain events, and they end up creating, in their minds, an elaborate prevention strategy.
I get this--they are not the problem, either.
It is the the person that falls to one extreme end of the spectrum we need to worry about. But they can get weaponry, too.

[Starboard Tack]

75. Duped may be a strong word.

But the idea of carrying a loaded weapon on a regular basis, regardless of perceived threats, environment etc. is not healthy IMO. I see it as buying into a climate of fear, which is antithetical to the progress of our society. Gun sales have increased 60+% since 2008. Is this because violent crime has increased? No, in fact it has decreased. Is it because Obama was elected? The NRA would have us believe so. Is it because of the recession and people are anticipating the collapse of society? The wingnuts would have us believe so.

[gejohnston]

76. correction

actually gun sales have increased in Canada and Australia as well. If fact, I remember posting an OP sometime ago about Australia's increase had Ms. Peters tightly clutching her pearls. It has nothing to do with fear, Obama or collapse of society. Your stereotype of gun owners and the shooting sports community is as inane as saying all pot heads are stupid.

[Starboard Tack]

77. I didn't say they hadn't increased elsewhere.

I have no idea what Australia has to do with my post. I don't know a Mrs. Peters. I make no reference to the sporting community, which I support 100% and make no stereotypes of gun owners. I have no objection to individuals owning guns responsibly, which means safely and not taking them into the public arena out of habit, as opposed to having a sound reason.
I don't know how much clearer I can state my position.

[gejohnston]

78. for the same reason Canada does

last I looked, both of their PMs were white. Ms. Peters is Australia's Sarah Brady, but more extreme and even more shrill.
Out of the people who have carry permits, even fewer still carry every day. That number includes PIs, drug and Jewell couriers, etc. My FIL carried a .32 Beretta because he had a cash business. He is was a city boy from Detroit, AFAIK, that is the only gun he owned. Once he retired from the business after a stroke, he sold the pistol and did not renew his CCW. As for GSC and others who have one, neither one of us know their situation. I'm old enough to remember when small pistols like my FIL's did not sell that well in the US and mostly sold in Europe. Come to think of it, so are you. You just didn't pay attention. It is still easier to get a CCW in half of Europe than it is in parts of California and New York, unless you are rich of course.

[Starboard Tack]

79. Getting a CCL is not the issue

I know friends who have CCLs and never carry. It's the freaks who don't feel safe going anywhere without a loaded gun that concerns me. That mentality is cancerous. Your references to Australia and half of Europe have no bearing or relevance. It's about the society we want to live in. Rights are one thing, behavior is another.

[gejohnston]

80. not freaks

if I lived in Detroit........................
A cop once told me I should carry because of the wrong place, wrong time. As for what kind of society I want to live in, I want to live in a society where its members work together to solves its problems realizing how hard and complex the work is going to be. While doing this, try to be cognizant of possible unintended consequences and how to mitigate the negative ones. I don't want to live in a society wastes time an lives on petty knew jerk theater and symbolism be it from the left or the right. I also don't want to live in a mono culture.

[Starboard Tack]

81. I agree, having lived briefly in Detroit

I didn't carry, but I can understand those who might. NYC, or LA no way. Talking of monoculture, how's Florida working for you?

[gejohnston]

82. Florida is not quite the mono culture

depending where you are at, but Queens/Long Island south is still what it is. What is left of rural Florida and Key West are better than say Orlando or Tampa. There are a number of sub cultures, you just have to get around more. It still lacks the geographical and cultural, including sub cultures, diversity as ummmm Wyoming for example.

[clffrdjk]

13. They have more rights than we do already.

This is my biggest problem. How does removing more of my rights correct this situation?

If you truly want compromise this is my suggestion. Remove all loop holes for the police and federal agencies (military is still exempt).
Every agent and officer must purchase and use his/her own firearm/weapon/laser/taser/plasma rifle/whatever, they must jump through the same hoops that any other person has to in order to possess said item. Training/qualification will be done through the same classes/ranges be they state run or state licensed.

[digonswine]

47. I think the police must train quite a bit-

Generally, they don't just hand out guns, etc to new recruits.

[gejohnston]

50. depends

they provide some training. Both of my brothers had to buy their own. My one brother was only 19, so my mom had to fill out the 4473s and buy the ammo for two years. That was before online sales and the feds lifted the record keeping on ammo sales requirement.

[HALO141]

61. You'd be surprised.

(I am only familiar with the state of affairs in Texas but I believe it is fairly indicative of most departments throughout the nation.) There is some training in the academies but the level of competency they are required to demonstrate is not at all challenging. Once licensed and employed by a Dept. there is a yearly qualification which, again, is not challenging. The shooting competency for the Texas CHL is the same as the yearly TCLEOSE proficiency standard with the exception that the LEO's are required to also fire 5 (or 10, I can't remember) rounds using only their "weak" hand.

S.W.A.T. is the exception. Individual departments will vary, of course, but, in general, they are expected to have a high level of proficiency with their firearms and train regularly.


The episodes of the most dangerous conduct I have ever witnessed on a shooting range were due to the poor gun handling and/or emotional instability of LEO's. IMHO, their training is woefully inadequate.

[ileus]

22. Guns aren't Kudzu

[Glassunion]

40. I fucking hate kudzu.

Grew up in Georgia. I spent countless hours clearing it out of our back yard. I swear that crap grows a foot a day.

[Hoyt]

24. Good post.