Let's face it, evil exists, gun availability not withstanding

[shadowrider]

And no amount of gun registration, confiscation, regulation, banning, magazine capacity restrictions or a scarcity of guns and ammo or anything else under the sun will change that.

Lunatics have existed in the past, they exist right now and they'll exist in the future. They'll continue to cause murder and mayhem as they have since human beings first stood up and threw rocks at each other.

I don't go looking for trouble, am an exceptionally polite driver and stay out of areas that would lend itself to my needing to use my weapon to defend myself. That doesn't mean that in the course of my daily activities I won't run into evil. If, on the off-chance I do, I want to be as prepared as I can be to defend myself, my family, my kids or a stranger.

No one is trying to force everyone to own a weapon. On the contrary, I and most gun owners recognize a persons personal CHOICE. If you don't want to own one, more power to you. It's your choice. But because YOU don't want one, doesn't mean YOU have the right to tell me I CAN'T own one.

Evil is out there, lurking, waiting and it will undoubtedly pounce again.

We can't change that.

[badtoworse]

1. But, but taking guns away feels good. - nt

[guardian]

16. yeah and they'll feel good all the way

to a shallow grave they dig under the direction of bad guy with the gun

[badtoworse]

22. "bad guy" being the operative word

Bad guys aren't going away. That's why the right to self defense was recognized as inalienable by the founding fathers.

[geckosfeet]

2. Agreed that there is and always has been evil. Disagree that we can't change that.

Eliminate it entirely? Probably not.

Reduce the causes of homelessness, poverty, hunger, poor health and lack of education? I think so.

[shadowrider]

3. That only works on those who choose to take advantage of any

programs to help them. There is a segment of society that want nothing to do with help, assistance etc.

Reduce it, maybe. Eliminate it, never.

[geckosfeet]

5. As I suggested. But let us presume that people, given the opportunity,

will take advantage of housing, health care, food and education to improve their lot in life. The criminal element - probably not. But then they will be easier to find.

This is perhaps why repukes are in general so opposed to social responsibility. Their criminal connections would be easily located and correlated.

[guitar man]

23. also

We need to get rid of a lot of these idiotic drug laws and the damn "war on drugs". It's not working.We change that and then look at the violent crime statistics and I bet we see a whole different picture

[obxhead]

33. Education is the operative word.

Most of the hate, especially the violent hate, is brought about by uneducated or misinformed people. The easiest way to fight these idiots is through a robust and truthful education.

If this country spent a 1/10th of what we spend on the war machine on education instead we would help end a lot of this nonsense.

[shadowrider]

34. While I agree in principle

providing money for education ONLY helps those willing to put in the time and effort to receive it. Many brought up in poverty and isolation don't have the necessary supervision (parents, guardians etc.) to provide a role model to support their efforts. Would it help some? Undoubtedly. Would it help enough to make a difference? I don't know.

My job has had me in inner city and rural high schools (White student body and black) and I swear, if an announcement came over the intercom that a new rule was passed that said you no longer had to attend school if you didn't want to be there, 80% of the student body would clear out.

It has to be wanted to be effective.

[obxhead]

39. Well, that is another issue and money might help.

Part of the problem as I remember it through school was the complete and utter boredom. 95% of my classes I would have dodged given the opportunity because there was nothing to engage me in the class. I loved a few of the classes I had and would always attend, even if I skipped the rest of the day. Some of these classes were because of the material presentation, some because of the engagement of the teacher.

The classes I was truly engaged in had some things in common though. Generally they had a smaller class size and they had a teacher that was compassionate about the subject and the students. Money can certainly help class size and it could also bring more people that would like to teach, but chose other careers for money.

Money would also bring additional opportunity to take students to places to see where they can go. Yes classroom time is vital, but showing students places and jobs first hand that require education can motivate greatly. The field trip is rapidly disappearing from the school curriculum and I find that to be a real tragedy. I often learned far more on an 8 hour field trip than I would in a week of school.

No, money won't change everything, but it can change a lot.

Money can't buy happiness, but it sure makes it a lot easier to achieve.

[Bonhomme Richard]

4. My opinion is that the culture of paranoia is the real problem. n/t

[badtoworse]

6. Paranoia? On whose part?

[Bonhomme Richard]

13. How about conspiracy nuts, or the people who think that

we are going to have a civil war like the old days, or people who live in nice neighborhoods that keep their pistols in condition 1. The problem isn't guns. I have plenty of my own though I don't leave them around in condition 1. If I don't have half a second to chamber a round I'm screwed anyway. The problem is a paranoia that leads to living lives in total fear of the improbable.

[Statistical]

21. Why not have them in condition 1?

I have one. It doesn't fire unless I pull the trigger. I don't pull the trigger unless I intend for it to fire.
Pretty simple concept.

A gun without a round in the chamber is a ineffective club.

[badtoworse]

36. There is a difference between being paranoid and being prepared

I keep my pistol (loaded) in the nightstand, but without a round in the chamber. I agree with you, it only takes a split second to chamber a round. We don't have kids, but my wife knows nothing about guns (and is not interested in learning) and on the off chance, she picks it up, I wouldn't want her carelessness to cause it to fire.

I don't think I'm paranoid, but some homes in my neighborhood were burglarized a number of years ago, which is why I bought the pistol.

[Bonhomme Richard]

38. I'm the same as you. No round in the chamber and a wife that....

hasn't gotten around to working with the pistol. She actually came close after that horrific home invasion here in CT but I missed my opportunity. If I lived in a dangerous area I might reconsider the round in the chamber but I don't. I'm not saying that all paranoia isn't justified, LOL, sometimes they are out to get you. But the vocal level of fear that has been amplified in this nation is out of whack with reality and growing up I don't remember any of this gun debate going on...at least not where I lived. People had guns,they hunted, that was it. If people carried, no one seemed to know about it. Now It is in your face and ramped up, I believe we have crossed the line between prepared and paranoia. Frankly, when I got my CCW I saw just how the logic to paranoia level worked on me and I didn't get my CCW because I believed I needed protection. That's another story.

[Statistical]

40. To each his own I was just pointing out broad brush statements are silly.

I have found round in chamber in Springfield XD (no external manual safety) works perfectly with this:



Can open it in about 10 seconds. No way an negligent discharge is going to happen. When my wife is home alone she opens the safe before going to bed.

Nothing else is in the gunvault except the single loaded pistol (with full capacity magazine FU McCarthy)

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

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

[shadowrider]

15. That's right. I forgot. Anyone that supports 2A is a right wing wacko

:crazy:

[Kolesar]

8. Jared didn't bring 21 rocks to her "Congress on your corner" event...eom

[DrDan]

9. there are circumstances where folks should be refused gun ownership

and there should be limits to ownership.

Do you need an arsenal for your personal gun needs? Do you need an "assault" weapon?

[shadowrider]

10. I don't disagree

I personally don't need or want an arsenal. I don't need or want an assault weapon. That doesn't mean because I personally don't want it I should be able to tell others they can't.

[DrDan]

12. yes - we disagree - there are some who clearly should not own a gun

and should be kept from doing so

[badtoworse]

11. What's an "assault weapon"? What's an arsenal?

[Statistical]

14. Do you know what an "assault weapon" is?

Do you think it is responsible to advocate bans or restrictions without knowledge?
Do you feel silly falling for tired lies by a Republican organization (Brady campaign to stop gun violence)?

[DrDan]

18. Do you think there should be absolutely no restriction of weapon ownership?

[Statistical]

20. That is called a strawman.

There a hundreds of restrictions on weapon ownership. Nobody (except you) is claiming there should be none.

Do do you want to answer the question?

Do you even KNOW what an "assault weapon" is? Why should "assault weapons" be banned? What makes "assault weapons" dangerous?

Would it surprise you that "assault weapons" are almost never used in crime?
Would it surprise you that the previous AWB had no effect on violent crime?
Would it surprise you that "assault weapons" definition is based on looks (scary looking rifles) and they are no more dangerous than "non assault weapons"?
Would it surprise you that when the AWB expired there was no increase in crime, in fact we are at a 30 year low?

Do you think it is strange that you are advocating something while being so ill-informed on the subject?
Do you think that might be because a Republican organization has used emotional not logical arguments to influence you?

[DrDan]

26. no, and no

[guardian]

17. what makes you so special that

you can determine what others "need"? Why is you opinion more valid than those who think you do "need" an arsenal?

[DrDan]

19. so, you feel I am not allowed an opinion. Interesting, but expected.

[badtoworse]

24. "Opinions are like assholes; everybody's got one" - Harry Callahan

[DrDan]

27. insightful

[badtoworse]

30. ...and well matched to the substance of your posts

Anyone can post things like nobody needs an "assault weapon" or nobody needs an "arsenal", but if they can't demonstrate a basic understanding of what the terms mean, does their "opinion" have much value?

[chibajoe]

25. What does it matter to you what his needs are?

Telling someone how the should and shouldn't live their life seems like an awfully republican thing to do...

[DrDan]

28. and you telling me that your need to feel safe is more important than mine exhibits nothing by repub

greed.

[Statistical]

29. You have no right to "feel safe". Until you do it is a false equivalence.

[DrDan]

31. I'll stand by that comment

[chibajoe]

32. I am not telling you anything about how important your feelings are,

I really do not care one whit about your feelings. What I care about is that your feelings are prompting you and people like you to tell others (such as myself) how we should and shouldn't live our lives, even when it has no bearing or impact on how you have chosen to live your life, other than making you "feel" unsafe.

On a side note, where did I say anything about feeling safe?

[DrDan]

35. and I will continue to do what I can in the name of gun control

[chibajoe]

37. Well then, I guess that's where you and I differ: I'm willing to let you live your life

however you choose, even though doing so might result in my not being able to live my life however I choose. Have fun with your meddlesome, controlling, conservative agenda.

[YllwFvr]

41. its ok

dans "side" has been losing, terribly, for a long while now. I wonder how it feels to see guns surging in the country, anti gun laws being knocked down everywhere.... and crime dropping.

To me that feels good.

[Statistical]

45. They just pretend it away.

They pretend that crime isn't falling.
They pretend the the fact that the overwhelming majority of firearms are used lawful doesn't exist.
They pretend that accidental gunshot deaths aren't falling.
They pretend that the AWB actually did something.
They pretend that the 2A doesn't protect an individual right.
They pretend that they didn't claim ever pro-gun law passed would lead to "blood in the streets" which never happened.

With each year they become further and further removed from reality.

[DrDan]

43. too bad those 6 from Saturday are not living their lives as they would have chosen

[chibajoe]

46. Last time I checked, I wasn't the person who took it upon himself to kill them.

Are you suggesting that because I own a gun I am somehow the same as Jared Loughner?

[DrDan]

47. I have no idea - are you?

there lies the problem

[chibajoe]

48. What problem, exactly, is that?

I'm not sure what you are saying.

[Taitertots]

42. There are already enough circumstances where folks get refused gun ownership

There are volumes of reasonable restrictions that are already in place. Almost all of them with the support of gun owners and even the NRA.

"Arsenal". Arbitrary distinction designed to frighten those already afraid of guns.
"Assault weapons". Arbitrary distinction designed to frighten those already afraid of guns.
Why don't we use language that isn't bathed in bias? Gun Collections and modern firearms.

What are you afraid of gun collections? One person can only fire one gun maybe two guns at a time. Has there ever been a crime where there were more than 5 guns per person? Going after multiple guns effects only gun collectors, gun enthusiasts, and legal gun users.
Why are you afraid of modern firearms? They are used in a tiny fraction of gun crimes and the majority of legal shooting activities. Restricting modern firearms effects mostly sport shooters, legal gun owners, and hunters.

[DrDan]

44. still not quite good enough though, are they

[Taitertots]

49. Yes, they work quite well.

Your expectations are not realistic if you expect any set of gun control laws to work much better than the ones we have now.

Even if you meet the impossible goals of ending gun homicide with regulation, the next right wing terrorist attack will just be another Oklahoma bomb or a third airplane based attack.

[DrDan]

50. as to how well they work is a matter of opinion - mine is certainly different than yours

[Taitertots]

51. The only difference being that my opinion is based on objective facts

Assault weapons are used in a small percentage of gun crimes.
There are very few gun crimes that use an arsenals worth of weapons.

Assault weapons are the most popular and effective firearms for hunting, defense, and sport shooting. Arsenals are mostly held by collectors, hunters, and sport shooters. Regulating them does nothing except deny hunters, sport shooters, and collectors access to the firearms that are used the most for legal purposes.

[DrDan]

52. "sport" - simply amazing

[shadowrider]

53. Sport

Target shooting, competitive shooting, you know, sport. They even do it in the winter olympics. You know, sport shooting.

[DrDan]

55. hunting as a sport?

[Taitertots]

54. There are multiple shooting events in the Olympics n/t

[DrDan]

56. I realize that - my bp goes up as I hear hunters refer to themselves as "sportsmen"

and brag about their trophies

[shadowrider]

57. As long as the hunters/sportsmen properly utilize the animal

for fur, food and so on, I could care less how many trophies they have.

Seems you have something not only against guns, but hunters as well.

[DrDan]

58. only those that want to make a sport of killing