I wrote back capitalizing the YOU to emphasise they don't make you, Piggypie safer.
The thing of it is, I've never said guns in the home make people safer, I really don't know. I do BELEIVE some people are safer with them and some aren't. I also said it's a choice how people keep and use them.
If you look in the thread I've also written they are not for security in my house, safety is not the primary purpose for us keeping guns.
But maybe Wheekers is safer? I guess the data you cited says she isn't, but surely some people end up successfully protecting themselves with a gun from a masher type entering their home, and some people shoot themselves I suppose.
My thinking in all of this is that I often see 2 sides at the extreme ends of the argument and not many people want to compromise. I think that's part of the problem and why we can't find common ground for sensible gun laws.
Didn't mean to be flippant. I try to see both sides as much as possible while leaning towards the allowing to carry/keep guns. I've been dragged to some large gun shows. Not sure if anyone else has ever gone but it's quite an experience.
They are interesting and good for getting things like an inexpensive scope, memorabilia, seeing history but a lot of those people shouldn't have guns - many are nuts and quite frankly it is scary knowing they do have guns. But I still don't want to take them away from responsible people - not saying you're saying that either just trying to explain my point of view. I really don't know what the answer is, but I often think I know what the answer isn't. If that makes any sense?
- Supporter in 2018
1) Sandy Hook we all know about.
Right here in the Seattle area since I moved down in Dec 2010:
2) A teenager used his father's gun to shoot 6 friends - 2 deaths including his.
3) An off-duty police officer had a gun under the seat of his car. When he went in to pay, his kids found the gun and one child was killed.
Two of those instances, the guns were obtained legally by the owners. One was obtained by someone who had at least one felony and should not have been able to acquire it. Later found to have a whole cache tucked away.
There are more, I just can't remember enough details off the top of my head. Writing this on the fly. Sorry for mistakes.
- And got the T-shirt
We can debate gun laws and background checks until the cows come home, but that won't touch the problem of illegal guns.
When we lived in Philadelphia, there was (and I'm sure there are more since) a group of dealers in used guns that targeted the junior and senior high schools. They set up in used vans, just far enough away from the schools not to attract attention, and used student runners to encourage the kids to come by and buy guns illegally. Many of those gun were traced back to police departments who had sold them after (and sometimes before) they had been used for evidentiary value.
There are dozens of other similar situations, and they're all fueled by the availability of guns.
Part of the problem is the corporate culture in this country that says that businesses should always be growing. And if you're growing a gun-selling business, you've got to have a continuous new stream of customers.
One of the more despicable ways they go about doing this is revving up the "Democrats will take away your guns" in every presidential (and sometimes congressional) election cycle. I paid particular attention to this during the last presidential election, and the Democrats said NOTHING about doing that. But the machine kept beating the drum, and there was the predictible run on guns and ammo and stockpiling both. It's just madness. F***ing madness.
I'm pretty much a total pacifist. The only times I'd support war is in the face of another Holocaust or if we were attacked. And I don't really see any reason for most people to have guns at all. I grew up with them, I hunted as a kid and teenager, and am (or was, before I started wearing trifocals!) a very good shot. If you live in the country, you need something to shoot snakes. If you live in wild animal country, you need something to protect your herds/flocks. Nobody, and I mean NOBODY outside the active military, needs an assault rifle.
I know plenty of devout Christian women who carry guns in their purses, prepared to shoot anyone who might rob them. Some of them are so scatterbrained I wouldn't trust them with a BB gun, much less a pistol. I doubt that any of them have thought through the personal consequences of having to live with the fact that you killed someone to save what's in your purse. And most of them are more likely to have the gun taken from them and used on them than to be able to use it themselves.
OKay, rant over. That's more than I intended to say when I started, but I got wound up. I just really wanted to make the point that illegal guns (not bought at any reputable store, using any sort of background process) are a huge part of the problem, and you can't legislate that away. There are too many of them.
So many people say it better than I would (and know more than I do):
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/medical_exa ... suicide.html
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/medical_exa ... suicide.html
And an interesting experiment to see if they might:
http://www.arktimes.com/ArkansasBlog/archives/2015/07/29/do- ... ts-otherwise
" ... a new study from researchers at Mount St. Mary's University sheds some light on why people don't use guns in self-defense very often. As it turns out, knowing when and how to apply lethal force in a potentially life-or-death situation is really difficult.
[The experience of 77 volunteers with varying degrees of training in use of police simulators on the use of force was not encouraging to the idea of filling public places with even more guns.]
"They found that, perhaps unsurprisingly, people without firearms training performed poorly in the scenarios. They didn't take cover. They didn't attempt to issue commands to their assailants. Their trigger fingers were either too itchy — they shot innocent bystanders or unarmed people, or not itchy enough — they didn't shoot armed assailants until they were already being shot at.
" The researchers released some fascinating video comparing how regular citizens and trained police officers performed in the scenarios.'
What I wrote was meant that without knowing all of anyone else’s situation(s) no one can really know that someone else is not safer with a gun in home but that a person can only determine if they themselves are safer.
So taking what you wrote above and that you feel the way you do you can only really speak for yourself that you Piggypie isn't safer was what I was trying to say. I don't know if you are or not.
I guess it was my way of a kind of a play on words that seems to have gone kaboom. But does that kind of clear it up. More confusion than it was worth. Didn't mean to insult you that you don't know about guns or are trained in them. I don't know. But I agree a lot of people probably aren't safer but I do know some are.
In my case I feel I am probably safer and would rather have them then not if there was a Masher type trying to get at me. I’m probably marginally safer, I think. I do know with my father in the house I am safe, completely. Because I know that situation. And I know there is discussion about people shooting a prowler and hitting a unintended target and all that but there are ways to control that. Here I have to yell to my brother who knows more than me and says shooting subsonic parabellum (with harder trigger pull/strike on harder primer) ammunition with hollow point reduces ricochet and through and through type incidents. I could go on, errr… he could go on but no one wants to hear it. You think I’m bad, sheesh
If someone is a responsible gun owner they keep their gun in a safe locked up with the ammo stored separate right? How is that going to protect them in a home break-in situation?
I didn't read the links Lynx posted but it seems like good information.
A gun in the home does not make the homeowner safer from crime.
Port Arthur was the biggest massacre and the Australian government banned guns (paraphrasing I'm not up to date on exactly what was banned etc). Sandy hook happens in the states and nothing is done? Its totally insane to me that you wouldn't have enacted some additional gun control after that. The gun Lanza used cost $1000. That's ridiculous that it's so affordable to the average person.
I think a part of the problem in the states is that the NRA has money and makes donations to political parties which sways them from enacting stiffer gun laws.
- You can quote me
The vast majority of guns on the street are not stolen from law-abiding citizens' homes. That is a fallacy, and I'll back it up when I have time to do it justice.
The gun Lanza used is closer to $1500 (USD), and I don't consider that affordable.
I haven't had time to read all comments, and still want to do so. Erinspigs, I don't mean to leave you hanging out here with no backup -- just want to be fair.
I’ve never said all people with guns in the home are safer, I think I've been clear now. I'm saying some are and it's been proven some have been. I can also find links of stories supporting my view, of people who have shot intruders trying to get in their home and do them harm.
Whatever my position, left or right, yes or no, and I may be young but I can tell you this much, guns will never be banned in America nor will they become harder to obtain. In fact, American States continue to make it easier for people to carry them and give the people the choice. That is a fact. The NRA has money because American citizens give it to them.
The person it seems most people on this forum would like to be president Bernie Sanders, comes from the state with the most liberal gun laws in the country. He says it's ok for his state but not some other states. Regardless, he has done nothing to curb the ability to carry concealed or open in his state. Vermont has no background check of any kind to obtain a gun other than what the federal government requires. Did you know in Vermont you can legally purchase a suppressor (aka silencer)? There is a process and a check for that but outside being a felon or some domestic abuse, you will pass rather easily. Maine allows it’s states’ citizens to obtain fully, not semi but fully automatic weapons with the same type check.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/aug/24/chicago-crim ... pe/?page=all
As to the Wash Times article, the police claim other factors are responsible for the drop in crime.
More about if concealed carry protects you:
This article which presents both sides, says there is nothing clear either way:
And another article with death statistics:
I am sure people who carry feel safer whether they are or not.
Still happy I have neighbors with guns who likely could help if a bear broke in.
I have little to add. I do have a visceral, emotional response to guns. They make me very uncomfortable. I also acknowledge that they are tools that are useful, in not irreplaceable, at times.
Decades ago, I was assaulted on the street as I walked home from work. Grabbed from behind. I instantly started struggle and fighting, and my assailant was probably not expecting it, so (s)he gave up and ran off pretty easily. Thank G-d.
Ever since then, I've wondered if I would always react that way, or if that was some kind of fluke. And, like I imagine most people do, I wonder what I would do if it was a choice between me or some attacker, how far would I go? Could I kill someone if I felt like they would kill me if given the chance?
I understand how people would. But even if I did (gun or not), I just can't imagine how I'd live with myself the rest of my life, knowing I killed someone. This is just my very own emotional feeling. I absolutely do not suggest that everyone should feel the same.
I wold like to think even if given the chance, I just couldn't do anything that would end someone else's life, for whatever reason.
That said, I'm "glad" (hard to find the right words) that there are people who can do that in order to protect innocent people. I pray for their safety and their peace
I think people reading my posts probably think my view on gun control is obvious. I think at least some people think of me as believing “let’s all have guns and do whatever the heck we want, and our right to have them comes before everything else”. That is not accurate of how I feel. I have had discussions with many people who have opposing views on guns in America. I find that people who say they are in favor of gun control “mostly” do not want guns, or want very limited rights to the types and situations where guns are allowed. Conversely, “pro gun” people often fall into their own category as well, even though it’s not always an accurate description. I mentioned going to gun shows in a different post. I can’t articulate the culture shock you might find at some gun shows. There is a lot of vitriol swarming throughout the gun shows I have gone to. It can be very disturbing and unfortunately labels many of us.
It is particularly bothersome to me that at the shows I’ve gone to , there is an enormous amount of Nazi memorabilia. I love history, but there is a place for everything. I realize there are few appropriate places for Nazi memorabilia and that’s a good thing. For some reason outside of museums, gun shows seem to be the place where it thrives, although my father tells me a lot of it is fake. That might bother me even more, that there is a market for fake Nazi memorabilia! It also bothers me that people might draw the assumption people who like guns also like Nazi memorabilia. I don’t. It hurts me to see it. I wouldn’t go as far as banning it and I’m not talking about the guns used by the Germans in World War II, they were some of the best ever made and my family has many. I’m talking about the flags, buttons, pins, parade stuff, etc.
The issue of Guns in America is divisive but I find it disheartening more people aren’t willing to try to understand each other’s viewpoints. That is why I post, not to argue, rather to give another point of view to hopefully educate. I’ve failed miserably but I keep trying. My observation; if there is to be more common ground on the issue of Guns in America, it is going to have to be the far left side that makes the bigger compromise. I mentioned in another post, America will not curb it’s appetite for guns, especially when there is talk of banning guns. That scares the pro gun side as much as guns scare the gun control side. America was born in a firefight and those people with the cold dead hand bumper stickers aren’t kidding from what I’ve seen.
Just to address Jacqueline’s good post; I don’t carry a gun, but someday I probably will if I’m in a state where it is legal to do so. No one really knows Jacqueline, if they could shoot to kill a person trying to cause them harm until the time comes. I would like to think I could. I’ve certainly been conditioned to be able to – 2 in the chest, you will hear that all the time in gun circles – but, and here is a big but, I believe people should be trained if they are going to have/carry guns. In most states you do have to take a course if you intend on carrying a gun. In most, if not all states, you must take a hunter safety course if the reason for guns is for hunting. I’m not sure the gun control side is aware of those things. I mentioned in another post my taking a combat pistol course with Jessie Duff at one of our ranges. This is way beyond what is necessary for licensing, I’ve been given many other lessons from professional shooters. If I ever do decide to carry a gun, I will at least be as prepared as you can be, and that is paramount to my argument of having guns. You need to be trained in operation and safety. It’s not just about how and where you store ammo. I wish people were better trained then most are today, from what I’ve seen.
I think most of us realize gun ownership will always be present. That it could be better regulated to ensure the safety of more people is what I have tried to address. That I don't have a gun nor plan to have a gun does not mean I don't want people to have guns - just that how this is done is done with more wisdom and safety for all -- the owners themselves and the general public.
- You can quote me
This is a poor analogy, but how many of the general public view people who believe in taking proper care of animals and recognizing them as living beings, toward which we have a responsibility, as crazed thugs that attack research laboratory personnel, destroy property, spray-paint what isn't destroyed, and chain themselves to trees? Unfortunately, an awful lot.
On this board, the vast majority of us know better! There is an enormous gray area in the middle of law-abiding, caring, responsible people who never make the news, in between either of the most extreme end positions.
Concealed carry requires a permit. Said permit is not cheap, and it is not "hard" to get, but neither is it particularly easy. You go through a background check and you are fingerprinted, at least in Georgia. (I think I've been fingerprinted more than some criminals, which tells you something.)
Here's a state-by-state map:
I wholeheartedly agree with bpatters, in that the largest part of the problem is the enormous number of firearms available to criminals 'underground'. These are rarely bought legally at gun shops, and are rarely stolen from law-abiding gun owners. How many of them are lucratively smuggled in from other countries? I do not know the statistics, but I suspect quite a few.
The news is full of reports of police shootings and criminal shootings. Firearms are used responsibly by millions of people for legitimate sporting, hunting, and personal and property protection purposes. My particular interest is in target shooting; the precision and accuracy required are a satisfying challenge to me. That's not saying I'm perfect or anything; only that the news media, in their attempts to get clicks and readers, focus disproportionately on the illegal use of a relatively small number of types of firearms in violent, harmful acts. There's an enormous number of folks beneath the tip of that iceberg using firearms responsibly for legitimate sporting and defense purposes.
If the drivers in my particular neighborhood are any indication of the general population (and I hope they're not :-p), I'd say about 92% of automobile "accidents" are not even remotely close to being accidents. They are caused by recklessness, carelessness, belligerance, aggression and poor judgment. I strongly suspect far more people are killed, disabled and maimed in automobile "accidents" each and every day than are killed, disabled or maimed with firearms, although I'm going to shirk my responsibility here to look it up.
No one is in any great hurry to limit access to motor vehicles, and in many (most?) states drivers' ed in high school is a thing of the past, so young people learn how to drive from reckless Uncle Fred, and the cycle is continued.
Firearms should *not* be exchanged at gun shows, swap meets, or in pawn shops without a background check; they should be subject to the same laws and requirements as a licensed dealer (although they will often say the cost and technology is a prohibitive burden, that's wrong and irresponsible in my opinion).
My opinion only.