Gun Control, for or against? (Page 4)

Ok...

 the stories you don't hear about...

http://www.nrapublications.org/armed%20citizen/index.asp

Don't tax ammo, don't create more laws.  School shootings could have been worse.  You can make bombs out of household cleaning chemicals.  Enstead of a handfull of deaths from one school shooting, what would happen if half the students were blown up? 

I think guns are more accessible.  You need to teach responsibility.  It's not the gun's fault, or the manufacturer's fault.

I think people need to be smarter about how they handle a gun.  Storing it, showing their kids "proper" gun safety, letting them know the dangers. 

Please allow me to requote myself...

 Yes, guns are not the end all be all of protection.

I have never said that they completely deter criminal acts. And your point in bringing stories where guns didn't play a part or deter, is fine. But are these the exception of the homes of gun owners or are they the rule. There will always be exceptions on all sides.

My point was only to point out the stories that you don't hear about. These don't make national news, but the others do.

These arguments can go back and forth.... You don't think it matters based on what youve seen and experienced, I disagree based on mine....

John...

"If one believes that gun control lowers crime and violence and thus guns are responsible, then these aforementioned facts are counterintuitive to the logic of gun control.  This is especially true of the 31 states that have enacted concealed carry laws.  Even though groups like Handgun Control, Inc. continually attacked such measures in saying that they will lead to higher crime, “blood on our streets,” and “wild west shootouts,” just the opposite has occurred.  Those states that have enacted concealed carry measures have seen their crime rates immediately fall and continue to do so at rates in most cases faster than the national average.  One of the best examples is Florida.  Prior to their enactment of concealed carry laws in the late 1980s, the crime rate in Florida was higher than the national average.  However, following the enactment of the concealed carry law their crime immediately began to drop and has continued to do so to this day.  In fact, today the crime levels in Florida are considerably lower than the national average.  Additionally, the U.S. state with the lowest crime rate, Vermont, also happens to be the state with the fewest gun control laws - and they allow all law-abiding citizens to carry concealed weapons.  The simple fact is that those areas in the U.S. with the fewest gun restrictions and highest gun ownership rates also have the lowest crime rates. "

You disagree?

This is akin to asking how many people have ever had to use their homeowner's insurance to replace thier house after it burned to the ground? 

I've got many guns but I never shot anybody that didn't have it coming to them.

~Mike

Well, if the question is a blanket 'yes or no', I'd have to say I'm against gun control. I believe in my right to own a gun for hunting, for personal protection and for target/fun. (I don't own a gun for personal protection and don't have any plans to at this time. A great deal of that is because I can't afford the level of training I'd feel I need to have in order to carry it.) I also believe in my responsibility to go to great length to be responsible with my guns and not allow them to get in the wrong hands. The guns are all locked and hidden. Their bolts and bullets are under lock and key elsewhere. When I actually have a child, I will go to much greater lengths to keep them secure. I would not oppose legislation that meant waiting periods, background checks, etc, just don't impede my ability as a law-abiding citizen to have a firearm... (I'm not opposed to the ban on assault rifles.)

I think the NRA needs to quit titty-babying about how everyone's trying to take away their rights and spend at least as much money espousing responsible gun ownership to the general populace (most of their members probably are pretty responsible, I'd guess).

Known guns in the house actually make you a target for robbery (well, they won't show up while you're there!). Everyone in my neighborhood knew my Dad was a Border Patrol agent and we got broken into many times (a function of guns + where we lived + the fact that agents were percieved as "rich" ).

I think a lot of times the difference between the stories of the people who successfully defend themselves vs. the horrible, sad stories of people losing their lives to their own weapon in the hands of an attacker is training.

Both sides need to stop looking at the gun as the actor, good or bad, and start looking at who's behind it. If you are going to carry a gun for self defense/have a loaded gun in your house, you have an obligation to yourself and your family to train with it, practice with it and know it inside and out. A gun doesn't protect you, YOU protect you with or without the use of a gun. The simple presence of a gun is not going help and it may very well hurt.

I'm just going to jump into the thread without reading most of it.

I think the main problem is with hand guns. You know, the ones cowards hide in their back pocket before they kill the unsuspecting victim. My uncle had a really good theory on this. You get caught with a handgun (and not police, military etc.) you are in jail. Seven years. No trial. No excuses like "I was holding it for a friend". Just jail. Build a new series of jails, just for these guys. Hell, with all the surpluses Harper announces it not like we can't afford it. Of course, that would violate several human rights and would never happen.

That wouldn't stop any assault rifle attacks of course. But you would see a decline in gun violence with weapons that are harder to conceal. Most gang members wouldn't strap a hunting rifle to their back and walk around town looking for rivals in their 'hood.

But going back to what Global said, where did you read that 95% of all guns in Canada are for hunting purposes? Registered guns maybe, MAYBE. But I am certain that illegal handguns in Canada far outnumber the 12-guages I might take to a duck hunt this fall (assuming that you would take a 12-guage of course ).

HankJKY,

Wow that was moving and impressive... I think that is a great case and I really find it hard to believe that after ready your post that someone else could stand and look you in the eye and say "I dont think you should own a gun".... But I kow there are people and that boggles my mind...

BTW where in EKY do you live? I was raised in Ashland....

OH yes, "bloody Harlan"... I am suprised you do not have a arsonal to live there....

Hank...

Great post! Thank you for articulating a clear and solid point of view.

How much do you know about the NRA?!? From the sounds of it not much. The NRA is very active in education and training. They have numerous programs that are focused to different age groups as well as competitive shooting and self defense.

The Eddie Eagle GunSafe^® Program, NRA's groundbreaking gun accident prevention program for children in pre-Kindergarten through the third grade, has reached over 18 million children in all 50 states, Canada, and Puerto Rico. Created by past NRA President Marion P. Hammer, in consultation with child psychologists, elementary schoolteachers, and law enforcement officers, the program gives children a simple, effective action to take should they encounter a firearm in an unsupervised situation: "If you see a gun, STOP! Don’t Touch. Leave the Area. Tell an Adult." http://www.nra.org/Article.aspx?id=3607

Youth Programs

Programs for Women - The Refuse to be a Victim Program

-Yes the NRA does focus mainly on the constitutional right at this point, and that is exactly what should be their main objective, because of the strong opposition attempting to take that right away. If the right is not there, then the safety and education programs wouldn't be much good. The NRA was started as a firearm education organization. (Brief History of the NRA) There is also the NRA-ILA (Institute for legislative action) which focuses on preserving not only the constitutional right but educating and taking action on a state and local level. There is a grassroots program for members to get involved with local safety programs as well as legislative issues.

Yes most of it's members are responsible owners, educated on handling & training of firearms, and very well versed on the laws.  

 Oddly enough, I grew up in inner-city pittsburgh and we never locked our doors. Never had a shooting or a weapon at my schools. We've never been broken into. We've never even had so much as our car keyed. I lived in Belfast of all places, and I would walk home alone at 2 am by myself. I do not want to be paralyzed by fear of what *may* happen, nor do I want to leave any chance that someone might *accidentally* hurt themselves. I'll take my chances without the chaperone, thanks.

 Oh but you're paralyzed by the fear of what *may* happen with a gun in the home of a responsible owner....hmm....looks like you're still paralyzed. And again, being "paralyzed" by fear and being properly prepared if the situation arises are two separate issues.

 haha....chaperone....do celebrities and professional athletes have body guards because they need chaperones? Can they not handle themselves. No there are power in numbers. And darlin' you can be head strong about that if you want, but we all know that you (unarmed) against an armed or otherwise unarmed grown man or two don't have a chance. So you call it a chaperone if you want...I myself do have a chaperone and he's about .40 cal tall.

Then again, I just noticed that this is coming from the same die hard proponent of nationalized health care.....trend?!?  *cough*i think i just gagged on a communist*cough*