A friend just told me it was ok to have a gun in her house.

[rrneck]

She dislikes guns. They make her uneasy. She doesn't like the idea of a gun in her house even if she isn't there. But I'll be taking care of her cat and dog while she's out of town and a twenty three year old guy was murdered with a sword in town the other night. Hacked to pieces they say.

This is a small affluent community populated by hippie baby boomers and retirees. It ,generally speaking, is about as uneasy about guns as any I've seen. And yet, a few years ago after a string of assaults on women occurred I found myself fielding questions about the need for them to acquire a gun. I guess they think anyone with a southern accent is some sort of expert or something.

It is amazing how peoples opinions are shaped by the proximity of a possible threat. Turn the housing market into a casino? Fine. Steal oil from countries populated by fundamentalist extremists? As long as I can drive an eight thousand pound car. Elect a bunch of fascists to high office? Cool, as long as the stock market goes up. But when somebody gets hurt right down the street even the most non violent hippie starts thinking "gun". That's why increased gun control is a losing issue for Democrats.

Edit for clarity. Damn phone.

[wtmusic]

1. Unless you say anyone should be able to buy any gun, any time, anywhere...

you're for gun control.

Let's get the ground rules straight. :eyes:

[rrneck]

3. True that.

As far as I'm concerned current laws are about as good as we need or are able to have.

I'll edit the OP. Thanks.

[spin]

19. I have absolutely no problem with reasonable gun control laws ...

I feel the firearms law in my state of Florida are reasonable.

A quick summary can be viewed at:
http://crime.about.com/od/gunlawsbystate/p/gunlaws_fl.htm

[Oneka]

20. So my personal stance

, that only currently encarcerated prisoners, and folks at large in our society
Who need a guardian , and those who need a caretaker due to mental
Health conditions, Can't possess firearms, puts me squarely in the
Gun control camp?

OUTSTANDING....

Some day I will be able to tell my grandchildren that I was a holy
crusader , for the moral goodness of Gun Control.

My bucket list , thanks you.

[Fumesucker]

2. Even if someone mistakenly shoots a family member down the street?

You say that makes people want guns?

:crazy:

[rrneck]

6. Yes.

People's first concern is generally for their own safety and the safety of those important to them. A nearby remote threat is frequently perceived as greater than a more likely threat far away.

Two million years or so of evolution designed us to think that way; defend you and yours from a nearby threat. Modern culture can't erase that all in a minute.

[Fumesucker]

21. Jim Bob just shot Debra Jo while she was a comin' back from the outhouse..

We'd better git ourselves a shootin' iron lessn' sometin' like that happens heah..

:eyes:

[rrneck]

29. That's about right.

Funny how even a weak attempt at satire can still make my point.

[sinkingfeeling]

4. Don't agree. Been 63 years without a gun and lived in a variety of places.

Took on a noisy bar owned by a now felon and was directly threatened by his goons. Won't allow a gun in my house nor car.

[rrneck]

7. Good for you.

How does that relate to those close to the young man that got killed or the surrounding community?

[sinkingfeeling]

25. I thought your question was about the change in attitudes when there is a

threat in the community. Said that even a direct death threat didn't change my mind one iota.

[rrneck]

34. Again. Good for you.

How does your personal experience matter? To you it matters a lot. To others- not so much. That's because they're not close to you. For that matter my experience doesn't have to mean anything to you.

Do you speak for your community? Your elected officials do, and if they don't take into consideration how each individual feels he or she is making a huge mistake.

Personal ideology doesn't necessarily translate into effective public policy.

[iverglas]

43. well now you see

Your "anecdote" just doesn't count against somebody else's -- because ... well, because you don't count!

Welcome to the Guns forum. ;)

[rrneck]

46. It counts. Just not as much as one's own life. nt

[Callisto32]

58. You can't be that dense.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

17. Great - that's your choice

you have every right to make it.

Now for the kicker: What is your opinion on firearms ownership by others?

[spin]

22. That is your decision. I have no problem with it. However do you agree ....

that others should have the same right to chose if they want to allow a firearm in their home or car or even to obtain to license to carry a concealed firearm in public.

I'm 65 and have owned firearms since I was in my teens. Fortunately I have never had to use one for legitimate self defense. However one night my daughter used one of my firearms to stop an individual who was forcing open the sliding glass door in our kitchen. She pointed the revolver at him and he ran.

[sinkingfeeling]

24. If you want them, have them, but I think they all should be registered.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

26. Fair enough

but why on the registration? It has never solved a single crime and why should government know what someone owns? Would you support registration of religious beliefs?

[Simo 1939_1940]

57. ".......but why on the registration?"

There's a rather large number of folks who erroneously believe that if a gun is not registered, law enforcement is unable to trace the weapon when a gun crime occurs. I suspect the person to whom you are speaking falls into that category.

[spin]

36. I can't register firearms in Florida ...

The statutes of Florida prohibit registration and sum up the reasons I oppose it.

790.335 Prohibition of registration of firearms; electronic records.—
(1) LEGISLATIVE FINDINGS AND INTENT.—
(a) The Legislature finds and declares that:
1. The right of individuals to keep and bear arms is guaranteed under both the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution and s. 8, Art. I of the State Constitution.
2. A list, record, or registry of legally owned firearms or law-abiding firearm owners is not a law enforcement tool and can become an instrument for profiling, harassing, or abusing law-abiding citizens based on their choice to own a firearm and exercise their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms as guaranteed under the United States Constitution. Further, such a list, record, or registry has the potential to fall into the wrong hands and become a shopping list for thieves.
3. A list, record, or registry of legally owned firearms or law-abiding firearm owners is not a tool for fighting terrorism, but rather is an instrument that can be used as a means to profile innocent citizens and to harass and abuse American citizens based solely on their choice to own firearms and exercise their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms as guaranteed under the United States Constitution....emphasis added
4. Law-abiding firearm owners whose names have been illegally recorded in a list, record, or registry are entitled to redress.
http://leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0790/Sections/0790.335.html

[HockeyMom]

49. My name is on a list because of my occupation

and in Florida and nationwide. I have to be fingerprinted and a search done. You, or anybody else, can look up my FBI file on the Internet because of what I do for a living. Why is your choice to be a gunowner more of a "protected right" than my right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness in the context of an occupation? I am not disagreeing with the fingerprinting and FBI check per se, but the fact, as you claim with your gun ownersnip, that anybody and their mother can do an FBI search on the Internet and my name will appear, but yours as just a gun owner WON'T?

Explain the difference to me. Your right to own a gun and be free of "harassment" trumps my right to earn a living and be free of "harassment" HOW?

[We_Have_A_Problem]

50. The difference is simple

You chose that form of employment and you could easily find another if you wished. Nobody obligated you to take it. Most importantly, you have no right to earn a living no matter what you think. For you to earn a living requires you to contract with another person in exchange for your services. Nobody is obligated to give you a job.

As far as firearms ownership, the right to life carries with it the right to protect said life. As tool using mammals with little to no natural armor or weapons, we typically use tools to defend ourselves. Currently, firearms are a very effective tool. I say currently because in the past they didn't exist and in the future there may come something more effective. The right to keep and bear them is protected by our nations laws.

It isn't a case of a right to be free of harassment - it is a case of the right to be armed being protected from government infringement.

The 2nd Amendment was put into the Constitution for a variety of reasons, one of which was people like you who would use words, emotions and ignorance in an attempt to disarm the law abiding.

A question for you: What gives you the right to demand that men with guns (the government) use force on your behalf to restrict my rights?

[Callisto32]

59. Bravo, sir.

+1

[spin]

51. Actually my name is also on a list ...

as I chose to get a concealed weapons permit. However that did not require me to register any of my firearms.

I see no real value in requiring firearm registration. The registration system that exists in Canada is likely to become history shortly. Many Canadians felt it was an expensive failure. As I posted the Florida statutes list the reasons I oppose registration very concisely.

790.335 Prohibition of registration of firearms; electronic records.—
(1) LEGISLATIVE FINDINGS AND INTENT.—
(a) The Legislature finds and declares that:
1. The right of individuals to keep and bear arms is guaranteed under both the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution and s. 8, Art. I of the State Constitution.
2. A list, record, or registry of legally owned firearms or law-abiding firearm owners is not a law enforcement tool and can become an instrument for profiling, harassing, or abusing law-abiding citizens based on their choice to own a firearm and exercise their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms as guaranteed under the United States Constitution. Further, such a list, record, or registry has the potential to fall into the wrong hands and become a shopping list for thieves.
3. A list, record, or registry of legally owned firearms or law-abiding firearm owners is not a tool for fighting terrorism, but rather is an instrument that can be used as a means to profile innocent citizens and to harass and abuse American citizens based solely on their choice to own firearms and exercise their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms as guaranteed under the United States Constitution....emphasis added
4. Law-abiding firearm owners whose names have been illegally recorded in a list, record, or registry are entitled to redress.
http://leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0790/Sections/0790.335.html

In passing, I held a government clearance for 40 years from the time I was in the Air Force until I retired from a private corporation that did classified work for the government. I have been fingerprinted and have had background checks several times during my life. But I doubt if you could easily look my name up and access information about me unless you have authorization.

Are you willing to say what you do for a living as without that knowledge I can not comment on if the fact that I can look up your FBI file is fair.

Obviously if you could easily find out if I owned firearms and had criminal intentions you could break into my home while I was not present and steal my firearms. The fact that they are in a safe is irrelevant to a professional thief with adequate time.

[PavePusher]

54. Your job is probably not a Constitutionally protected Civil Right. n/t

[PavePusher]

55. P.S. No-one is "trumping" anything. The one has absolutely nothing to do with the other. n/t

[krispos42]

52. I lot of people have stories similar to yours.

Many of them have the same outcome, as well (I assume, because you did not state explicitly, that you've come to no harm by the aforementioned goons)

Not all of them have the same happy outcome, though.

[PavePusher]

53. Your circumstances=/=Everyone else's circumstances.

Or so the crime stats prove...:shrug:

[TheCowsCameHome]

5. So what's your point?

:shrug:

[rrneck]

8. Read it again.

I'll use more colloquialisms. When shit happens close by people decide they don't give a rat's ass what some fucking politicians or talking head says. They think in terms of "cover my ass".

Or as I believe it was Tip O'Neill once said, "All politics is local."

[TheCowsCameHome]

9. So she wants a gun?

Fine. Let her go out and get one.

Is someone stopping her?

[rrneck]

12. Read it one more time. nt

[TheCowsCameHome]

13. Forget it.

Just be sure to take your gun when you go feed her pets.

:crazy:

[rrneck]

15. Why would I need to take a gun? nt

[Uben]

10. Guns are only favored when.......

.....you need one. A many a man has died because they didn't have one, and a many a man has died because they did. Growing up in rural TExas, guns are a just a fact of life. When you live out in the sticks, guns are needed to ward off predators trying to eat one's livestock, sheep, chickens, etc. I still know people who live off the land. Yeah, they poach out of season wildlife, but they eat what they kill. And, they don't kill for pleasure. And, automatic weapons are not necessary.

I own 19 different guns, all but one were inherited or were gifts. I haven't shot any of them in over twenty years. None are automatic. Most are antiques. With the price of guns skyrocketing lately, I could sell them for a small fortune, but I'll pass them down like they were passed to me.

I understand the anti-gun sentiment from folks who live in cities. Seems only the criminals have guns. But how many home invasions do you see in the country? People know country folk keep guns and know how to use them. Not saying it doesn't happen, it's just not as frequent......or successful!

[rrneck]

16. This guy was killed on a bike path

in a town of twenty five thousand.

Given the changes in gun laws over the last thirty years or so I think city dwellers are changing their minds as well.

Since the crime rate has fallen I would be interested to know why.

[spin]

30. Very few people own automatic weapons in the U.S. ...

In 1995 there were over 240,000 machine guns registered with the ATF. (Zawitz, Marianne,Bureau of Justice Statistics, Guns Used in Crime .) About half are owned by civilians and the other half by police departments and other governmental agencies (Gary Kleck, Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control, Walter de Gruyter, Inc., New York, 1997.)

I agree the a fully automatic weapon is not necessary for hunting. However I see no problem with using a semi-auto weapon as a hunting weapon. Such firearms have been used by hunters for many years.

Semi-auto Rifles for Hog Hunting
MAY 12 2009

***snip***

Semi-automatic rifles offer one really obvious benefit to the hog hunter, so I’ll start with that… rapid follow-up shots.

Hogs are tough critters, and they can absorb a marginal hit from even a large-bore rifle with nominal obvious or immediate effects. In the thick habitat where they are often found, getting an anchoring shot into a wounded pig can mean the difference between a lost animal and bringing home the bacon. You’ve got to knock them down before they get into the brush, drop into a deep canyon, or disappear into a swamp.

With a bolt action, single-shot, or even a levergun, loading that second round almost always requires the hunter to lose the sight picture, and then reacquire the target before shooting. A semi-auto shortens that process, and while a big-game caliber will usually require some recovery time, the skilled hunter can be back on target and firing quickly.

The quick recovery time and rapid follow-up shot is also useful when hunting driven game. This is one reason you’ll find semi-autos so popular in the South, where running deer with hounds is still a widespread practice. It’s much easier to follow-up and adjust your shots on a running animal with the semi-auto than with any manually operated action. (I know that with practice and skill, there are marksmen who claim to be just as fast and accurate with bolt guns and lever-actions… but in reality, most hunters don’t have that level of ability.)

Read more: http://www.skinnymoose.com/hogblog/2009/05/12/semi-auto-rifles-for-hog-hunting/#ixzz1eYISsWpz

I suspect that you meant semi-auto when you typed automatic. There is a big difference between the two.

[PavePusher]

56. 2.5 miles from my Grandmother's house...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dartmouth_Murders

[safeinOhio]

11. Cheap and effective home security

should be your first choice. Nothing wrong with owning a gun for protection as a last resort. Too many think gun first when most home invasions could be easily and cheaply stopped with simple measures. Those measure are at work when you are not at home and may save you from having your gun stolen and used in more crimes.

[rrneck]

14. True.

Of course this young man was killed on a bike path, not in his home.

The point is that perceptions drive politics and people can change their minds in a flash when they feel threatened. The politician a thousand miles away that rattles off the "chances" of something like that happening loses credibility with a lot of people under those circumstances. It's called being politically tone deaf.

[RC]

18. Here is another thread that lumps all guns together as if they were the same.

They are not. Hand guns and rifles are different and designed for different purposes. The possession of which needs to be held to different standards.

[spin]

23. What standards do you suggest? (n/t)

[We_Have_A_Problem]

27. Why?

Both are weapons, or arms if you prefer. From the perspective of ownership, both are the same. Would you hold someone who practices Islam to a different standard than one who follows the teachings of Buddha?

[RC]

31. Bad analogy.

Hand guns are very easy to conceal. Rifles, not so much. Most of the killing and murders in this country are by hand guns.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

32. Irrelevant.

Both are a right, and arguably, one religion is easy to conceal while another is not.

The way a tool is misused does not make the tool itself the problem, and the vast majority of firearms of any type are never misused.

[RC]

42. And yet most gun killings and murders are done with hand guns over rifles.

Religion may be used as a tool, but you cannot pick it up and look at it, or steal someones religion as you can a gun.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

45. So what if they are?

You certainly can steal someone's religious tools such as a Bible, head wear, etc. That's all a gun is - a tool.

Far less than 1% of all firearms in existence are misused. That's an extremely good track record by any standard. Yet your method of resolving the misuse of such an infinitesimal number is to hold those who do nothing wrong to a standard which presupposes guilt.

[rrneck]

38. The young man killed last Saturday

was killed with a sword or machete, both of which are about the same length as a rifle.

That murder, regardless of the weapon used, will have an impact on individual risk assessments in the surrounding community. I just had a conversation with a local who hates guns. When I asked her if she would want a handgun if she faced that killer her answer was yes. It is possible for people to acquire a gun even if they don't like them. It is equally possible for people to support public policy that makes that acquisition possible in spite of their personal dislike of guns.

Any politician that doesn't take that into consideration is making a mistake.

[rrneck]

37. This thread is actually about

how people view the world through their own experience and make risk assessments the same way.

[HockeyMom]

28. Burglaries and beatings on our street

We lived in a Queens neighborhood with a number of elderly women living alone. Two houses down from me the woman was robbed and beaten in her bed. She was 84 years old and an invalid. She died a from her injuries. Is that close enough?

I was a young women at the time. My husband traveled on business a lot then. Yes, he had guns in the house. No, I had no intention of using them. We went out and had bars put on our basement window after that attempted break in a few years before. When I was alone, I slept with all the lights on in the house, and a radio blasting with rock music. My husband suggested that I go buy a recording of a barking DOG! lol Never did that one.

He never once asked me to sleep with one of his guns. He knew/knows better than that. My choice. You cannot assume all people will go out and get a gun in these situations. I also talked with a few of the other women on our street. None of them said they were going to buy guns for protection. Our solution was to organize a homeowners patrol watch with help from the police. Signs were put up about the Neighborhood Watch. The men in the area organized and patrolled the street. They carried walkie/talkies (years ago) to notice the local precinct if they saw anything suspicious.

Surprised? It did work because the perps apparently didn't like all these people walking the streets after dark.

[rrneck]

35. For what it's worth

my advice to anyone that asked me if they should buy a gun was: no.

The point is not who does or does not buy a gun, but public support on the issue. All the opinions offered here just make my point. We make decisions based on our personal experiences. When it comes down to it if people feel sufficiently insecure ideology goes out the window. If people expect to be threatened, it goes out the window a little sooner.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

33. when it gets personal, people tend to take it personally.

[rrneck]

39. Absolutely. nt

[ileus]

40. If you ever come to my house to care for my pets it's ok to have your gun inside also.

[iverglas]

41. "That's why increased gun control is a losing issue for Democrats. "

Yup. Because a lot of "liberals" are still what Phil Ochs said they were so well in that song of his, "Love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u52Oz-54VYw

The people of old Mississippi
Should all hang their heads in shame
I can't understand how their minds work
What's the matter don't they watch Les Crain?
But if you ask me to bus my children
I hope the cops take down your name
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal

I vote for the democratic party
They want the U.N. to be strong
I go to all the Pete Seeger concerts
He sure gets me singing those songs
I'll send all the money you ask for
But don't ask me to come on along
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal


Appeal to their self-interest, when it's presented/perceived as a choice between that and the public interest, and you'll win every time.

Certainly you never want to try to raise / deepen the political discourse. Just feed their egos and pander. That is all.

[rrneck]

44. I think maybe

acknowledge self interest would be more accurate.

Police response time at that location would have been under two minutes. It happened aboue three hundred yards from the police station.

That young man was on his own when he died. I think any politican that tells you what you can't do while both you and him or her know what he or she can't do will lose credibility.

[aikoaiko]

47. When the G-8 was in town, two friends asked for shotguns

They had lovingly teased me about my "arsenal", but appreciated being able to ask and receive the helpful tool for the duration. No shots were fired.

[ileus]

48. Good move....homes with owners out of town make for good targets.

You never know what you could walk in on...