The Gun Control Debate

[john & jean 37]

What does the bible have to do with the right to own a weapon? I do wish some person would show me where the eleventh commandment is!

[britty 1]

I'm just glad rebeccajo isn't in charge of handing out rights and how we are allowed to use them.

Just be thankful you didn't use her bathroom and leave the toilet seat up by mistake.

Awww. Aren't you going to bless my toilet seat?

No. You're one of the bible-thumpers who stands in judgment of others with your cute little sideswipes that drop into threads now and then.

I think your posts have gotten far out of line. It is not your decision if someone wants a gun to protect their home. You'd have to be an idiot to think that taking out an intruder with a bat is a better idea than a gun. I'm a woman, more than likely the intruder will be a man much larger than me and I want that a$$hole to know not to mess with MY personal space or MY body. I have EVERY right to do that; you seem to want to take that away and have me take my chances with hand to hand combat. Currently, that is the biggest threat in many peoples minds that would necessitate a gun; overthrowing the government not so much, but hey, we have the guns just in case don't we.

And by the way, I don't get off on gunpowder powder and I would be devastated if I ever had to actually shoot someone but if it's me against someone who thinks they have the right to intrude upon me or my personal property, then you bet for damn sure I'd rather be armed. They would get a fair warning I had a gun; hopefully that will be deterrent enough. If not, you can bet I won't be going for the knees. I'm not stupid.

You have your Constitutional right to own that gun.

I have a Constitutional right to speak out about how I feel about it.

My polite comments and inquiries were mocked. That wasn't out of line?

I'm not saying everyone in this thread is an angel but attacking someones viewpoint is quite different from declaring someone a judgment passing bible thumper. It just seems that your anger against some comments ran away from you a bit and you certainly are one who strives to provide a good, balanced reason for all of your viewpoints most of the time. And I still don't see how owning a gun for personal protection is sickening - yes, it does make me "stronger" that someone without a gun, but that isn't something pleasurable, it is simply a factor that may ensure that I don't get taken advantage of. Going to the shooting range is fun, I won't lie, and I see nothing wrong with that past time so long as very serious training measures and safety regulations are in place to train people to respect firearms, not treat them like toys that go boom. My grandfather shot a gallon jug of water the first time I went to the range with him to show me what that gun would do to my head if I didn't take it seriously, so while I can't speak for anyone else, I would 100% say that I am about as responsible of a gun owner as you can get.

Miranda -

After spending time off and on in the thread over the weekend, I've come to the conclusion that for many people gun ownership isn't really about their Constitutional preservations. It's because owning a weapon makes them feel safe in their homes, or because they like to hunt, or because it's fun.

The post wherein the member claimed he owned his gun to protect himself and not others was sickening to me. He comes back to the thread later and expounds upon how he would supposedly, of course, protect others should a time of national oppression actually arise. I think that's back-peddling.

But we don't own guns to protect the masses. We have them to protect ourselves, our family members, and our homes. Rebeccajo, I do respect your point of view on this subject, but I don't know why you are sickened when someone says he doesn't own a gun to protect the public? Gun owners are not vigilantes, that is not a legal stance. Whilst you will never own a gun and that is absolutely your perogative, I will always wish to protect everything I hold dear. My safety, and that of my family is so important to me that I certainly won't be a victim for anyone.

[GaryC 7]

I'm just glad rebeccajo isn't in charge of handing out rights and how we are allowed to use them.

Just be thankful you didn't use her bathroom and leave the toilet seat up by mistake.

Awww. Aren't you going to bless my toilet seat?

No. You're one of the bible-thumpers who stands in judgment of others with your cute little sideswipes that drop into threads now and then.

I think your posts have gotten far out of line. It is not your decision if someone wants a gun to protect their home. You'd have to be an idiot to think that taking out an intruder with a bat is a better idea than a gun. I'm a woman, more than likely the intruder will be a man much larger than me and I want that a$$hole to know not to mess with MY personal space or MY body. I have EVERY right to do that; you seem to want to take that away and have me take my chances with hand to hand combat. Currently, that is the biggest threat in many peoples minds that would necessitate a gun; overthrowing the government not so much, but hey, we have the guns just in case don't we.

And by the way, I don't get off on gunpowder powder and I would be devastated if I ever had to actually shoot someone but if it's me against someone who thinks they have the right to intrude upon me or my personal property, then you bet for damn sure I'd rather be armed. They would get a fair warning I had a gun; hopefully that will be deterrent enough. If not, you can bet I won't be going for the knees. I'm not stupid.

You have your Constitutional right to own that gun.

I have a Constitutional right to speak out about how I feel about it.

My polite comments and inquiries were mocked. That wasn't out of line?

I'm not saying everyone in this thread is an angel but attacking someones viewpoint is quite different from declaring someone a judgment passing bible thumper. It just seems that your anger against some comments ran away from you a bit and you certainly are one who strives to provide a good, balanced reason for all of your viewpoints most of the time. And I still don't see how owning a gun for personal protection is sickening - yes, it does make me "stronger" that someone without a gun, but that isn't something pleasurable, it is simply a factor that may ensure that I don't get taken advantage of. Going to the shooting range is fun, I won't lie, and I see nothing wrong with that past time so long as very serious training measures and safety regulations are in place to train people to respect firearms, not treat them like toys that go boom. My grandfather shot a gallon jug of water the first time I went to the range with him to show me what that gun would do to my head if I didn't take it seriously, so while I can't speak for anyone else, I would 100% say that I am about as responsible of a gun owner as you can get.

Miranda -

After spending time off and on in the thread over the weekend, I've come to the conclusion that for many people gun ownership isn't really about their Constitutional preservations. It's because owning a weapon makes them feel safe in their homes, or because they like to hunt, or because it's fun.

The post wherein the member claimed he owned his gun to protect himself and not others was sickening to me. He comes back to the thread later and expounds upon how he would supposedly, of course, protect others should a time of national oppression actually arise. I think that's back-peddling.

People own guns for many different reasons and sometimes for several reasons at once. First of all it is my right under the constitution and IMO the discussion about banning them should end there. But besides that I owned them because I enjoy the sport of target shooting. I conducted myself in a safe manner and never put anyone in harms way. I also felt I had the right to protect myself and my family. So gun ownership isn't just because of the right spelled out in the constitution but the fact that it is makes any talk of outlawing them because of the other reasons people own them moot. I am sorry that you don't agree but you really don't have the right to judge others because of the reasons they choose to have a gun.

[Heracles 417]

Leaving gun control aside for a moment - does anyone else wonder why it is that this sort of school shooting rampage appears to occur with much greater frequency in the US than in other countries? Gary mentioned the media earlier - and I don't doubt that plays a part in promoting these incidents - but I find it hard to think of an incidence where (any) mass murder would not be newsworthy - so it seems well... very unlikely that this is simply a case of over-reporting. Rather, it does seem to be happening with great frequency.

Personally I don't think the media should make the killer famous like they do. In the mind of a psycho like the NIU killer, this could be a way to leave their mark on the world and achieve fame.

Then what happens is that this sort of crime like everything else here is swept under the rug. When there is a problem it needs to be addressed and fixed rather than ignored and actually protect using the same old BS rights excuse. There are so many things that are not reported here in the news. This incident made the news abroad. Why are kids not shooting up there?

[rebeccajo 14]

As I said earlier, I don't see the point in defending my legal right to own a gun/guns to someone who doesn't believe in that right. So, I'll just leave all of that alone. I've made my points, and that's all I can hope for. To be honest, the only thing that will change the opinion of someone like that is for them to experience having a gun put to their head by a robber/assailant and then be saved by a passer-by with a gun. ie: not likely.

I did want to comment on Number 6's statement that handguns are only for killing people, though...

As I mentioned earlier, I carried a handgun in my backpack when I lived in Wyoming. It was a matter of convenience. I didn't feel like lugging around a rifle while backcountry hiking/camping. Also, when I go to the gun range for target shooting, I use a handgun. I don't know why, but I'm just much better with a handgun than I am with a rifle. Correction, I'm much better with an accurate handgun than a rifle. I doubt that I could hit much with one of the tiny 9mms. My handgun of choice is a 1970s Smith & Wesson N-Frame .41 Magnum with Pachmayr grips. It has a 6.5 inch barrel. You could hardly call it a small, easily concealable gun.

I don't understand why people always assume that guns are only to kill people, too. People test their abilities with bows & arrows, with blow guns, with slingshots, with muzzleloaders.... testing yourself in this way is a "sport" and in no way involves the killing of anything. It tests your aim and spacial reasoning skills. So does pinball, and about half of the games for Wii, PS3, Xbox that we let our kids play.

L - You and I have had conversations before wherein you helped me see another side of an issue I had not thought about previously.

I am grateful that to date, no one has pointed a gun at me. Perhaps if that had happened, I would feel differently.

From where I am at in my life right now though, I'm rather glad there never was a gun in my home. As it was in the past, I was pushed and shoved enough. I hate to think how a weapon in my home might have worsened the situation. Or - if he had been licensed to carry. He was - on most days - a rational individual. Rational enough to have passed any examination a state agency would have given him. But he also had enough public altercations (iincluding one wherein he was ticketed for battery) to make me glad he didn't carry a weapon.

[rebeccajo 14]

I'm just glad rebeccajo isn't in charge of handing out rights and how we are allowed to use them.

Just be thankful you didn't use her bathroom and leave the toilet seat up by mistake.

Awww. Aren't you going to bless my toilet seat?

No. You're one of the bible-thumpers who stands in judgment of others with your cute little sideswipes that drop into threads now and then.

I think your posts have gotten far out of line. It is not your decision if someone wants a gun to protect their home. You'd have to be an idiot to think that taking out an intruder with a bat is a better idea than a gun. I'm a woman, more than likely the intruder will be a man much larger than me and I want that a$$hole to know not to mess with MY personal space or MY body. I have EVERY right to do that; you seem to want to take that away and have me take my chances with hand to hand combat. Currently, that is the biggest threat in many peoples minds that would necessitate a gun; overthrowing the government not so much, but hey, we have the guns just in case don't we.

And by the way, I don't get off on gunpowder powder and I would be devastated if I ever had to actually shoot someone but if it's me against someone who thinks they have the right to intrude upon me or my personal property, then you bet for damn sure I'd rather be armed. They would get a fair warning I had a gun; hopefully that will be deterrent enough. If not, you can bet I won't be going for the knees. I'm not stupid.

You have your Constitutional right to own that gun.

I have a Constitutional right to speak out about how I feel about it.

My polite comments and inquiries were mocked. That wasn't out of line?

I'm not saying everyone in this thread is an angel but attacking someones viewpoint is quite different from declaring someone a judgment passing bible thumper. It just seems that your anger against some comments ran away from you a bit and you certainly are one who strives to provide a good, balanced reason for all of your viewpoints most of the time. And I still don't see how owning a gun for personal protection is sickening - yes, it does make me "stronger" that someone without a gun, but that isn't something pleasurable, it is simply a factor that may ensure that I don't get taken advantage of. Going to the shooting range is fun, I won't lie, and I see nothing wrong with that past time so long as very serious training measures and safety regulations are in place to train people to respect firearms, not treat them like toys that go boom. My grandfather shot a gallon jug of water the first time I went to the range with him to show me what that gun would do to my head if I didn't take it seriously, so while I can't speak for anyone else, I would 100% say that I am about as responsible of a gun owner as you can get.

Miranda -

After spending time off and on in the thread over the weekend, I've come to the conclusion that for many people gun ownership isn't really about their Constitutional preservations. It's because owning a weapon makes them feel safe in their homes, or because they like to hunt, or because it's fun.

The post wherein the member claimed he owned his gun to protect himself and not others was sickening to me. He comes back to the thread later and expounds upon how he would supposedly, of course, protect others should a time of national oppression actually arise. I think that's back-peddling.

People own guns for many different reasons and sometimes for several reasons at once. First of all it is my right under the constitution and IMO the discussion about banning them should end there. But besides that I owned them because I enjoy the sport of target shooting. I conducted myself in a safe manner and never put anyone in harms way. I also felt I had the right to protect myself and my family. So gun ownership isn't just because of the right spelled out in the constitution but the fact that it is makes any talk of outlawing them because of the other reasons people own them moot. I am sorry that you don't agree but you really don't have the right to judge others because of the reasons they choose to have a gun.

First amendment.

[Alex+R 0]

I am sorry that you don't agree but you really don't have the right to judge others because of the reasons they choose to have a gun.

First amendment.

She has a point.

Edited February 17, 2008 by Alex+R

[GaryC 7]

As I said earlier, I don't see the point in defending my legal right to own a gun/guns to someone who doesn't believe in that right. So, I'll just leave all of that alone. I've made my points, and that's all I can hope for. To be honest, the only thing that will change the opinion of someone like that is for them to experience having a gun put to their head by a robber/assailant and then be saved by a passer-by with a gun. ie: not likely.

I did want to comment on Number 6's statement that handguns are only for killing people, though...

As I mentioned earlier, I carried a handgun in my backpack when I lived in Wyoming. It was a matter of convenience. I didn't feel like lugging around a rifle while backcountry hiking/camping. Also, when I go to the gun range for target shooting, I use a handgun. I don't know why, but I'm just much better with a handgun than I am with a rifle. Correction, I'm much better with an accurate handgun than a rifle. I doubt that I could hit much with one of the tiny 9mms. My handgun of choice is a 1970s Smith & Wesson N-Frame .41 Magnum with Pachmayr grips. It has a 6.5 inch barrel. You could hardly call it a small, easily concealable gun.

I don't understand why people always assume that guns are only to kill people, too. People test their abilities with bows & arrows, with blow guns, with slingshots, with muzzleloaders.... testing yourself in this way is a "sport" and in no way involves the killing of anything. It tests your aim and spacial reasoning skills. So does pinball, and about half of the games for Wii, PS3, Xbox that we let our kids play.

L - You and I have had conversations before wherein you helped me see another side of an issue I had not thought about previously.

I am grateful that to date, no one has pointed a gun at me. Perhaps if that had happened, I would feel differently.

From where I am at in my life right now though, I'm rather glad there never was a gun in my home. As it was in the past, I was pushed and shoved enough. I hate to think how a weapon in my home might have worsened the situation. Or - if he had been licensed to carry. He was - on most days - a rational individual. Rational enough to have passed any examination a state agency would have given him. But he also had enough public altercations (iincluding one wherein he was ticketed for battery) to make me glad he didn't carry a weapon.

Ok, now I am getting some insight into your POV. In the past you were in an abusive situation and you feel that if he had a gun things would have been worse. Fair enough. You have a right to your opinion and it's between you and your new husband to decide that a gun isn't what you want in your house. As far as your previous relationship where you are glad he didn't have a CC weapon, it is very rare to have someone that is permitted to carry involved in an shooting other than to protect himself. You just don't see it. The shootings of passion you see most often involve people that are illegally carrying a gun. I am with platy on this one. Find a way to eliminate the illegal activities with guns before restricting my legal rights for gun ownership.

[Heracles 417]

The fix is quite simple. No one should have the right to carry a gun in a public place. Then the police should have the right to stop and check anyone suspicious. If it is against some ####### ### 18th century law; then change the law.

Then, no one with any criminal record or any mental condition should have the right to buy or own a gun. Nor should anyone under 25. Effectively keeping the guns out of the wrong hands. Selling or providing guns to such people should be a federal offense.

[GaryC 7]

I'm just glad rebeccajo isn't in charge of handing out rights and how we are allowed to use them.

Just be thankful you didn't use her bathroom and leave the toilet seat up by mistake.

Awww. Aren't you going to bless my toilet seat?

No. You're one of the bible-thumpers who stands in judgment of others with your cute little sideswipes that drop into threads now and then.

I think your posts have gotten far out of line. It is not your decision if someone wants a gun to protect their home. You'd have to be an idiot to think that taking out an intruder with a bat is a better idea than a gun. I'm a woman, more than likely the intruder will be a man much larger than me and I want that a$$hole to know not to mess with MY personal space or MY body. I have EVERY right to do that; you seem to want to take that away and have me take my chances with hand to hand combat. Currently, that is the biggest threat in many peoples minds that would necessitate a gun; overthrowing the government not so much, but hey, we have the guns just in case don't we.

And by the way, I don't get off on gunpowder powder and I would be devastated if I ever had to actually shoot someone but if it's me against someone who thinks they have the right to intrude upon me or my personal property, then you bet for damn sure I'd rather be armed. They would get a fair warning I had a gun; hopefully that will be deterrent enough. If not, you can bet I won't be going for the knees. I'm not stupid.

You have your Constitutional right to own that gun.

I have a Constitutional right to speak out about how I feel about it.

My polite comments and inquiries were mocked. That wasn't out of line?

I'm not saying everyone in this thread is an angel but attacking someones viewpoint is quite different from declaring someone a judgment passing bible thumper. It just seems that your anger against some comments ran away from you a bit and you certainly are one who strives to provide a good, balanced reason for all of your viewpoints most of the time. And I still don't see how owning a gun for personal protection is sickening - yes, it does make me "stronger" that someone without a gun, but that isn't something pleasurable, it is simply a factor that may ensure that I don't get taken advantage of. Going to the shooting range is fun, I won't lie, and I see nothing wrong with that past time so long as very serious training measures and safety regulations are in place to train people to respect firearms, not treat them like toys that go boom. My grandfather shot a gallon jug of water the first time I went to the range with him to show me what that gun would do to my head if I didn't take it seriously, so while I can't speak for anyone else, I would 100% say that I am about as responsible of a gun owner as you can get.

Miranda -

After spending time off and on in the thread over the weekend, I've come to the conclusion that for many people gun ownership isn't really about their Constitutional preservations. It's because owning a weapon makes them feel safe in their homes, or because they like to hunt, or because it's fun.

The post wherein the member claimed he owned his gun to protect himself and not others was sickening to me. He comes back to the thread later and expounds upon how he would supposedly, of course, protect others should a time of national oppression actually arise. I think that's back-peddling.

People own guns for many different reasons and sometimes for several reasons at once. First of all it is my right under the constitution and IMO the discussion about banning them should end there. But besides that I owned them because I enjoy the sport of target shooting. I conducted myself in a safe manner and never put anyone in harms way. I also felt I had the right to protect myself and my family. So gun ownership isn't just because of the right spelled out in the constitution but the fact that it is makes any talk of outlawing them because of the other reasons people own them moot. I am sorry that you don't agree but you really don't have the right to judge others because of the reasons they choose to have a gun.

First amendment.

Sure you have the right to speak but you know that isn't what I meant. Now your just sidestepping what I said without addressing my point.

[PlatyPius 5]

As I said earlier, I don't see the point in defending my legal right to own a gun/guns to someone who doesn't believe in that right. So, I'll just leave all of that alone. I've made my points, and that's all I can hope for. To be honest, the only thing that will change the opinion of someone like that is for them to experience having a gun put to their head by a robber/assailant and then be saved by a passer-by with a gun. ie: not likely.

I did want to comment on Number 6's statement that handguns are only for killing people, though...

As I mentioned earlier, I carried a handgun in my backpack when I lived in Wyoming. It was a matter of convenience. I didn't feel like lugging around a rifle while backcountry hiking/camping. Also, when I go to the gun range for target shooting, I use a handgun. I don't know why, but I'm just much better with a handgun than I am with a rifle. Correction, I'm much better with an accurate handgun than a rifle. I doubt that I could hit much with one of the tiny 9mms. My handgun of choice is a 1970s Smith & Wesson N-Frame .41 Magnum with Pachmayr grips. It has a 6.5 inch barrel. You could hardly call it a small, easily concealable gun.

I don't understand why people always assume that guns are only to kill people, too. People test their abilities with bows & arrows, with blow guns, with slingshots, with muzzleloaders.... testing yourself in this way is a "sport" and in no way involves the killing of anything. It tests your aim and spacial reasoning skills. So does pinball, and about half of the games for Wii, PS3, Xbox that we let our kids play.

L - You and I have had conversations before wherein you helped me see another side of an issue I had not thought about previously.

I am grateful that to date, no one has pointed a gun at me. Perhaps if that had happened, I would feel differently.

From where I am at in my life right now though, I'm rather glad there never was a gun in my home. As it was in the past, I was pushed and shoved enough. I hate to think how a weapon in my home might have worsened the situation. Or - if he had been licensed to carry. He was - on most days - a rational individual. Rational enough to have passed any examination a state agency would have given him. But he also had enough public altercations (iincluding one wherein he was ticketed for battery) to make me glad he didn't carry a weapon.

I see the other side.... I just think that people who believe that way see it backwards. Before there can be a law severely limiting one's legal right to own a gun, they need to remove all of the illegally owned guns first. The anti-gun people typically want to ban all guns. That will only affect the people who buy them legally. ie: the people who are usually the victims.

Otherwise, I am all for stronger background checks on individuals trying to purchase a handgun. IMO, the dude in Illinois should NEVER have been able to buy a gun due to his history of mental issues.

[Alex+R 0]

To enter this debate at this late point...

I'd just like to ask why we don't have laws that punish parents whose children get ahold of a gun in their home. It seems to me that for the gun to be accessible enough to grab when an intruder breaks in, it also needs to be accessible enough for a child to get to. That is how, when I was growing up, my 14-year-old neighbor killed himself and some little kids in the neighborhood accidentally shot one of their friends.

To me, if you're a parent and you want to have a gun to go be macho and shoot defenseless animals, fine (for now). But if it's to protect your family, how can you be sure it will be readily available if you're keeping it safely locked away from children?

[Miranda&James 8]

To enter this debate at this late point...

I'd just like to ask why we don't have laws that punish parents whose children get ahold of a gun in their home. It seems to me that for the gun to be accessible enough to grab when an intruder breaks in, it also needs to be accessible enough for a child to get to. That is how, when I was growing up, my 14-year-old neighbor killed himself and some little kids in the neighborhood accidentally shot one of their friends.

To me, if you're a parent and you want to have a gun to go be macho and shoot defenseless animals, fine (for now). But if it's to protect your family, how can you be sure it will be readily available if you're keeping it safely locked away from children?

Well, I can't answer for irresponsible parents, but my parents and grandfather (as I've mentioned before) made sure I knew better than to EVER mess with a gun. I wasn't curious about them, I knew exactly what they did. It seems that curiosity about the forbidden gun hidden in the closet is what leads to children playing with them and getting hurt.

[Heracles 417]

To enter this debate at this late point...

I'd just like to ask why we don't have laws that punish parents whose children get ahold of a gun in their home. It seems to me that for the gun to be accessible enough to grab when an intruder breaks in, it also needs to be accessible enough for a child to get to. That is how, when I was growing up, my 14-year-old neighbor killed himself and some little kids in the neighborhood accidentally shot one of their friends.

To me, if you're a parent and you want to have a gun to go be macho and shoot defenseless animals, fine (for now). But if it's to protect your family, how can you be sure it will be readily available if you're keeping it safely locked away from children?

About as common as an ice age but every now and then we agree on something.

The reality is that someone's kid or spouse is 28 times more likely to kill themselves or them in a domestic dispute before they ever actually protect themselves against a bad guy. The other scenario is gang bangers also have the right to own guns. So what would one person do if 10 of them approached him with guns. i hope no one is stupid enough to say they would take a gun out to protect themselves in such a scenario.

Edited February 17, 2008 by Boo-Yah!

[PlatyPius 5]

To enter this debate at this late point...

I'd just like to ask why we don't have laws that punish parents whose children get ahold of a gun in their home. It seems to me that for the gun to be accessible enough to grab when an intruder breaks in, it also needs to be accessible enough for a child to get to. That is how, when I was growing up, my 14-year-old neighbor killed himself and some little kids in the neighborhood accidentally shot one of their friends.

To me, if you're a parent and you want to have a gun to go be macho and shoot defenseless animals, fine (for now). But if it's to protect your family, how can you be sure it will be readily available if you're keeping it safely locked away from children?

The question is more "Why should you have to lock it away from your children?"

People in the US have owned guns for centuries. Until recently, kids knew to leave the guns alone. Hell, *I* grew up in a house with 30+ rifles on the living room wall and 15+ handguns. Ammo was in the cabinet toward the hall. I didn't shoot myself or anyone else. Why? Because I was taught about guns when I was young. I was also taught that messing with the guns would result in me getting my ####### kicked. I left the guns alone, and so did millions of other kids; from the 1700s until the last 20-30 years. Now, suddenly, kids are blasting away at everyone. Why? Bad parenting? Parental fear of being arrested for spanking kids? Video games? An entire generation of kids with a sense of entitlement? ???

Whatever it is, it doesn't work. Now it's pretty damn hard to keep a gun close enough to protect yourself because the kid might play with it and blow off his foot. So where DO you put a gun these days? By the time you get a trigger lock off, the intruder is in your house and you're possibly dead. Same with a gun safe. So what's the answer?