My thoughts on guns

[Magnulus]

I don't own guns. I don't like guns really. I don't like hunting; I'm a vegetarian. But I have shot a gun (a 22 rifle and a pistol- and I suck) a few times with my uncle (who is a "gun nut", a former marine marksman and a current competition shooter) and I do know a bit about the issues these folks are concerned with. It's just guns aren't my hobby (I like cooking, reading, playing music and computer games... and yes, I am a man and a heterosexual).

The gun issues is too divisive. I'd hate to think the Democrats lost the election because of their stance on guns, or their percieved stance, rather.

We aren't just one big country. We are 50 states in a union. Some of the people in those states have different views on how they should run their lives. Democrats need to understand that. Tolerance as a progressive value needs to go both ways, you know. At the same time, gun owners need to try to understand why some people are aprehensive about guns- people who live in inner cities and know guns as instruments in terror in the hands of hoodlums).

I believe the best way to deal with gun violence in this country would be to help lift more people out of poverty- after all, Canada has a fair number of gun owners but very little gun crime, as do parts of Europe (Norway, Sweden, Finland, Swizerland). Also, the "denormalization" of gun ownership could be achieved WITHOUT alienating gun owners too much. How to do that? Encourage policies that discourage people moving to "exurbia" and rural areas. Not draconian measures, but this ties in with the whole "smart growth" movement. Rural living infrastructure is expensive for the country in general. Also, I believe if cities want to continue restrictions on gun posession inside a city, they should be free to do so.

[Atillason]

1. But

The way I see it, gun ownership is a non-issue. No one is trying to restrict the rights of citizens to participate in the "sport" of hunting. There is no legitimate reason, other than the inherent ridiculousness of modern "hunting", to limit gun ownership for hunters. But there is no reason for handguns and assault weapons to be available to the public (and spare me the arguments about self-defense, cause if you bring that up, you are obviously retarded; having a gun during a crime-situation makes you so much more likely to get hurt). The problem is that the NRA makes every move to limit non-recreational weapons out to be an assault on our civil liberties. The NRA is the group that needs to be held accountable. So let's put the focus on them, not the Dem's that oppose them or the R's that are owned by them.

[Magnulus]

2. You don't think

a gun could be legitimately used for self defense? I think that's shortsigted. A person in a rural area might indeed want a gun, with inccreasing amounts of meth manufacture and abuse in rural areas, why not?

I think you are being dogmatic here.

People have weapons as part of their natural human body. I may not like guns but I have a good deal of martial arts training. Being anti-gun is not just about gun control, it's also about the belief that people have no business defending themselves. It's the same mentality that allowed 12 men armed with boxcutters to take over 2 airplanes, or that thinks granny can't fly with a pair of tweezers. People don't think about self-defense at all anymore

[Atillason]

6. well

if I'm being dogmatic, you are being ridiculous...of course people have the right to defend themselves, but having a weapon elevates every situation...and as a martial artist, I'm sure you know what Bruce Lee said about how having a weapon limited a person because it caused them to ignore the weapons they were naturally gifted with...having a gun in your possesion as a means of self-defense is retarded if only for the fact that if someone is mugging you at gun point, they're taking your wallet and that gun.

[LinuxUser]

74. I hate to say it...

but you are ignorant. If it were true that having a gun makes one less safe, why do all cops in the US carry guns? Cops do sometimes get shot by their own guns... but they are safer having them. And "assault weapons"? What is an assault weapon? From what I can tell, the basic Democratic definition of "assault weapon" is "scary looking gun". That shows a lot of ignorance, and ignorance doesn't win you any votes or any sympathizers. Learn something about guns. Learn from some place other than Hollywood. Learn some real facts. Read this website: http://www.a-human-right.com. Think about trying to win votes in Ohio with an NRA F rating.

[redfish]

7. It really ticks me off when

people treat gun owners like neanderthals. That is a big reason why people don't vote democrat.

[Redneck Socialist]

8. That's Democratic.

You vote for a Democrat or you vote Democratic.

[Spiffarino]

10. Damn right

We are Democrats. We are members of the Democratic party.

The RW is dead set on taking the Democratic name away from us. Fuck them. Do not let them do this. Redfish, if you are sincere then use the term correctly. If you're not, then go back to where you belong.

[FatSlob]

9. funniest. post. ever.

Obviously, you have no grasp of the situation. Please, come back when you are informed.

[Columbia]

15. Someone must not have told the cops

"(and spare me the arguments about self-defense, cause if you bring that up, you are obviously retarded; having a gun during a crime-situation makes you so much more likely to get hurt)."

They are all obviously retarded.

[JeebusB]

32. Oh, but you're forgetting...

that they are all so "highly trained!" They have "YEARS OF SPECIALIZED TRAINING!" At least, that's what I hear all the time. Never mind that almost all of the ones I see at the range are downright UNSAFE. They're usually there because their yearly qualification is coming up and they're scared they're not going to pass it.

Don't get me wrong, some of them are superb and weapons handling and fine marksmen. But the sad truth is that most of them are barely competent enough not to shoot themselves in the leg, foot or hand.

[Retired AF Dem]

16. Sarah

is that you?

[FatSlob]

18. The second amendment is about defense.

so is the Ohio constitution. duh.

[alwynsw]

22. I'll bring up self defense. BTW, I'm far from retarded.

One who is properly trained in the use of firearms, we'll stick with handguns for the moment, is far safer than one who is not. That being said, I would argue that the appropriately trained individual with a handgun is at a minimum safer than an appropriately trained martial artist or one who is trained in the use of any other weapon for defensive purposes.

Bear in mind that part of that training includes situational awareness. For the layperson, situational awareness includes both the obvious and the less obvious awareness of positions and locations that one should minimize or avoid to reduce the risk of becoming a crime victim, i.e. Don't walk next to a building when approaching an alley or darkened, recessed door front.

How far can one reach? The martial artist is limited by the distance his/her body or body part can travel before an attacker can react. If one is skilled with edged weapons, the effective defensive distance increases. The effective range for one properly trained and skilled with a handgun is far greater than is necessary to maintain his or her safety from attackers.

A final point: Since police in the U.S. are generally prohibited from firing first, their use of handguns is nearly exclusively defensive.

BTW, I often hunt rabbits with a .22 semi-automatic handgun. I also often hunt deer with either a .41 magnum or .44 magnum handgun. (Forget Dirty Harry, the .44 mag. ain't all that and a bag of chips in the power department.)

[alwynsw]

23. A final thought:

Shouldn't that be mentally challenged?

[jtb33]

30. I collect "assault weapons" - what about people like me?

I collect military style assault weapons - the semi-automatic versions of them. Why? It's a hobby. I probably only get to go to the range once every 2 or 3 months, but I really enjoy it when I do. Occasionally, my wife even accompanies me. I enjoy collecting these guns. Are you saying that I should no longer be able to do this?

[enfield collector]

36. I collect military style weapons as well. I usually get to the range twice

a month since it's only a 15 minute drive away. I usually take one of my sons with me as well, shooting is a family tradition.

[jtb33]

42. Cool... I see you are in AZ as well...

It's usually Ben Avery that I get to, as I live about 10 minutes from it, but I only get out there once every few months.

[CelticWinter]

3. But also

If a person is able to afford these assult weapons they wont care if they are legal or not. They are exspensive, hard to get ahold of ( waiting list and then your background check) and the ammo is also exspensive. The average 'Joe' isnt going to be able to afford to own this type of gun. Im a firm believer in the right to bear arms, I have guns, (hunting and target) and Im not a hunter but other members of my family are. Do they belong to the NRA ......NOPE!! but we respect guns and what they are intended for. I hate the thoughts of gun registration but understand the reasoning behind it, but its another way of the government knowing what I have in my home *sigh, nothing is private anymore. And I will say they are in my home as protection!!!! I live in the "bungies" and have had black bear come onto the property, and if you think you can chase them off with a stick have at it LOL. But one shot in the air or into the ground will deter them from sticking around, and if you never seen what a bear can do to the siding of a house its not a pretty sight.
As a whole, most gun owners respect them and use them for what they are intended for, but because of the misuse of some we all must pay the price (and that pisses me off). We can regulate til the cows come home but if a person wants a gun bad enough they will get one, they are a fairly simple tool to make on their own.
Blessings
~~Celtic

[Atillason]

5. so

how many black bears have you been forced to kill as a result of them coming on your property? And if the sound of a gun shot will chase off said bear, wouldn't any loud noise (not necessarily a round from a gun which comes down somewhere) chase it off? What exactly is a gun intended for but to kill something? Assault weapons are neither expensive nor hard to get a hold of. With many guns, all it takes is a simple conversion kit, available from most hunting magazines, to make it fully automatic. And once again, the idea of the few that use guns correctly (for what purpose exactly?), have to suffer because of the few that murder innocent people with said weapons...self-explanatory.

[EstimatedProphet]

17. No, that is simply not true

Converting a semiautomatic to an automatic isn't as simple as buying a kit, and I hate it when people have to lie about shit like that to prove their argument. If you have to lie to prove an argument, it isn't valid.
These "kits" make a gun shoot 2-3 rounds rather than one round. That's all they do. If you want to convert an AK-47 to full auto you need to find a new bolt and receiver, and be able to install those parts-and you can't because those parts are illegal without very specific anf hard to get licenses. You can't get one of those licenses. No one you know can. I can't either. And you can't make something more illegal than illegal.

[enfield collector]

21. not the "more thrusts per squeeze thing again."

[FatSlob]

19. self defense is about killing. duh.

[JeebusB]

34. Actually...

Self-defense is about stopping the attack. If the attacker dies as a result of the required action, then that's the way it has to be but death is not the intended result.

[Billy Ruffian]

25. Estimated Prophet

already mentioned that the kits Atillason mentions don't really exist.

If a firearm can be converted to fully automatic by a simple kit, it is covered under the 1934 National Firearms Act, and is subject to very strict regulation.

If you modify a weapon so that it will fire more than once when you pull the trigger, you've 1) committed a felony and 2) created a weapon that WON'T STOP when you let off the trigger.

Finally, the semi-automatic weapons banned in the AWB are NOT the weapons most commonly used in violent crimes.

[slackmaster]

29. Facts have little place in this discussion, new friend

WHY ISN'T ANYONE SAYING ANYTHING ABOUT THE CHILDREN?

:dunce:

[LinuxUser]

75. "What I learned about guns from Hollywood"

should be the title of your post. You CANNOT just "buy a kit" to convert weapons to full-auto. There was a very very brief window of time in which there were a few "semi-auto" Uzis imported that used an action called "open-bolt blowback slamfire". All open-bolt blowback slamfire guns can be converted to full-auto very very easily, simply by filing down some part. The BATF realized this very quickly and stopped the importation and sale of these guns and reclassified them as machineguns. Yes, this happened. Yes, a very small handful of them got through about twenty years ago. No, none of these are available, in circulation, etc. This is the tiny grain of truth inside the huge urban legend of how easy it is to convert guns to full-auto. It's not easy. It's hard.

Yes, ANY gun, including single-shot bolt action hunting rifles, can be converted to a full-auto with enough skill and effort, just like you could convert ANY car into an airplane (attach wings, tail and propeller) with enough skill and effort. Doesn't mean it's easy though.

Criminals who want full-auto weapons just get them smuggled. Real factory-made full-auto AK47 are available in the $100 @ price range in many unstable third world countries, and it's easier and cheaper to just smuggle them in if you really want one. Sorry, no legislation will undo that; it's just the onward march of technology that we have to live with.

[Francesca]

4. My husband is a "gun lover"

and has his FFl but he and many other of his like minded friends have stated they will never vote Republican even if the Dems where proposing a complete ban on all gun ownership.. I don't see the gun issue as being nearly as divisive as some of the other social issues propelling conservatives into action like abortion...

[Dora]

35. I agree with you

I think the gun issue has been made an "issue" by the NRA.

Rational people capabable of independent thought can understand that most Democrats don't want to take away the Constitutionally acknowledged right to own a gun or guns. This is very UNLIKE Republicans who want to rewrite the Constitution in order to deny people of a right that heretofore should have always been considered self-evident, i.e., the right to love and to marry and engage in a legally binding contract with any one person without the gummint's interference.

I'm the most liberal person I know. I used to go to Ladies' Night at one of our indoor ranges just because I thought it was high time that I educated myself about guns, how to hold, how to shoot, and what it feels like to fire a gun. Guns are part of our American history and however unsavory that may be, I accept it and embrace it.

I do not own a gun, my husband does not own a gun, we have no guns in our home. We've discussed the choice of gun ownership many times, but we've always decided that we preferred not to have a gun in the home. We know that owning a gun means that we must be prepared to pull the trigger and fire it at another person. I'm not prepared for that.

We live in a city, so we do not have the same security concerns that rural citizens have. If we lived elsewhere, my decision about MY gun ownership might be different.

[Spiffarino]

11. I see 2nd Amendment rights as being basic to liberty

The government will have a harder time taking over its populace if it is armed. The more I see of the current theo-fascist regime, the more I believe that the Founding Fathers were thinking about the kind of situation we're in right now.

Until recently I'd never been a gun owner, but the rest of my family have always owned guns and I have always enjoyed shooting with them.

I now own a gun because I believe it's not only my right, it's my responsibility. If you want to know what the FFs had to say about this, read the Federalist Papers, specifically those written by Hamilton and Madison.

[BearClaws]

12. Hypocritical

I doubt many of the gun nuts have had a close family member killed by a gun.
I have.

[Spiffarino]

14. So have I

And it was horrible. That still won't dissuade me from my beliefs. The gun didn't do the killing, a person did it. A knife, a rope, a sword, or any other lethal device would have made my dad just as dead.

Having been there, I'm sorry for you and what you've been through. As gut-wrenching it was to lose my dad to a bullet, I can't sit by and watch my country be overtaken by thugs. He wouldn't have stood for it, either.

[FatSlob]

20. Not to be crass, but, no, you didn't.

a person killed your family member. the gun was the tool. the distinction is very clear.

[DoNotRefill]

24. I've been shot

and I still believe in the Second Amendment.

[slackmaster]

26. I had a step cousin commit suicide at age 17

All it did was reinforce my heartfelt conviction that adults who own guns are responsible for securing them; for keeping them out of the hands of others who may be untrained in firearm safety, or intoxicated, or suffering from depression, or can't be trusted with one for any of a variety of reasons.

[iverglas]

27. how nice for you

"All it did was reinforce my heartfelt conviction that adults
who own guns are responsible for securing them; ... ... ...

It just doesn't turn out so well for the dead kids though, does it?

An interesting twist of logic here.

The anti-choice brigade whinges constantly about how women who have abortions are sexually "irresponsible" and must live with the consequences of their actions (which, they allege, are unwanted pregnancies and unwanted children). No one has ever been able to offer a coherent explanation of what "responsibility" sexually active women actually have ... and to whom (let alone why being compelled to submit to a life-threatening chain of events is an appropriate punishment for breach of that responsibility).

On the other hand, here we have a clear instance of genuine responsibility: responsibility for the effects of one's actions on others, responsibility for which one can properly be held accountable for fulfilling. The potential effects are the harm that can foreseeably occur when others have inappropriate access to one's firearms, be they children who kill themselves or anyone else who kills a third party or two. And yet ... no consequences. Not so as would compare to the DEATH of the others to whom the responsibility was owed, anyhow.

What is accomplished, exactly, by holding, or stating, the heartfelt conviction that adults who own guns are responsible for securing them? Is a death prevented? Are consequences imposed for breach of the responsibility? Do those consequences bring back the dead? Are those consequences an effective deterrent to the behaviours that result in the deaths?

It is my own heartfelt conviction that people who own backyard swimming pools are responsible for securing them. And damned if there aren't laws that require that this responsibility be met ... and a really easy way of checking to see that it is met.

[slackmaster]

28. Actions speak louder than words

[iverglas]

31. that is indeed admirable

I say almost without a trace of sarcasm, and had thought to say upon its earlier appearance, but it seemed pointless at the time. (Almost without sarcasm, because of course to do anything else would be simply and grossly irresponsible.)

The thing is that it shouldn't be admirable for someone to do this. It should be the law.

One doesn't regard it as admirable for someone to have brake lights on his/her vehicle, or to have his/her toilet connected to the municipal sewage system, or to dispose of his/her used motor oil at a designated hazardous waste facility rather than down the storm sewer, or to have a railing around his/her third-floor balcony.

One regards the doing of all those things as what is required by law, and the not doing of them as blameworthy, precisely because of the inherent risk of harm to others.

Why would/should it not be the same for safe firearms storage (and transportation)?

Why is the well-known and eminently foreseeable risk of serious harm occurring if firearms are insecurely stored -- whether as a result of children gaining access or as a result of theft -- not taken as seriously as the risk of harm occurring if a vehicle does not have brake lights, for instance?

I may have misplaced my memory, and you may support safe-storage laws. If so, we may have a pleasant moment of agreement, and wait for the nay-sayers to present objections.

[slackmaster]

33. I support safe storage laws that don't dictate how guns must be stored

Like California's.

Appropriate storage procedures for one household may not apply at another.

I have a 1,200 pound, $3,000 gun safe because I can afford it, and I decided to go the Cadillac route because my gun collection is worth several times that amount. I have no children in the house; but I am concerned about the safety of occasional visitors and the potential for one of my investments to get stolen and wind up in the hands of a violent criminal. I would not want an accident or a crime on my conscience because I had failed to adequately safeguard my valuables.

A pensioner living alone in a mobile home in a rural location on a meager fixed income may not be able to afford such a robust storage container for the rusty old .38 Special Smith & Wesson he keeps for self-defense, or the humble Ruger 10/22 he uses to hunt desert jackrabbits to supplement his diet.

It would not be appropriate for me to dictate to an individual in different circumstances than mine how to store his tools; I would not want the responsibility for having prevented someone from getting to his or her guns when they were needed.

I don't just practice gun safety, I actively teach it. I claim responsibility 20 people properly trained in safe gun handling this year, and over 100 in the last 10 years. I didn't charge a penny for passing on my expertise, I did it to help people and to promote gun rights. The "progressive gun-rights group" thread cracks me up - While people have been bantering about creating alternatives to "evil" organizations like the NRA I've been spreading the word on my own. That's not just progressive, it's downright subversive.

[Nestea]

39. I live alone, except for my two dogs

I live in DFW, and to me owning a safe would be counterproductive. I want to be able to get to my gun fast, so I keep it in my nightstand. I don't live in such a great neighborhood, and we have our fair share of robberies and assaults. I want access to my guns fast and keeping them in a safe would just put me in greater danger.

[iverglas]

44. and when you're not there?

Your not-great neighbourhood has robberies and assaults; can one assume that it has break-ins? Even, occasionally, when the householders aren't home?

You're aware that firearms are a target for people stealing from homes?

Have you considered the possibility that the guns you keep handy for your own protection (how many is it actually useful to have "handy" in the event that someone breaks in while you are home?) could easily end up being used to commit one of those robberies, or worse, if it were stolen from your home?

And how would you feel about that?

[Nestea]

45. I'd feel pretty badly about it,

but that's one of the reasons I have my dogs. They're not vicious at all(chocolate labs), but they appear vicious to a lot of people. They've scared lots of would-be robbers away before.

What am I supposed to do when someone breaks into my house with a gun, iverglas? I can't exactly afford a security system. And even if I could, this is one part of town that DPD(Dallas Police) don't come to, if you know what I mean. So am I supposed to ask them to wait to rob me for one second so I can go get my gun out of my safe?

No thanks.

Under Texas state law, I have the right to protect my home, my belongings and myself with deadly force. There are other states that don't afford homeowners this right, but Texas is one of them.

I'll keep my pistol in my nightstand, and take the slim chance that it might be stolen. Most robberies do happen at night here, and I'm at home most nights. When the dogs bark and someone is breaking in, I'll be ready.

And as to the number of guns that are necessary to have, iverglas, I own only two. One pistol, and one revolver. Others might have needs for more. They might want guns for sport. I don't hunt or do sport shooting, other than an occasional trip to a range outside of town to make sure my accuracy is still good. You can see my two guns here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=93081&mesg_id=93117

The revolver I always carry with me(I have a CCW permit for Texas), iverglas, because I've been mugged before(again, not a great neighborhood), and I'm not going to let it happen again. I don't know if you've ever been mugged before or been in a similar situation, but it's terrifying, with a capital T. The next person that attempts to mug me is going to get a kneecap shot out. I keep the pistol in my nightstand next to my bed.

No assault weapons, just a pistol and a revolver, both legal.

I'm sorry that it's come to this. I wish that we didn't have all the robberies and assaults and rape and murders here. I wish we lived in a better world. But it appears that we don't. :(

[iverglas]

46. nice

I'll keep my pistol in my nightstand, and take the slim chance that it might be stolen.

... and used to rob or kill someone: they are, after all, handguns, and that is the weapon of choice for those purposes. You seem to be quite happy taking chances on behalf of other people who don't get any say in the matter.

So am I supposed to ask them to wait to rob me for one second so I can go get my gun out of my safe?

What I asked was what you do with your firearms when you are not there.

People don't feel entitled to drive around in cars without brakes because they can't afford repairs. I don't know why anyone feels entitled to own firearms that s/he can't secure from theft or other unauthorized access.

I don't know if you've ever been mugged before or been in a similar situation, but it's terrifying, with a capital T.

I've actually had far worse happen to me, but I'm not going to go all over the tale again. A firearm in my pocket would not very likely have been much use to me (and I might not have escaped alive, which I did), and I have not lived under the delusion in the 30 years since then that a firearm in my pocket would enhance my security in any way.

[Nestea]

48. The 2nd argument is flawed

My car is on a public road, and my house is not.

If someone breaks into my house, somehow manages to find my gun and steal it, and then uses that gun in the commission of a crime, that is not my fault. It's private property. It's not like going out on the highway drunk or with faulty brakes. That's putting people's lives directly in danger.

As for me taking chances on behalf of other people? That's also a flawed argument. I don't have kids, and I don't have to worry about them finding the gun and using it in a bad manner. I lock my doors, and I'm here most nights. If someone breaks into my house, steals my gun, and uses it in the commission of a crime, that's not my fault.

You can't EXPECT me to keep my gun in a safe, Iverglas. You refused to answer my question. I'd like an answer.

HOW can I get access to my gun if someone breaks into my house and is standing at the foot of my bed with a gun? I can't just ask them to chill out so I can go open my hypothetical safe up and remove a gun to shoot them with. I know why you didn't answer it, though. You can't.

If someone is determined enough, they will find a gun and steal it. If they don't steal it from my house then they will steal it from someone else's.

Maybe I feel entitled to own firearms because it's a constitutional right. And I'm not even talking about the U.S. Constitution. I'm talking about the TX State constitution. I have a right to own firearms, and I also have a right to carry them concealed, because I have a license for that.

And I do feel it enhances my security. I'm a pretty imposing man myself(6'4" 200 pounds), and someone still mugged me with a gun a few years ago. Now I feel safer owning the gun. It's not my fault if you can't understand it, iverglas. I'm sorry to hear about your tale and it's your right not to own a gun. No one is forcing you to. But with all due respect, you live in a foreign country, and you don't live in my neighhborhood. I think that it's unfair for you to tell me that I don't need quick access to a gun. Come down to my part of DWF sometime. You'll see what I mean. It is MY choice to own a gun, and you have no right to tell me what I have to do with it. Please deal wtih it.

[iverglas]

49. "that's not my fault"

That's not my fault, that's not my fault.

In my considerable observation, everything in the US has to be somebody's fault and be blamed on somebody ... but never one's self.

HOW can I get access to my gun if someone breaks into my house and is standing at the foot of my bed with a gun?

Will you try paying attention?

I'm not talking about this particular fantasy of yours. I'm talking about WHERE YOUR FIREARMS ARE WHEN YOU'RE NOT THERE.

Maybe I feel entitled to own firearms because it's a constitutional right.

And I wondered about why anyone would feel entitled to own firearms THAT S/HE CAN'T SECURE FROM THEFT OR OTHER UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS. I really wasn't asking about constitutions. I was asking about the workings of the mind.

If the by-laws in my municipality didn't prohibit me from blaring my stereo out the window during daylight hours, I still wouldn't feel entitled to do it. I'd feel ashamed to do it.

My Supreme Court has ruled that if I am a parent of children of certain ages (or their teacher), I am entitled to use force against them to "correct" them. It is not unconstitutional, in their view, for the law to permit such assaults on children. I would still not feel entitled to do it, and would feel ashamed if I did.

If someone is determined enough, they will find a gun and steal it. If they don't steal it from my house then they will steal it from someone else's.

Whee haw. Throw that personal responsibility stuff right out that window.

It's not like going out on the highway drunk or with faulty brakes. That's putting people's lives directly in danger.

Hmm. If you can't brake and you hit someone else making a dangerous and illegal left across your path ... well, you didn't endanger anybody, and you didn't cause any harm. It was their fault.

HOW can I get access to my gun if someone breaks into my house and is standing at the foot of my bed with a gun? ... I know why you didn't answer it, though. You can't.

What I can't figure out is why you're asking. Read, much? Know how to copy and paste? Allow me:

44. and when you're not there?

See? That was the heading of the post of mine that you responded to first. That kind of makes it the subject of my post.

I think that it's unfair for you to tell me that I don't need quick access to a gun.

Yeah ... if only I HAD TOLD YOU ANY SUCH FUCKING THING, eh?

[Nestea]

50. Sigh

I thought you would know better than to make fallacious arguments and non-sequiturs. I guess not.

I'm not wasting any more time on this.

P.S. - We aren't all wealthy, Iverglas. Some of us can't afford thousand-dollar safes.

If, however, you would like to buy me a safe, then I would use it when I am not at home.

I seriously doubt you will do this.

[iverglas]

51. thought wrong, I guess

But hey, for such a newbie, you sure know a lot about me ... even if what you know is wrong.

If, however, you would like to buy me a safe, then I would use it when I am not at home.
I seriously doubt you will do this.

Somehow, I doubt that you'll be paying to rebuild the front balcony on my house that is getting to be in bad repair and might fall on someone.

I'll bet that would be my fault ... even though I certainly wasn't the one who destabilized the front porch ...

[Nestea]

52. I don't think that would be your fault

but you'd be a hypocrite if you didn't think that it would be your fault if your balcony fell on someone's head. You have a duty to protect your house even if you never have any visitors.

Why? What if a robber tries to break into your house and a balcony falls on him? That's entirely your fault, according to your logic.

Gee, it kind of gives you a reality check when you hear that some of us aren't incredibly wealthy doesn't it?

How dare you tell me that I should own a safe when I can't afford it.

By the way, thanks for being such an elitist(I'm a newbie, so I deserve scorn, etc.) :hi:

That's like chastising someone for being homeless and refusing to help them out. It's a real Republican argument.

[iverglas]

54. blah de blah

"I don't think that would be your fault
but you'd be a hypocrite if you didn't think that it would be your fault if your balcony fell on someone's head."

Damn, eh? Did *I* say that it would be your fault if someone killed someone else with a firearm stolen from your home?

Nope. You're the one who raised the question of fault as regards yourself. Not moi. I just wondered whether it would be *my* fault if something under *my* control harmed someone else through no intervention of my own.

"Why? What if a robber tries to break into your house and a balcony falls on him? That's entirely your fault, according to your logic."

Nice try, but nope. According to my logic, I would bear a portion of the responsibility for the event. And I would be ashamed.

Maybe not as ashamed as if the balcony fell off into the street and coshed a kid. (Imagine -- I live in a neighbourhood where there are no spacious front lawns, and my balcony is 11 inches from the edge of the sidewalk. Wot an élite élitist I am.) But still.

"How dare you tell me that I should own a safe when I can't afford it."

Actually, I haven't told you any such thing. I've inquired about what safe storage arrangements you make for your firearms when you're not home. There's really many a mile twixt safe and bedside table.

But if I were doing any telling, I'd be telling you that you should *not* own firearms if you are either unwilling or unable to store them in such a way that they are not readily accessible to unauthorized persons or persons in whose hands they would present risks to themselves or third parties.

By the way, thanks for being such an elitist(I'm a newbie, so I deserve scorn, etc.)

I don't know what was "scorn"ful about being surprised at how someone who joined DU ... oh, look, yesterday ... would fancy himself so well-versed in all things moi. Perhaps I was just flattered, eh?

That's like chastising someone for being homeless and refusing to help them out.

D'ya think? If ya actually did think it, you'd be more deserving of pity than of scorn, I guess.

Now, it might be somewhat like chastising someone for having a large vicious dog and letting it run loose and claiming that being homeless was an excuse, since after all, s/he has no backyard to put it in, you know. I'd think it perfectly reasonable to suggest that s/he either find a good home for the dog or affix its leash permanently to his/her belt and stay away from other people, be s/he homeless or not.

Just as I think it's perfectly reasonable to suggest that someone who is in possession of firearms either dispose of them or do something with them other than leave them in a bedside table when s/he is not at home, be s/he rich or poor, if s/he is unwilling or unable to do anything reasonable to secure them against unauthorized access.

In your case, I'm hearing "unwilling".

It's a real Republican argument.

Actually, it was hash. But nothing you've said strikes me as particularly liberal/progressive/democratic. To qualify for one of those rubrics, stuff generally has to have some faint odour of giving a damn about someone other than one's self.

[Nestea]

55. Maybe you could utilize a search of my posts

I think that all of them qualify as pretty progressive.

Perhaps you're unwilling.

Let me ASSIST you.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=994061&mesg_id=994293

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=105&topic_id=2013592&mesg_id=2015451

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=105&topic_id=2014281&mesg_id=2014978

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=169&topic_id=1527&mesg_id=1576

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=2697544&mesg_id=2699033

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=217&topic_id=40&mesg_id=104

Nestea Donating member (39 posts) Mon Nov-15-04 07:33 PM
Response to Original message
21. Because it's important for people to have a choice.
Edited on Mon Nov-15-04 07:34 PM by Nestea


What right do we have to strip people of their rights?

As you can see from my posts, I'm not very conservative, Iverglas. I have respect for other people's rights. I Wish that they would have respect for mine

[Billy Ruffian]

58. On the subject of secure storage

(iverglas wrote)
But if I were doing any telling, I'd be telling you that you should *not* own firearms if you are either unwilling or unable to store them in such a way that they are not readily accessible to unauthorized persons or persons in whose hands they would present risks to themselves or third parties.

If someone breaks into my residence and steals anything, they have committed a crime. Why am I responsible for what they do with what they take?

I do feel that every firearm owner should take steps to inhibit unauthorized use. What I object to is legislating those steps. Every situation is different. Since you brought it up, just what is not readily accessible to unauthorized persons?

My house has locks on the doors and windows. Is that enough for you?

What if I put some sort of trigger lock on all my unattended weapons in the house? Is that enough?

What about a locking wooden cabinet? Is that enough? An alarm system?

A huge safe, anchored to a concrete slab? Is that enough?

[Nestea]

60. No point in arguing

She's just an anti-gunner

I wish she would put as much effort into protecting our rights as she is in protecting hers.

[iverglas]

64. what is your secret source??

I wish she would put as much effort into protecting our rights as she is in protecting hers.

You must have a deep throat who knows more about moi than moi moiself.

What is all this effort I put into protecting my rights? I thought I spent most of the time, when not slaving away at my computer, lying on the couch, secure in the knowledge that there really isn't any threat to my rights to be worrying about or protecting them against.

She's just an anti-gunner

Ah yes, I'm fervently ... opposed to artillery soldiers, I guess.

Also to the creation of nonsense phrases for the purposes of demonizing others, but whatever.

You get back to talking about me, now.

[iverglas]

66. here ya go

"Every situation is different. Since you brought it up, just what is not readily accessible to unauthorized persons?"

This will do for me for now:

http://www.canlii.org/ca/regu/sor98-209/whole.html
(there's stuff in there about restricted weapons, like handguns, that is more stringent, but these are the basics)

FIREARMS ACT
Storage, Display, Transportation and Handling of Firearms by Individuals Regulations

STORAGE OF NON-RESTRICTED FIREARMS

5. (1) An individual may store a non-restricted firearm only if

(a) it is unloaded;

(b) it is

(i) rendered inoperable by means of a secure locking device,

(ii) rendered inoperable by the removal of the bolt or bolt-carrier, or

(iii) stored in a container, receptacle or room that is kept securely locked and that is constructed so that it cannot readily be broken open or into; and

(c) it is not readily accessible to ammunition, unless the ammunition is stored, together with or separately from the firearm, in a container or receptacle that is kept securely locked and that is constructed so that it cannot readily be broken open or into.

(2) Paragraph (1)(b) does not apply to any individual who stores a non-restricted firearm temporarily if the individual reasonably requires it for the control of predators or other animals in a place where it may be discharged in accordance with all applicable Acts of Parliament and of the legislature of a province, regulations made under such Acts, and municipal by-laws.

(3) Paragraphs (1)(b) and (c) do not apply to an individual who stores a non-restricted firearm in a location that is in a remote wilderness area that is not subject to any visible or otherwise reasonably ascertainable use incompatible with hunting.

slackmaster really does seem to go above and beyond what's needed here.

"My house has locks on the doors and windows. Is that enough for you?"

Well, most houses are pretty "readily unlocked or broken into".

"What if I put some sort of trigger lock on all my unattended weapons in the house? Is that enough?"

Hmm. I'd have to say that the Cdn regs don't quite satisfy me on that point, assuming that once the firearm were stolen the locking device could be got off it.

"What about a locking wooden cabinet? Is that enough?

Wood seems a tad too easily broken into, but I guess it would depend on the design and execution.

An alarm system?

Don't see how an alarm system prevents a break-in.

That help?


"I do feel that every firearm owner should take steps to inhibit unauthorized use. What I object to is legislating those steps."

Yeah, I know how you feel. I do feel that every driver should take steps to reduce the likelihood that his/her car will keep going when the brake pedal is depressed. What I object to is legislating those steps. If I discover I have no brakes, it should just be up to me to decide whether to drive or not. Every situation is different, after all. I know how to gear down.


"If someone breaks into my residence and steals anything, they have committed a crime. Why am I responsible for what they do with what they take?"

Me, I'm just asking why you (if you qualify by failing to secure firearms) don't give a shit.

And even if you don't qualify (because you do properly secure your firearms), why you don't give a shit about anyone hurt or killed or robbed or terrorized by people who steal the firearms of other people who have not properly secured them.

[Nestea]

68. I'm sorry that I'm not perfect in your eyes.

Because I don't follow those guidelines that you outlined.

I'll continue to leave my guns in my nightstand and not worry about it.

And there's nothing you can do about it. I have the state constitution on my side.

As for protecting your rights, that whole thing, I have said that I lurked for awhile.

I noticed that you pop up frequently on abortion threads. I am a big supporter of a woman's right to choose, and so are you, apparently. It seems odd, then, that you would choose to support certain constitutional rights(right to choose) while opposing others(right to bear arms).

And don't give me the argument that guns can kill people so it makes a different. A constitutional right is a constitutional right.

[iverglas]

69. "a constitutional right is a constitutional right"

... except when it isn't.

Nothing in my constitution about firearms. So ...

"It seems odd, then, that you would choose to support certain constitutional rights(right to choose) while opposing others (right to bear arms)."

... it ain't odd, because it just plain ain't what is. There just ain't any such right for me to "oppose".

Of course, the possession of firearms, just like the possession of pizza, is an exercise of the right to freedom. And it's as subject to reasonable limitation, where there is demonstrable justification, as the exercise of any other right.

"I'll continue to leave my guns in my nightstand and not worry about it.
And there's nothing you can do about it. I have the state constitution on my side."

There's really nothing I could do about it anyway, given as how the law doesn't require you to do otherwise ... and how I plan never to set foot in Texas again, leaving me kinda without standing in the matter.

"And don't give me the argument that guns can kill people so it makes a different. A constitutional right is a constitutional right."

Yass. Like that constitutional right to freedom of speech you have ... and all the many laws you also have imposing all sorts of restrictions on the exercise of that freedom, and punishments for violating them ...

But I never was talking about rights here. I was talking about human decency. It's entirely possible to have all of the former and concurrently have none of the latter.

[Nestea]

70. We aren't talking about your country

This forum is populated predominantly by Americans, so when I reference a right, it refers to an American right.

[iverglas]

71. who cares?

[Nestea]

73. Apparently you do

Bad day?

:nopity:

[TX-RAT]

56. Hmmmmm

(I have a 1,200 pound, $3,000 gun safe because I can afford it, and I decided to go the Cadillac route because my gun collection is worth several times that amount.)
Must be one high dollar Smith 38, and Ruger 10-22.

[mosin]

57. I had the same thought.

:)

[Romulus]

63. he's just really responsible

:)

[slackmaster]

72. I keep my coin collection in the safe too

Also financial papers and a few valuable old cameras.

[aikoaiko]

13. If you limit guns to hunting, you will alienate most gun owners

You say hunting is the only legit reason for gun ownership, but gun owners feel differently.

Target shooting, self-defense against thugs, self-preservation against tyranny, and general SHTF conditions are also valued aspects of gun ownership to gun owners.

[anonymous44]

37. why would you kill a poor defenseless animal?

do you feel like a man if you kill an animal with a gun?
go kill it with your hands.

[sierrajim]

38. Why not?

They are a lot easier to eat that way.

[Billy Ruffian]

40. ownt wrote:

do you feel like a man if you kill an animal with a gun?
go kill it with your hands.

Do you eat meat? Use film? Wear leather?

If so, you're a hypocrite.

[iverglas]

47. ownt also wrote

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=92173#92648

65. guns are EVIL
im scared of them. they look evil. i feel that our society shouldn't allow anybody have a gun.

and then, when queried about this post:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=91118#91133

6. guess that i should turn my guns in
along with bb guns and pepper spray projectiles.
police will take care of me.
i will be much safer without a gun.

wrote (emphasis added):

67. lol
that's the mentality of most anti-gun people

(referring, of course, to guns are EVIL im scared of them. they look evil. i feel that our society shouldn't allow anybody have a gun.)

The sheepskin just won't stay on straight, it seems. Or somebody just isn't really trying.

[anonymous44]

53. im just mocking anti's on here

they are in fact scared of guns.
most of them think that a gun will shoot by itself.

[slackmaster]

43. There's no such thing as a defenseless animal

Deer are not Bambi.

A buck deer can kick your ass.

[TX-RAT]

59. Killer Gophers

Was in the front yard trying to drown out a gopher who was doing some major dirt work. He came out of the hole making strange noises and trying to bite me on the feet. Flip flops are not the perfect shoes to be wearing when doing this. Little bastard chased me around the yard. The whole time my wife was laughing so hard she damn near wet her pants. Was finally able to make it to the shovel and dispatch of his fierce little ass.

[NorthernSpy]

61. is it at all possible that you were bitten or scratched?

Or came into direct contact with the animal's saliva or brain tissue in any way?

Rabies is not usually a big concern with most rodent bites, but there are exceptions. Groundhogs, for instance, are often large enough to survive an attack by a rabid animal, and may therefore eventually develop the disease themselves after the fight.

How long ago did this happen?

[TX-RAT]

62. Only contact was the shovel. And it made good contact.

Happened this summer. No worries
Thanks

[puttothesword]

65. when shovels are outlawed.... n/t

[iverglas]

67. ... only gophers will have shovels? (n/t)

[puttothesword]

41. my basic thoughts on guns...

folks who come over to my house immediately notice 2 things...

I own SLEWS of books. Last count was something like 1,500.

Second is the amount of firearms related stuff hanging around (mainly magazines but also my blackpower bag and shortstarter and crap like that)

I always explain it like this:

"The first amendment and books both exist to free your mind, the second amendment and guns both exist to keep your body free."