Guns

[filkertom]

On the previous thread, gun rights issues came up.

I'm one of the ones who favors the distribution copy of the Second Amendment: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." (The original version, as ratified by the House and Senate, reads: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Amazing what a difference two commas and a couple of capital letters makes.)

I do not own a gun, and intend never to own a gun. I think handguns and automatic and semi-automatic weapons need to be controlled much better than they are; I'd be happy if non-sport-shooting handguns were banned.

I do not believe that concealed weapons make a polite society; I believe they make it easier to shoot people. I absolutely do not believe they should be permitted in national parks and such.

I think anyone getting a gun of any type or size should have a thorough training course before they're allowed to take the darn thing home.

I do not have a problem with sport hunting, although I have a preference toward those who eat what they kill rather than just shooting up the woods. I still don't think automatic or semi-automatic weapons should be used for hunting.

I think registration has to be much more stringent, and I think gun shows should be frickin' shut down until they can account for their weapons and their sales.

Guns don't kill people; people use guns to kill people.

Thoughts?

(PLEASE KEEP IT POLITE. I suspect that no one is gonna change anyone's mind on this one, but it was getting interesting in the previous thread, so I thought it deserved its own space. Any cranky or crazy shit [my choice] gets you banned for two weeks. I only say this so that no one is surprised if it happens. I don't anticipate it, I don't want it, I can't think of anybody who's gonna do it, I get sick to my stomach thinking about it, and there will be multiple warnings if necessary, but I will do it.)

Comments

[selenesue.livejournal.com]

An elegant solution for those who love to hunt more than they can personally eat: "Hunt.Fish.Feed." a new program where hunters donate their game to homeless shelters. Press release on recent event here:

http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=ind_focus.story&STORY=/www/story/02-18-2009/0004974955&EDATE=

I'm with you, brother

[dakiwiboid.livejournal.com]

Though I always get flamed to hell and gone when I say so. I hate the idea that people keep pushing at me that the safest way to live with my neighbors is to be prepared to shoot them.

[eleri.livejournal.com]

what you said.
The whole "The Constitution says I get to have my guns!" mindset completely misses the context in which the Constitution was written, by a people who often lived on the edges of wilderness, and needed their guns for survival, *and* who were in a state of rebellion against a government who wanted them hamstrung.

[stevemb.livejournal.com]

I don't think we can really give any weight to that sort of "context" argument. By that reasoning, the First Amendment, which was written when "the press" meant big honking gizmos that one "pressed" by hand, doesn't really apply to radio, TV, the Internet, etc.

[stevemb.livejournal.com]

The problem with training and registration requirements is the history of using them as a backdoor technique of de facto prohibition. Actually, the Heller decision might be helpful at breaking the logjam; throwing out abusive regulations makes more room, politically speaking, for reasonable ones.

[mimiheart.livejournal.com]

My father recently (within the last 10 years) became a crazy Christian. By crazy Christian, I mean, not the normal, 85% of Christians that make up the majority of the country. He's one of those who thinks that because it was on WND it's true. Along with becoming a crazy Christian, he became a crazy conservative. Growing up, my father was moderate to left. He voted for Ross Perot, then Clinton. He voted for Gore in 2000 before he went insane. Now he's a card-carrying member of the NRA. In and of itself, I don't have a problem with the NRA. I'm setting this up for a reason.

My brother is almost 19. In the last year, he's tried to kill himself twice, and has been in and out of various mental health hospitals at least three times. He's a danger to himself and others. I've been around him when he's raging and I don't let my kids go to my father's house when I know my brother will be there.

My father thinks that it is a good idea for my brother to own a gun. My brother owns more than one gun. I don't know the type of guns my brother owns. I know some of them are for hunting. I know at least one of them is a handgun. I do know that my brother knows how to use them--he's been to a firing range before. For my brother's birthday, my father is giving him another gun.

My problem isn't with guns. It's that people (in general) don't use common sense when getting guns. I won't have a gun in my house AT LEAST until my children are fully grown. And then, maybe, I'll think about it.

[alymid.livejournal.com]

Funny thing is - I learned gun safety LONG before I ever saw a gun or learned to shoot. As a child I wasn't encouraged to play with toy guys - because the number 1 rule was don't point a gun (loaded or unloaded, play or real) at anything you didn't want to be dead.

When I was older and big enough to handle a small handgun I got to put it into practice - at the range I learned enough to know that it isn't my hobby and left it at that.

[bayushisan.livejournal.com]

I'm not one of the people who use hunting as basis for my belief that the second Ammendment is just as important as the First; though I do admit that hunting is a small part of that.

Firstly I believe that people have the right to defend themselves, their homes, and their loved ones from a violent intruder or situation. It's pleasant to think about but such situations to happen and there have been times when one person could have made the difference by having a firearm on hand to stop a random shooter. It's not pleasant to think about, nor should it be.

The vast majority of gun owners do try to be responsible. The NRA does offer safety classes and anyone applying for a liscense has to pass a police taught safety course and I don't really have a problem with that. I do support concealed carry laws because, while yes, there will be some who are stupid about it; the majority of people who would carry would try to be respobsible.

The other reason I think the second Ammendment is so important is so that the people can protect themselves should the government go too far and become a repressive regime. It's not outside the realm of possibility and the people being able to rise up and put a stop to it is important.

I consider myself something of a realistic pacifist. I would love for there to always be peaceful solutions and for the police to always arrive on time. Unfortunately these things are almost never the case. Sometimes one person who happens to be carrying a legal concealed weapon can save dozens of people from someone going on a kill spree.

Personally I hate guns; but I also support a citizen's right to own them for self defense and defense of home and family.

[valarltd.livejournal.com]

If privately owned guns were really going to be effective against military-grade weaponry, which includes everything from microwaves that fry you via the coins in your pocket to nukes, do you think we would still have them?

The reality of the intruder scenario is the homeowner fumbling for gun and ammo and safe lock as the intruder shoots him.

[shockwave77598.livejournal.com]

Guns don't kill people either. It's the hole left behind by the bullet, just as it is with the hole left behind by a knife. What we need are hole controls...

Being serious though, they are simply tools. They can be used for good or ill. My home has some protection (though I never give details on defenses) because, like it or not, the bad guys out there have guns too. And since criminals are very bad about obeying the law, simply saying "No guns allowed" will do nothing but create a flock of sheep for the wolves to prey upon. So as much as making a gun-free civilization may sound appealing, like Shangrila, it can never be reached.

What I would like to see is Deputization of whoever can properly wield a weapon, so long as they use a special holster. Said people are ordinary folks and they are unpaid volunteers, like a volunteer fire department. They are allowed to have their pistols in their holsters in plain sight as they are considered to be law enforcement. But they must use special holsters which have a screeching alarm that turns on whenever the gun is drawn. To turn off the alarm requires a key that only the paid police will have. This will bring back the good part of the wild west, the part where bad guys didn't try to rob folks because the good folks would be packing the same heat as the crooks were. Today, unfortunately, any thief can rob someone at will because they know they are the only one with a gun. Make it so more volunteer law enforcers are on the street and packing, and the thugs WILL think twice.

[starcat-jewel.livejournal.com]

And since criminals are very bad about obeying the law, simply saying "No guns allowed" will do nothing but create a flock of sheep for the wolves to prey upon.

I don't buy this argument, have never bought this argument, and I really don't like being called a "sheep" (or worse, "sheeple") because I choose not to have guns in my home. It's not like I don't have weapons, or that I wouldn't be willing to use them; it's that I'm not willing to put in the amount of time and effort that *I* consider necessary to use a gun effectively and safely.

If other people want to have guns in their homes for protection and are willing to put in that time and effort, then I don't have a problem with it. People who think guns are the Magic Cure-All scare the shit out of me -- they are exactly the ones who should not be allowed to have them.

As for "more volunteer law enforcers are on the street and packing", the very idea makes my blood run cold. I DO NOT TRUST vigilante justice AT ALL. The correct response to "criminals don't care about the law" is to give the law some teeth as regards using guns in the commission of a crime, but that's not a popular opinion with the gun lobby. However, it fits perfectly with the "guns don't kill people" meme -- if the problem is misuse of the tool, make the punishment harsher for those who misuse it instead of penalizing the ones who don't. Why doesn't that idea have any traction with gun enthusiasts?

If I were the Supreme Author of the Universe, we'd all be living under the Darkover Compact -- no projectile weapons of any kind, and possession of one is grounds for immediate execution. But I'm not, and we're not.

(edited because I can't spell today)

[ziactrice.livejournal.com]

Well... for me, being able to carry a concealed weapon would give me tremendous peace of mind if I did go out camping for a week and hiking about the back emptiness of a public park by myself. It may be that I feel this way because I am a 5'4" woman who has been on the wrong end of a man's fist more than once, however.

[jenk]

Not to mention that it's not uncommon for cougars or bears to roam in the National Parks and National Forests in my state.

No, humans should not antagonize wild animals. But guns are a good way to stay alive when wild animals want to eat you, too.

[bryanp.livejournal.com]

On the previous thread, gun rights issues came up.

Yeah, I responded in that thread, but I didn't want to take that too far in there as that wasn't really the focus of the thread. Of course now you start this as I'm about to go offline and may not have time to come back today. So, I'll hit this as fast as I can. ;)

I do not own a gun, and intend never to own a gun. I think handguns and automatic and semi-automatic weapons need to be controlled much better than they are; I'd be happy if non-sport-shooting handguns were banned.

As is your right, although obviously I disagree with the latter sentiment.

I do not believe that concealed weapons make a polite society; I believe they make it easier to shoot people.

The problem I have is that the only people those laws affect are law abiding citizens. A "no guns allowed" sign doesn't affect the kind of people who are the reason I choose to sometimes carry.

I absolutely do not believe they should be permitted in national parks and such.

See above, plus the addition of bears etc.. One purpose of tool using is to equalize ourselves with creatures who have more efficient natural weapons. If I ran across an angry animal in the woods I will do the exact same thing I would do with a person - attempt to disengage and/or run away if at all possible. However, if I do not have that option I prefer to have tools with me to even the odds.


I think anyone getting a gun of any type or size should have a thorough training course before they're allowed to take the darn thing home.

Training is a good thing and you will never hear me speak against it.

I do not have a problem with sport hunting, although I have a preference toward those who eat what they kill rather than just shooting up the woods.

I'm not a hunter, but I agree entirely.

I still don't think automatic or semi-automatic weapons should be used for hunting.

I'm not aware of anyone who hunts with a actual automatic (machine gun) weapon. Most firearms hunting in this country is done with bolt action, lever action, single-shot, and black powder rifles, with a smattering of handgun hunters.(most of those using very large, heavy revolvers chambered in cartridges such as .454 Casull, .500 Linebaugh, .500 S&W, not exactly a gang banger weapon).

That said, hunting with a semi auto isn't that big a deal. Lots of people have bought cheap SKS rifles to hunt deer. The ballistics of that "evil assault rifle" round, 7.62x39, are actually quite close to those of the .30-30 Winchester that is used in so many lever rifles. They became popular because, until recently, the rifles were inexpensive and so was the ammunition. It wasn't some sort of Rambo thing.

I think registration has to be much more stringent,

I disagree. Registration is the first step towards confiscation.

(continued next comment, apparently I exceeded LJ's limit of 4500 characters)

[bryanp.livejournal.com]

(continued)


and I think gun shows should be frickin' shut down until they can account for their weapons and their sales.

Okay, here's the golden ticket. There are two types of sales at gun shows: Licensed dealers and private individuals.

If you are buying from a licensed dealer you have to go through the exact same process as if you were in their store. You sit down, show identification, fill out a form 4473, they call in the background check and you wait until it's approved. The form is kept on file by the dealer. This may vary a bit based on state laws, but that's the least restrictive variation such as is practiced in Tennessee where I reside.

Private sales between individuals. Here's the sticking point. This is what is being described when people mention the so-called "gun show loophole." When someone says they want to "close the loophole", what they are saying is that they want to outlaw private sales between individuals. They may not realize it, but that is the only practical way to do so. There is no difference between a private sale at a gun show and finding someone through the local classifieds with an add that says "For sale: S&W 638 .38spl revolver, 98% condition." The gun show merely facilitates a lot of people with that interest being together at the same time. Sort of like a heavy metal dealer's room. Besides, the last gun show I went to the only thing I bought was a bag, a package of paracord and some sweet jalapeno relish. ^_^

Guns don't kill people; people use guns to kill people.

Indeed. Or as I prefer to say, there are no dangerous weapons, only dangerous people.

[ellyssian.livejournal.com]

there are no dangerous weapons, only dangerous people

And then there was this (http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2009/02/24/ap6091197.html), which I came across earlier today - first thing I thought of when I read the article was along the lines of "whaddaya know, guns could kill people..." =)

[valarltd.livejournal.com]

What you said.

A gun is made for one purpose: to kill.
Debate anything you like, that fact is inescapeable.

I have nothing against hunters. More power to 'em, as long as they eat the kill.

But an armed society is only polite to those it's not sure it can outdraw. For all that the Old West is the iconic society, most people in the discussion have never even cracked a Louis L'Amour, let alone a book of history about it.

[shockwave77598.livejournal.com]

A gun has one purpose: to fire a bullet. What you fire it at varies with the person holding it. I've had to shoot at:

snakes (10ft long water mocassin is deadly - period)
rabid animals
cans
bottles
deer
targets
the occasional watermelon (used to illustrate to kids that guns aren't toys)
fenceposts
signs (I have a misspent youth too...)

Funny thing is, after so many rounds being fired from my guns, not one person was killed or even harmed. Therefore your theory is proven false by example.

[awfulhorrid.livejournal.com]

Unfortunately there's a lot of stupidity on both sides of this argument. I like to think I'm a responsible gun owner, but consider I haven't actually had either of my rifles out of their cases in ... er ... four years, I'm not sure how much weight my views would hold!(*)

The main problem I have with trying to pass more regulations is that by definition criminals don't follow the laws. (An unfortunate example is the regulation of narcotics and other drugs.)

Even if you do shut down stores and shows, guns are amazingly easy to manufacture even in a garage workshop. I guess one could start down the road of banning gun powder (and tightly regulating the ingredients thereof), but at that point I think even relatively sane people like me think the idiot conservatives may be on to something.

Now I'm absolutely with you on education! I'm absolutely in favor of having a license similar to a driver's license that essentially says "Yes, I've passed a safety course," although I'm a bit leary of having to register individual weapons.

(* - Of course that brings up the question of where did I put that ammunition? I know I didn't store it with the rifles ...)

[argonel.livejournal.com]

For what it's worth the back of my Drivers licence says "Endorsements: Firearms Certificate Restrictions: Corrective lenses". This indicates that I passed a firearms safety course and that I am required to wear glasses or contact lenses while driving. In order to buy a hunting license in my state you are required to have passed a firearms safety course or be over the age of 18. The firearms safety course covers the basics of firearms safety, game animal identification, and required a minimal amount of shooting at a firing range.

[ebenbrooks.livejournal.com]

I'm with you, bro.

[ericthemage.livejournal.com]

Criminals already don't follow the law, so gun registration only affects law abiding citizens. Disarming law abiding citizens gives criminals a better chance at succeeding at their crimes, because they know that they will face less resistance. So more gun registration only creates more opportunities for criminals to act.

If guns cause crime, then mine are defective.

[alverant.livejournal.com]

If criminals don't follow the law, then why have any laws?

How does gun registration disarm law abiding citizens?

[morpheus0013.livejournal.com]

There is little if anything for me to disagree with here. Except I probably have a dimmer view of hunting than you do, but that's largely a result of where I live. I'm tired of the "sport hunters" (and "elk ranchers," those folks who make their living keeping wildlife captive so people with more money than brains or soul can fly in, shoot a caged animal, and go home feeling like A Mighty Hunter) bitching about how the wolves have lowered elk populations and caused migration of the herds. THAT'S BECAUSE THE ELK WERE OVERPOPULATED AND IN THE WRONG PLACES, YOU BONEHEADS. People who bitch because they can't make the money off nature they used to, when nature is righting itself without their help, piss me off.

That's sort of secondary to the gun issue, but...yeah. I'm also not in favour of 11-year-olds having unfettered access to weapony. I'm not in favour of teaching a child that young to use a weapon, let alone giving him his own shotgun for Christmas. (Related to this (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/feb/22/jordan-brown-pennsylvania-murder). WTF--a gun is an appropriate Christmas gift for a child?)

[ericthemage.livejournal.com]

You teach a child at a young age that a stove is dangerous, and teach them to respect it.

You teach a child at a young age that cars in the street are dangerous, and teach them to respect cars and traffic.

If you want a child to have respect for guns, you teach them at a young age. Google is failing me, but I recall a study that showed children who thought they were badass and played with a gun (and someone got hurt) were shocked when the thing went off, because they'd only see then on TV, and not live. My older daughter, when she was 6, thought they were really cool until my ex took her into a field and demonstrated the power of a 12 gauge shotgun on a pumpkin. She lost all interest after that, and found new respect for guns.

[jovan-scorn.livejournal.com]

It may be a far off possibility or a totally implausible one but an argument for private gun ownership I have never seen (and some one can point me to a source if someone else is already discussing it) is it makes the United States a less tempting target for invasion, even a small scale one. Granted it's not the only reason but "having a well armed populace" is just another reason not too.

Far more to the current point the argument that guns cause so many deaths; is that just deaths being cited or deaths and injuries? I can't remember the statistic but it was something like if you can get to an emergency room within ten minutes you'll survive the vast majority of injuries that don't kill you instantly. If that's the case and injuries are being put together with fatalities that would create a greater image of lethality. Of course I'm not saying guns aren't lethal, they have the potential to be very lethal but in the hands of an average shooter in a crisis situation the create an awful lot of injuries that can takes hours to prove fatal. Plenty of time to seek treatment and of course have said bullet wound reported and subsequent arrest made if the injured turn out to be a criminal.

[bryanp.livejournal.com]

an argument for private gun ownership I have never seen (and some one can point me to a source if someone else is already discussing it) is it makes the United States a less tempting target for invasion, even a small scale one

I don't have time to go digging for the reference, but I've read quotes of one Japanese general who stated that no invasion of US soil was ever really contemplated during WWII, at least in part because "There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass."

[redaxe.livejournal.com]

I've long since stated that guns ought to be at least as well regulated as automobiles, which are, say gun advocates, as deadly as firearms. Users ought to have to pass a written test on the law and a competency test on the range. I'm open to debate as to whether the latter ought to include a popup target test of the sort police take, where not only is accuracy tested, but so is target recognition (i.e., being able to know when not to shoot, too). But if you can't shoot straight, you ought not to be permitted to use a gun any more than if you can't stay in a lane, you belong on the road.

[bryanp.livejournal.com]

I would answer this argument, but I don't have to. Someone else has done it much better than I ever could. Here's a quick read that rebuts the "we license cars, let's license guns the same way" argument by basically daring the .gov to do just that. It's well worth the read.

http://thelawdogfiles.blogspot.com/2007/04/we-license-cars-yackyackyack.html

[brmj.livejournal.com]

This is one of the handful of issues where my views tend more towards libertarian than liberal.

I don't have a gun and, at this point, I don't intend to ever have one. That might change, but for the foreseeable future I am gun-free.

I have no problem whatsoever with hunting and target shooting, as long as people know what they are doing and keep it sufficiently sane and safe, and it doesn't exceed what the environment can support.

The whole self-defense argument is one where I can see both sides, but I tend to think that if guns were outlawed, criminals who plan ahead would obtain them illegally or make their own weapons, while crimes of passion would involve knives or random objects used as bludgeons. There are certainly some situations in which a gun would make people safer, however.

The real big one for me, though, was hit on earlier by bayushisan. I believe that the most important purpose of the second amendment is to is to protect the people from governments, foreign or domestic, if all other possible means are first exhausted. I'm not talking about armed rebellion if one's candidate looses an election; I would only advocate such things if the equivalent of the Nazis were to take power and start hauling people off to death camps, for example. I truly hope that this sort of thing never becomes necessary, but it should be an option and if nothing else it should act as a deterrent to would-be dictators.

I am 100% for training and such, but I tend to be against expanded gun registration plans.

[ladywench.livejournal.com]

I agree with practical hunting. Most hunters I know (not many) not only eat the meat, but use the skin, bones, and antlers of what they kill.

I also feel that guns have removed a sense of responsibility for the general American public. Guns make crime easier, more remote and less personal . . . and therefore more likely that someone will get shot even if the gun is only carried "to scare", and more likely that ANY crime will involve murder.

However, I firmly believe in every person's right - no, every person's responsibility - to defend themselves, their home and their family. The downside to guns is that people put their faith in the gun, not in themselves. Too many people think that just owning a gun means they are safe, and they relax other precautions. Since all they have to do is "point and shoot", everything is ok. People need to stop relying on guns, bloody well learn to defend themselves properly and take responsibility for their own lives. I've never been broken into, and I consider myself lucky. I also have subtle door and window barriers to prevent break ins, and take several other "don't be a victim" type precautions. If I had put my trust in the gun my Dad gave me, I would not have been as defensive and crime just waits for that kind of opportunity.

Guns used as "home defense" impart a false sense of security and a higher possibility of accidents. Guns used in crime increase the criminals insensibility of life, and the victims sense of hoplessness and defenselessness. But, as I heard said a long time ago - "if we outlaw guns, only the outlaws will have guns". There is no easy solution.

I think every citizen should be required to take a gun safety course in High School, along with Driver's Ed. No, no . . . not at the same time . . . I also think personal, practical, self-defence classes should be mandatory.

[unclelumpy.livejournal.com]

Ever notice how the same people who justified the Bush administration's unwarranted surveillance with "If you've done nothing wrong, you have nothing to worry about" are the same people who bitch and moan about waiting periods and background checks?

[bryanp.livejournal.com]

Nice way to generalize us all together. Not enough conservatives took a stand for the Constitution when the previous administration was pissing all over the Bill of Rights. Now many are awake again because the current President has a (D) after his name. I find that kind of hypocrisy detestable no matter who is doing it. Me, I bitch at both of them, long and loud, when they take a false step towards that document.

[rdmaughan.livejournal.com]

As a Brit I have never been able to comprehend the firearms situation in the states. I am not a gun owner but know several and I think the rules here are as follows:

1) Handguns capable of firing multiple shots without reloading are illegal for civilian ownership in almost all circumstances.
2) Guns must be individually registered to a specific owner.
3) If you store guns in your house rather than at a range then you must have a fixed locking cabinet, guns must be stored unloaded and the ammunition must be in a separate cabinet. Multiple gun owners in the same household must have separate cabinets for their guns but can share ammo storage.
4) Rules on shotguns are more relaxed.

Outside Northern Ireland the majority of British police never carry a gun at any time during their career. Gun violence does happen here and even the best of our firearms officers have made mistakes at times but I definitely prefer the way it works here. Having said that I don't think the US could ever move to a system close to ours.

[valarltd.livejournal.com]

You don't tend to have things like 12 year old boys getting gunned down by the police on the way home from the store (http://revcom.us/a/096/deaunta-farrow-en.html) because a cop mistook either a bottle of soda pop or a toy for a gun.
He went to kindergarten with my son, but it was a case of "Out while Black."

[colinmo.livejournal.com]

It says arms. Take guns away and make everyone take up fencing swords instead. A lot more gentlemanly.

It'd make big game hunting more entertaining at least.

[redneckgaijin.livejournal.com]

Arms = any weapons suitable for making war.

There were "arms" before there were guns.

(And, in Texas at least, it's not an option. If you have a concealed handgun permit, you still can't have your gun in a car (unless you're going out-of-county to spend the night), and you can't carry it with you if you're on your way to or from any government building. Knives and swords longer than four inches OR with more than one edge are also illegal. Most cities even outlaw the carrying of large sticks. Not exactly the redneck heaven we've been made out as, we aren't...)

[rmeidaking.livejournal.com]

I used to be fairly anti-weapon, until the former Yugoslavia fell apart, and the police turned on several ethnic minorities. At that point, I determined that I felt everyone in Kosovo, and Serbia, and everywhere else deserved to have a high-powered weapon of their own, in order to defend themselves against the police.

Looking around and figuring out that most of the police where I was living at the time were from a single ethnic group (Irish Catholic), and knowing that they regularly abused their privilege on various other ethnic minorities, led me to believe that anyone, anywhere, should have the right to be armed as well as their local police force is. Now, if you go the British route - where the local police can only carry a club - I'm good with this. But if Joe Cop gets to carry a semi-auto, so do I, if I want.

I know how to shoot a gun; I'm not very good at it because I never practice. I don't own a gun, but my dad and most of my cousins do. (I'm somewhat of a disappointment in this regard.) My 11 yo son wins marksmanship awards with a BB gun every summer, and he's likely to be pressured into more significant weaponry in Boy Scouts. It will be up to him.

Meanwhile, a gun without ammunition is a rock, and ammo without a gun is still lethal. You need a permit to buy a gun, but nothing to buy ammunition. I've never understood that.

In a perfect world, we wouldn't need ranged weapons. This isn't a perfect world.

[rmeidaking.livejournal.com]

PS In Switzerland, you're issued a machine gun, and it's your responsibility to remain competent to use it, and have it in good working order. Every individual is considered to be the first line of defense against, well, anything.

It was somewhat sobering to consider that the 19 yo 5'1" cutie waiting on me at the konditorei, who had just returned from her mandatory training session, fell into this category.

Switzerland is a very polite place. I suspect that there's a connection. Still, it's something that works pretty well in a small, ethnically homogeneous country, that probably wouldn't scale up to the USA.

[peachtales.livejournal.com]

Agreed. I grew up there, and my dad's assault rifle stood on it's bipod, next to the prepared backpack and the uniform hanging from the rafters. When he got to be 45, he was able to choose to turn in his big gun for a handgun, which he did.
There is one heck of a lot less crime involving guns there.

[lariss.livejournal.com]

And Then there's my PoV:
What's wrong with human nature in general, and our society in particular (we have the highest rate of gun deaths among "1st world" nations by a very nasty percentage), thatmakes this argument so vivid and necessary?
Why are Americans unable to keep themselves from shooting one another - or at least hold it to the per capita rates in other developed nations?
I'm reading everyone's arguments, and it seems to me that most everyone is missing this question.

Of course, I'm anti-gun...because I think of humans as hairless monkeys, and I wouldn't give a monkey a gun.
There's some top-notch reasoning for ya.

*edited and reposted for typos.

[redneckgaijin.livejournal.com]

The USA has the highest murder rate per capita in general, by all methods, among First World nations. It's not just guns, and it's not due to guns. Nobody's come up with a convincing reason, except possibly for ongoing consequences of past racial and ethnic inequalities.