[James Castilla]

hello to all...i came across this site while doing research on the net. i must say that this forum is cleaner and much more clear-minded than most other forums out there.
on the other side of the coin though, i dont like guns. i see them as having no constructive value whatsoever. objectively speaking, they are a means to get a bullet from point a to point b, but they were originally designed for killing things. i know that many of you here have killed more paper targets/ watermelons/ bowling pins/ old household appliances than living things, and see that as just as a hobby or honing of a skill. however, the skill is nothing less than being a more efficient killer.
my view on hunting is the same as my view on somone that grows vegetables in a home garden rather than going to a grocery store. you do it because its cheaper sometimes, its fresherand tastes better, and theres some feeling of accomplishment. but why own guns like the m16 and tommygun? you cant hunt with those.
also, the bill of rights says what it says...but is everyone out there really so paranoid that the government is going to come along one day, become a corrupt dictatorship, and kill everyone who opposes it? in addition, what are the chances of a foreign invasion (much less one that our military couldn't defend against on its own)? as proven on 9-11 by the passengers on board the plane that crashed in pennsylvania, you don't need a gun on airplanes. besides, what would happen to an airliner at 35000 feet if a bullet went through the side of the passenger compartment? stuff like handguns and gun safety ill talk about later since everyone on this forum sounds as though they are sane enough, smart enough, and mature enough to handle such things accordingly.
okay, enough questions for now. what i will say about this forum, however, is the diversity of its members. for example, people like skunkabilly, microbalrog, runt_of_the_litter (i didnt expect to find any women here), etc. i was expecting to only find a bunch of rednecks, ex-military/ military, and guys like you see in the movie tremors.
i decided to post my queries here since this seemed like the best place to ask and get an intelligent response.

-best wishes, james

[Nightcrawler]

Oh, where to start.

You're looking at it the wrong way, I think. Why would anyone want an M16 rifle or a Thompson submachine gun? Why NOT? You can kill someone just as dead with a perfectly docile looking hunting rifle, or a .22. The differences between a self-loading hunting rifle and a select fire military rifle are few, and are minor mechanical differences. If you're okay with people having guns, it's rather silly, in my opinion, to go worrying about minor technical differences such as that, because in the end they do the same thing.

A scary looking rifle with a big magazine is FUN. Fun to shoot, fun to have. That's a big reason I own them. The other reason is simply that I can.

Why does anyone want a Porsche? It's a statistical fact that owning a sports car will make you more likely to get into a wreck. Your insurance is higher, and the cars cost more. Nobody really NEEDS a sports car, and putting speed limiters in all civilian owned cars would make it difficult for criminals to outrun the police, right?

So let's ban sports cars!

See where I'm going with this? Instead of asking why anyone would want an M16, try asking this: is there any reason an adult who lacks a criminal record or serious mental disability SHOULDN'T be able to own one? Should we really punish people because they have the potential to commit a crime? If so, I'll see you in jail!

People have rights. Don't believe in the 2nd Ammendment? Okay, fine. Show me where in the Constitution the federal government is given the power to regulate what kind of firearms I can own? If you want to get technical (and by technical I mean taking into account the 9th and 10th Ammendments) the Federal Government has no such power.

You know how the Klu Kux Klan stages big marches and protests? Disgusting, isn't it? They're vile people, scum of the Earth, if you ask me. But they have every right to march, and rally, and print flyers, and that right is PROTECTED by (NOT granted by) the 1st Ammendment. You can't deny someone rights simply because you disagree with it, or don't like the people involved. (Well you can, but then you join the ranks of people like Hitler.)

as proven on 9-11 by the passengers on board the plane that crashed in pennsylvania, you don't need a gun on airplanes.

How do you figure? If Todd Beamer had had a .357, he simply could've shot each of the hijackers, instead of having to charge them and fight them hand to hand, allowing them to lock themselves in the cockpit and crash the airplane. When faced with a threat, having a gun is ALWAYS preferable to hand to hand combat.

besides, what would happen to an airliner at 35000 feet if a bullet went through the side of the passenger compartment?

A small hole, any where from .22 to .45" in diamter would be punctured in the hull, and the oxygen masks would drop due to the depressurization. An airliner is not a space capsule. You don't get explosive decompression at 35,000 feet. Remember, people walk to the top of mountains that are almost 30,000 feet in the air. And if, for instance, the armed Air Marshals are using frangible ammunition, the chance of the bullet passing through hull of the aircraft and damaging something vital is minimized. Is there still a risk? Of course. But what's the alternative? September 11th is the alternative.

Hope that helps some. Others will be along. Thank you for keeping an open mind, at least, and you've certainly come to the right place for the answers to your questions.

[Cliff]

Hi James,
I'm sure each and everyone of your questions will be answered,but I first want to welcome you to The Highroad. Yep,folks involved in the shooting sports are a diverse group. We are white,black,asian,latino,male,female,stright,gay. Our politics vary, but we all enjoy shooting for the sheer joy of it. Keep those questions coming.Keep this in mind,Education is like prayer,it changes things. Hopefully as you are presented with facts,and enter into discussion with our members,your outlook on the issue will change.

[Nightcrawler]

Can you spot the assault rifle?

http://world.guns.ru/assault/mini-30.jpg

http://www.machinegundealer.com/images/Ruger_AC556F.JPG

The Rifle on top is a Ruger Mini-30, a semi-automatic sporting rifle with a 5-round detachable box magazine.

The Rifle on the bottom is a Ruger AC556F, a select fire (fires semiauto or fully automatic) rifle, with a folding stock and pistol grip.

They're both the same design. How do they differ? Well, the rifle on top is chambered for the 7.62x39mm round, and the one on the bottom is in .223 Remington, but that's a moot point. The one on the bottom has a 30 round magazine, though you could easily replace it with a 5-round one. The one on the top has a politically correct stock, though you could swap it out with a folding one with nothing more complicated than a screwdriver. The rifle on the bottom has a shorter barrel. And, of course, the rifle on the bottom can fire fully automatic, essentially meaning the bullets come out a bit faster than they would if you pulled the trigger as fast as you can.

The rifle on the bottom is illegal (sort of...the laws are complicated; needless to say, you can't just walk into a store in buy one), not just because it fires full auto. Having a barrel shorter than 16" is a violation of the National Firearms Act of 1934. You can own a 30-round magazine, but it has to be manufactured before September 1994, as per the "assault weapons ban". Installing a folding stock on a "post-ban" rifle turns you into an instant felon, also per the 1994 "assault weapons ban".

The rifle on top? You can buy it at Wal-Mart. Put a folding stock, a flash-hider, and a 30-round magazine on the rifle on top, and you have what's considered an "assault weapon". You've also just committed a felony.

As I said, minor technical differences. Whether or not you have a flash-hider on your barrel, as opposed to a muzzle brake, can determine whether or not the federal government can put you in jail. It's a piece of steel.

[swingset]

I can't add much to that, but let me remind you that the gun cannot be uninvented. It will be here and in people's hands, forever. That's a fact, whether it makes your skin crawl or brings a warm smile to your face.

So, the question is, just like with drugs - do you teach responsibility, educate, practice safety and let people make their own choice to use guns responsibly.....

Or do you let your irrational side take hold and ban them, making the only people with arms people who already disregard the law? When people with no respect for life outgun you, you have a very scary society. The balance is important, even if you yourself choose not to own or use a firearm.

Simply put, you have the choice to submit to crime or to defend yourself from it. However, when you prescribe your beliefs onto me, the unwilling, you have violated my basic human right to self defense if you believe I should own no arms.

Think about this carefully, as it's as clear and simple as I have laid it out.

[Pendragon]

Hello James,

Welcome to the High Road. I hope you will stick around for a while. We do not get many like you around here.

First, an introduction. Then I will answer your questions - although bear in mind, some people have written whole books about only one or two of your questions.

I am 32, married 10 years, 1 child. I own 1 hand gun right now but only because I had to sell several others to make ends meet here in California. We are currently considering movint to Texas or Florida. A large part of our move decision is financial, but our destinations were chosen because they are "gun friendly" and we can get a CCW license and own military pattern rifles. I work in the computer support field.

First, an opener. There are two prongs to ht pro gun position. Your first question addresses the practical argument of "Why do you need...?". We have answers for these kinds of questions, but please be patient if some here grow short with you for asking them. Most here are stauch individual rights supporters and will tell you that rights do not require a "need" - only a want and a will.

The reason we do not like those questions is because it brings the argument to an area we consider secondary. Many or most here believe that we have a basic, pre-existing, fundamental human right to keep and bear arms. We do not believe it is anyones business to tell us what arms to own (although the line varies widely from machineguns to missiles to nuclear weapons - but thats mostly philosophy). We prefer to argue principle: "Why do you think we need to show need to own a weapon, and by what mechanism or authority do you intend to enforce this idea upon us?


but why own guns like the m16 and tommygun? you cant hunt with those.

"Sporting Purpose" is not a pre-requisite in our eyes. These are weapons of war and should be available to the free citizen because ultimately, the security of the country falls to him/her.

From a pragmatic point of view, an AR-15 (semi-auto version of the M16) is a very useful gun under certain circumstances. Home defense - especially if you live out in the country - maybe some large group of people think you are easy pickins. During the LA riots, Korean shop keepers used semi-auto rifles to defend their shops from looting and burning when law and order broke down.


also, the bill of rights says what it says...but is everyone out there really so paranoid that the government is going to come along one day, become a corrupt dictatorship, and kill everyone who opposes it?

This seems unlikely right now doesnt it? Its really kind of a chicken and egg scenario. Are we dictator free because we have guns, or are our guns unnecessary because we are dictator free?

Do you believe that there are men (and women) in office today that are capable of despotic power grabs and Stalin-like reigns of terror - if they had the chance?

The problem with this situation is - if we say "no dictators here!, lets get rid of the guns." If you are wrong, there is simply no coming back.

JPFO will tell you that in the 20th century, Governments killed citizens at a rate of 2,000 people PER DAY. All of them subject to disarmament. What is it in America or Americans that says we cannot twist off and have our own Hitler or Stalin? Because "we dont think so"?

in addition, what are the chances of a foreign invasion (much less one that our military couldn't defend against on its own)?

This kind of goes back to the despotic scenario. It has been written that Japan briefly considered an invasion in WWII - but they had read of our civilian rifle contests and felt it would be suicide. We are a nation of 300M people. Big, but not the biggest. China has what? 1200M people? India 1000M people. If they decided to conduct a land war here, I doubt we could completely prevent it. Realistically, a civil war or despotic coup is much more likely (but thankfully still very unlikley).[/b]

as proven on 9-11 by the passengerson board the plane that crashed in pennsylvania, you don't need a gun on airplanes.

besides, what would happen to an airliner at 35000 feet if a bullet went through the side of the passenger compartment?

It is unlikely anything would happen. Planes have pressurization systems that can easily keep up with a few bullet holes. The sucked out myth was popularized in Goldfinger. It can happen in the right situation, but a bullet hole is simply too insignificant to a large plane to matter.

stuff like handguns and gun safety ill talk about later since everyone on this forum sounds as though they are sane enough, smart enough, and mature enough to handle such things accordingly.

[b]This is actually the best way to stir the pot around here. You are essentially implying that "some are more equal than others" and that we should perhaps filter out the "undesireables" from the potential pool of gun owners. There is no way to know who will be good and bad - any predictive system will have faults and will be inaccurate or even rigged and inherently unfair.

This is actually prior restraint - restricting you from certain actions because you might! be a problem in some way. Imagine having to get a license to speak or be given equal protection.

Looking forward to next time,

David Rees

[Feanaro]

Welcome to the boards, I hope you will keep an open mind. I suggest http://www.gunfacts.info/ as a good source of info.

First, some facts. The government can hurt you. Badly. The Nazis, China, Russia, England, America and beyond have all hurt their citizens before. It might not ever happen, but it could. And I don't know about you but sixty million or more firearm owners is a scary statistic for someone who wants to disarm us. Disarmament is often followed by further removal of freedom. Perhaps not in our lifetime but it often happens because there can be no resistance from the people. Non-violent resistance is nice and all but look where it gets Cubans.

Even given that a foreign invasion is unlikely it is POSSIBLE. When we do not prepare for what could happen, when it does we are hurt for our lack of preparation.

If my firearms training makes me an efficient killer, so what? To kill a man is something one should not take lightly. But I consider knowing how to kill important. That is going to sound very strange and possibly even wrong. But some people are bad. They are bad because they might try to kill me, for whatever reason. I have a right, despite what anyone may say, to remove that person from the Earth if they attack me or another person. I pray I never need to and if I do have to that they survive. I consider it a sort of grim duty, something I do not want to do but something that I must do if I am put into such a situation.

Now, on to military firearms. Hunting is a very fine sport but it is not the main reason we have the Second Amendment. Defense of our lives, our fellow beings and our country is why we have them. A military weapon such as the Thompson SMG or M16A1/2 are actually very good defensive weapons. A shotgun is well and good but it has heavy recoil from 12 to 20 gauge. Any smaller and you aren't really using an effective weapon. A pistol is nice but it is not the best weapon type. It's easy to point but it lacks the power of a shotgun or rifle. A regular hunting rifle is either bolt action(slow) or of small caliber.

So we are left with a military firearms. A shortened M16 offers light recoil, good stopping power, follow up shots can be easily made and it can be operated by a monkey with a little practice. A shortened version allows you to easily move through a house without snagging the rifle. A Thompson SMG allows you to put multiple pistol rounds on someone, in a small package that recoils very little.

That is one way to look at it. I prefer this however. How much more deadly is an M16 than a shotgun with a mag extention. You can kill seven, eight people very quickly with a shotgun and it doesn't need to be so carefully aimed. Or you could snipe at people with a scoped bolt action. It would be hard to see a far away shooter. There are endless ways to kill people and a military firearm offers only one more way. And it is not even the most effective way, either.

Any criminal that does not want to be caught will not use an assault rifle/weapon. They are large(Can't be tucked away in big coat, which makes you kinda suspect, walking around with a huge rifle) and loud. One could point out the Mac-10 and such as concealable weapons that a criminal might want. But criminals get what they want anyways. They either steal their weapons or buy them on the black market. They are a non-issue as far as crime.

But let us go deeper. If I can be trusted with hunting weapons, which can easily be turned on humans, why can't I be trusted with military weapons? There might be no use for them as far as hunting(Which actually isn't true. The M16's cartridge, as well as the G3's and sometimes even the AK's are used for hunting and to good effect. You don't need to reload often and they are more reliable.) but they are of military value and thus of value to a militia. And as long as I am hurting no one why shouldn't I have one?

[mattd]

Banning Weapons is a preemption that you are going to commit a crime. Therefor if you belive in banning or limiting weapons in anyway you belive I shouldn't sell you a can of pop because you might litter. You can't belive one with out believing the other, if you do, your ideology is false and you need to rethink it.

The only people who are going to follow the laws are law abiding citizens, get it?

[trooper]

Hi James,

first, I'm very impressed that someone who is not into guns actually stepped up to gun owners and shooters and simply asked.

As it was said before, the people on this board really are decent folks and I'm sure you will get to hear some interesting info and points of view, even if you happen to disagree with some of them.

Here's my personal view regarding this "need" thing:

I'm from Germany (yeah, this board is multinational as well) and our recently implemented firearms law is based on the concept that you can't have a weapon without proving a need for it. And of course the government gets to decide which "needs" are acceptable: you have a "need" for a firearm if you have a valid hunting license (which is really hard to get) or if you are member of a recognized shooting sports association.

If your association has less than 10,000 members it won't be recognized by the state and therefore its members have no "need" for a firearm anymore. Additionally, the ministry of the interior gets to decide which shooting disciplines and weapons are suitable for sports purposes. If it comes to the conclusion that a particular way of training (!!!) is meant to develop defensive abilities rather than competition skills, it is outlawed for anyone but CCW holders (which are EXTREMELY rare here). I'm still amazed that they didn't prohibit IPSC yet.

To put it short, we have a need-based system and the gov't decides for you whether you need a gun. See my point?

The result is that the number of guns among the law-abiding part of the population is reduced. And now someone else go and explain the statistics to James, please...

As a last word, I can only encourage my American friends to keep on fighting for their rights. We already are way more down the slope, and you really don't want to get here.


Regards,

Trooper

[Delmar]

Hello James, and welcome to the forum!
May I say it is refreshing to hear from someone who does not like guns to seek opinions and reasoning from those who do.

It does seem sometimes that the mention of guns brings out some kind of mental picture in a lot of people-some see guns a nothing more than a tool, and others see them as a terrror weapon.

Most people here, as you correctly stated, see firearms as a hobby. Others, such as officers of the law, carry one as part of their profession.
It is a way to gather meat humanely, untainted by steroids and the filth of a rendering plant, as a means of protection from criminals, and as a way of protecting their homes, their communities and their lives.

Some questions for you-have you ever fired a weapon? Were you raised around weapons? Have you personally been around someone who misused or had someone you know who has been wounded or murdered/committed suicide with a firearm?

There are those here who do in fact practice with firearms to become more efficient in defending themselves and the people they love with a firearm, and if you would ask them, I think most here would agree that brandishing a firearm is the LAST option. And any thinking person who really knows their way around a firearm would much rather talk the person down or have law enforcement on the scene to quell a bad situation.
Most of us, especially some of the law enforcement officers who are members here, would likely tell you from experience that there are many times that they cannot reach a bad situation in time to stop it.
Sadly, they arrive at the scene to pick up the pieces and to take a victim to the hospital or the morgue, where, if a responsible person trained effectively in the use of firearms, could have stopped it.
Many times, as it has been proven over and over again, the mere display of a firearm has stopped a bad situation before it became deadly or at least really ugly.
Because they practice with a firearm, they well know the strengths and weaknesses of the weapon and of themselves. It is a far cry from what you see in the movies!

So far as actually owning M-16's and Tommyguns, let me first say that they are not the same as owning the genuine article-they are lookalikes. They do not have fully automatic capability, and by that I mean to say that when you press the trigger, you will get one shot only, just like a hunting rifle. They are no more-but no less dangerous than a common hunting rifle. The cartridge an M16 takes is no more dangerous than the same cartridge fired out of a single shot sporting rifle.
There are those few who apply to the federal government to own a fully automatic rifle, and they go through a background check which most politicians could not pass, plus they are investigated by state and local authorities as to their background and character. And they pay enormous sums of money both for the license to own them and for the weapon itself. And after going through all of that, there are very very few places they are allowed to shoot them-most gun ranges will not allow anyone to fire a fully automatic weapon, period.

As to the government actually turning against its citizens, keep in mind the very reason for the Bill of Rights was to keep the government from having the capability of disarming law abiding Americans, as they saw what a government who had that power could and sometime would do with the King of England, and they made certain our government would never have that power, so that they could never be tempted to do so.
It also is a means of establishing trust between the government and the people, and if the day comes when the government does not trust the people with firearms, we should not have that government in power.
After all, the entire meaning of our Constitution is that the government was established and rules with the concent of the people, and we should never give that consent away. To do so would be at our peril.

[gunsmith]

besides, what would happen to an airliner at 35000 feet if a bullet went through the side of the passenger
if you were in a hollywood movie you would get sucked out...in real life maybe the little oxygen mask would drop down.as proven on 9-11 by the passengers on board the plane that crashed in pennsylvania
There was a CA Law Enforcement Officer on that flight!!
Denied his gun (unlike the movies most cops can not carry on board) he could not just shoot the badguys....Americans are now suffering wide spread attacks by government agencies failing to respect their Right of self protection as secured by constitutional law. _ Your Right to own a gun is inalienable. _ Any and all other legislative enactments to the contrary, that are designed to erode, undermine or attrite that Right are invalid, immoral and an invitation to massive non-compliance by the people._ The Second Amendment was not intended to guarantee your bird hunting, or for states to maintain militias._ The Second Amendment was and is intended to guarantee an individual's Right to protect his God-given Rights from abuse of government power under the color of authority._ Governments that disarm their citizens do so only for the purpose of unlawfully controlling them by force. Like other criminals, they do not want armed victims questioning their power to steal your money and property.
http://www.guncite.com/
Since 1934, only one legally owned machine gun has ever been used in crime, and that was a murder committed by a law enforcement officer (as opposed to a civilian). On September 15th, 1988, a 13-year veteran of the Dayton, Ohio police department, Patrolman Roger Waller, then 32, used his fully automatic MAC-11 .380 caliber submachine gun to kill a police informant, 52-year-old Lawrence Hileman. Patrolman Waller pleaded guilty in 1990, and he and an accomplice were sentenced to 18 years in prison. The 1986 'ban' on sales of new machine guns does not apply to purchases by law enforcement or government agencies.
---

[chevrofreak]

The most basic instinct a human has is the will to survive, even if that means having to kill to do so. I firmly believe that if I have done nothing to provoke a violent attack, that I have every right to use any means necessary to ensure my survival.

I like to practice self defense scenarios so that in the event that I do actually need to use my firearm to defend myself, I can use it swiftly and efficiently.

The last thing I need when my life is on the line, is to be fumbling with a gun because I havent had enough practice drawing and firing while under pressure.

I also own guns for the sheer joy that I get from shooting them. It can be very physically and mentally challenging to do certain things, such as U.S.P.S.A. and I.D.P.A. practical shooting.

Before you cement your beliefs into the back of your mind, I truly hope that you find a qualified instructor to teach you to shoot.

Another thing that you might consider, is that most of the "facts" thrown out there by the gun control advocates, like the Violence Policy Center, and many others, are either complete lies, or partial lies, in which they manipulate the information to make it look favorable to their agenda.

Many people like to compare the USA to Canada as far as gun violence goes. If you take a look at the states that are bordering Canada, and dig up some of their statistics, you will actually find that they have very comparable gun death and crime rates.

Montana, has approximately 4 deaths per 100,000 people, in which a firearm was involved. Of these 4 per 100,000, approximately 50% are accidental, 25% are suicides, and the other 25% are homicide.

Montana is also estimated to have between 85% and 95% of the households containing a firearm.

I wish you luck in your quest for information, and I hope that you find all the answers and truth that you seek.


Roger

[S_O_Laban]

Howdy James and welcome to The High Road. After rereading your post I'm not so sure you are the "anti" that you think you are:D . What ever you politics I'm glad you stopped by and hope you stay and become a regular. Many of us around here welome "Antis" :D .

Your bound to get many more responses to your questions but I'll take a stab at one.

what would happen to an airliner at 35000 feet if a bullet went through the side of the passenger compartment?

In a nutshell ? Not very much. Think about a bullet hole or even many many bullet holes in an airliner in relation to what happen to the Hawaiian Air flight that lost a large portion of the forward cabin area. You may have seen the movie they made about it on TV. In spite of incredible damage to the plane they still landed. Other than the few unsecured passengers and FAs that were sucked out every one else survived and in pretty good shape as well. It is true that IIRC this didn't happen at 35,ooo Ft and as some body earlier said the oxygen masks are going to drop down allowing you to breathe until you you reach a lower altitude. What I'm really trying to say is any airliner can sustain alot more damage than a few bullet holes from a lously handgun and still easily survive. Many don't realize the redundancy built into an airliner, if the bullets hit some vitial hydralic line or com cable there is usally two to three back up ways of doing what that componet does. An awfull lot has to happen to bring any airplane down. While I don't play an Aircraft Mechanic on TV, I was one in a former life :D :D

Don't be fooled by TV:rolleyes:

[mec]

I immediately wonder if you are a fake anti-gun person writing just to launch an interesting topic. No matter, it's a good discussion but it would be nice if the board turned out to be so inclusive as to have a real anti-gun person in addition to the rest of us polyglots.

It seems like more and more people are becomming pro-gun or gun-neutral as the discussion broadens. Several people I know who didn't like guns have since taken them up as a hobby or defensive measure. I wonder if its the instrument people don't like or the steriotype of the gun enthusiast.

[jacketch]

James,
Do you have any experience with guns? What is your background? It might help us to understand where you are coming from. What is the research for?

[CZ 75 BD]

You did not mention personal protection of life and family.

:cool:

[GlocksRock]

i know that many of you here have killed more paper targets/ watermelons/ bowling pins/ old household appliances than living things, and see that as just as a hobby or honing of a skill. however, the skill is nothing less than being a more efficient killer.
But I'm not a killer, so that is a moot point. Unless you take into consideration the deer that I shoot, but I eat it, I don't just shoot it for the fun of it and let it die for no reason. I can't just go down to the local grocery store and buy some fresh venison.

[280PLUS]

and...

the final line of defense in any country is it's armed civilians

whether you or anyone else feels there is no possibility of it ever coming down to that here in the USA, there are plenty others who feel it may not be as remote as you think.

we take it upon ourselves to at least be familiar with the use of these weapons and being as accurate as we each can with them

so in the event it becomes necessary to use them, we'll be prepared

plus i'll reitterate one point here ITS FUN!!

when you can pick off little specks of orange clay without a scope at 100 yards, there is definitely a feeling of accomplisment

i'd almost guarantee a big WOOHOOO!! out of you the first time you did

lastly, i'm ex military, yes, US Navy. They taught me how to shoot in boot camp and that was pretty much the last time i held a gun throughout my 5 year enlistment. i was a mechanic. i still am. (but as a civilian now)

Military people do a lot more than just lug a gun around, those that do are most likely a small portion of the whole organization

ok, now who's taking him to the range???

:D

[Monte Harrison]

James, I have some numbers to throw at you. Now, I'm quoting these from memory, but I assure you these are stats from the federal government, which has a vested interest in making firearms violence look as bad as possible to validate their attempts to disarm us. Anyway,

In a given year there are about 30,000 Americans who die as a result of gunfire. Pretty awful, considering that the number of deaths from traffic accidents is less than 40,000 now, and declining yearly. But let's look a little closer.

More than half of those 30,000 are suicides. One might make the argument that fewer of those attempts would have been successful without guns, but as far as I am concerned your life is your own, and ending it by your own choice is your right. So let's cut that number in half: 15,000 people killed against their will with gunfire. Still a lot.

Now let's look at the other side: Depending on whom you ask (whether they are anti-gun or pro-gun) there are between 500,000 and 2.5 million incidents in which a person uses a gun to defend themselves from crime in a given year. Just for the sake of argument, let's make a couple of assumptions: a. the lower number of incidents, 500,000, is more accurate, and b. in only 10% of those cases was the person's life actually in imminent danger. 10% of 500,000 is 50,000.

50,000 innocent lives protected vs. 15,000 lives lost.

In civilian hands, GUNS SAVE LIVES.

Do you see any holes in this logic?

[cslinger]

Not gonna reiterate what everybody else said. I just wanted to say welcome and how impressed I am that someone oppossed to firearms would take the time and effort to come to the horse's mouth so to speak.

We may not change your mind one iota, and that's ok, but I would bet you will have gained the respect of many of us for simply trying to learn about the subject in question instead of just taking what is on the news and other media as gospel.

So thank you very much for taking the time. Thank you very much for stopping by.

Oh and you are the 100th person to post on a full moon in June or something and have won an all expenses paid trip to the local range where you too can see what all the hubub is about. :D I am sure one of us is near enough to you to actually make good on that offer.

Anyway take care. Hope to see you post again.

[Waitone]

James, thanks for coming by. okay, enough questions for now. what i will say about this forum, however, is the diversity of its members. for example, people like skunkabilly, microbalrog, runt_of_the_litter (i didnt expect to find any women here), etc. i was expecting to only find a bunch of rednecks, ex-military/ military, and guys like you see in the movie tremors.
I'll use your comments to make two points. Much of what the public knows about the gun culture is a caricature created and fed by media and anti-second amendment advocacy groups.

By and large we are stone cold normal people. We come from all walks of life. We have all manner of political beliefs though we tend toward the classical liberal // libertarian end of the spectrum. Occupations range from young students to anything you can imagine. We have ER physicians and techs who are regular contributors to the board. We have active and retired military and law enforcement types. We have computer and internet geeks. We seem to have more and more international contributors. I particularly like to read the work of our friends in Australia, UK, and Europe. We even get comments out of the middle east and southeast asia.

Socio-economics? Ranges across the board. The caricature is we are a bunch of rednecks, etc. Golf is considered an upper crust kinda sport. I play golf and I can tell you with great certainty shooting sports is grandly more expensive. You want to get into the shooting sports? Calculate the cost at every stage or you'll be surprised.

Final point is every person in the US is trained in the use of firearms. Yep, you read correctly. Training is courtesy of TV, movies, and video games. . . . . .. .. and it is 99.999% wrong. It is wrong about guns laws. It is wrong about safety. It is wrong on using firearms. It is wrong in every category I can think of.

You've done the right thing by wandering into the den of the opposition. Everyone on this board respects your courage and intellectual honest and integrity.

Let us know where you are and I'm sure you'll end up with an invitation to the range. Normally new board members are required to buy the ammo, but I'm sure membership rules will be waived in your case.

[XLMiguel]

James -
Welcome to The High Road, I hope you will find the answers you are looking for, (and I'm sure you'll also find some you weren't:) ).

As for not liking guns, I'd ask you why you have a problem with an inanimate object? Guns have no will of their own. They can be used properly by a cop or a soldier to preserve the peace, or by a citizen to protect (or feed) his/her family. But in the hands of a criminal, well, that's a whole 'nother issue, isn't it? Guns are just a tool, a glorified 'rock thrower', if you will, and like any tool, it can be used properly, or it can be misused with dire consequences. And a fool with a tool is still a fool.

I would also point out that assault is a behaviour, not a device. If you look around you, I'm sure you could imagine any number of ordinary objects in the room that could be used to hurt you, if someone were so inclined.

Gun control laws simply don't work. The operative definiton of a 'criminal', afterall, is one who does not obey the law, and crimianls will always find a way to get guns if they want them. Ask yourself why the cities with the strictest 'gun control' laws (i.e. LA, Chicago, Washington, DC, NYC) have the highest violent (including gun-related violence) crime rates? Gun control laws do hinder honest citizens from being able to defend themselves, and I can only ask you to compare the crime rates in the 33 states that have 'shall issue' concealed weapons laws vs. the states with discretionary or non-issue laws (stats available at the DOJ website-).

As far as anti-government paranoia goes, I believe that Jefferson wasn't whistling Dixie when he said "the price of Freedom is eternal vigilence.' I don't believe that 'the government is inherently evil, but I do believe is [too] big, dumb, and clumsy; it panders to the lowest common denominator; and it is in the nature of government to 'control' things. Control is anathemic to Freedom. Basically, we've got to watch them politicans all the time.

As for myself, I own 10 or so handguns, and I enjoy target shooting. I work as an IT consultant, specializing in document/knowledge management. I am a veteran (Viet Nam-era), was on the pistol team in college, used to hunt when I was younger. I kind of dropped out of shooting after the Army, but got back into it after a couple of stoned-out greaseballs tried to force their way into my house one afternoon ( like a 'conservative' is a liberal who has been mugged). Although I had no particular problem repelling boarders that time, I did realize I'm too old to dance with fools (and a blown-out knee and fused ankle in the interrim has re-enforced that notion), so I went out and got me a 9mm. I take responsible gun ownership seriously, so I started to practice regularly, got a carry permit, read alot about gun laws and the legitimate use of lethal force, and rediscovered the joys of target shooting (sort of like golf, but without ruining a good walk:D ). My collection kind of grew as I learned more about the different styles and types of handguns ( and they're cheaper and easier to store than all the cars/trucks/bikes I'd love to own).

Hope this helps. Given that one set of answers gives birth to the next set of questions, I'll stop here. I'm sure that the members here can furnish you with all the references and substantiation on virtually and firearms-related question, so don't be shy. And again, welcome to THR.

[280PLUS]

i'm not sure there even WAS a dixie to whistle in jeffersons day,,,

:neener:

:evil:

theres one in every crowd...i guess it's me today... :rolleyes:

:D

[Zak Smith]

James, welcome.

the skill is nothing less than being a more efficient killer.

I disagree with this reasoning. There are many sports that have "martial" roots, but the purpose of those sports is not to be a more efficient warrior.

Modern shooting sports that have no "practical" aspect, such as Olympic shooting sports, directly refute your statement that they are "nothing less than being a more efficient killer", since they do not teach skills particularly suited to killing. You want an efficient killer? Go take some some real military training.

Generally, I think there are several really important points to be made about gun ownership:


The right to self defense. A person has the right to defend themselves (or another person) against attack. If effective tools to enable this defense are prohibited, the right is near useless.

The difference between the verbs, "to kill" and "to murder." Not sure what the difference is? Look them both up in the dictionary. To kill is to deprive of life; to murder is to unlawfully or immorally kill someone.

In other words, there is a concept of morally killing someone, and immorally doing so. Going back to the Right to Self Defense, it is moral to kill someone who is attacking you with deadly force. It is immoral to kill someone who is not threatening you with deadly force - that's murder.

Utility. I don't like using this argument because it's not really based on a principle, but: Some people do things they need to use a firearm for: hunting for food, wild animal control or pest control, etc.

Going further, it is possible to make Utilitarian arguments for gun ownership (or concealed carry) . Two examples would be: (1) If many people in the USA own guns, the no army could invade or tyrant come to power, or (2) when more people carry legal concealed weapons, violent crime decreases.

Both of those are most likely true, but these types of arguments based on Utility can be invalidated when the goal changes, or the circumstances change.

The Principle of freedom, and power. I think this category contains the best arguments for the ownership of firearms, because it changes the question to, "Why shouldn't I own firearms, if I want to?".

People should be free to do what they want, as long as they do not hurt others or damage the property of others. Under this principle, all unlawful actions would be actions that directly hurt another person or deprive them of their property (or its value). This is often called the Non-Aggression Principle ("NAP").

This idea is common to libertarians and is quite far away from how even America's government runs.

Freedom is messy. People can do all sorts of things and some of those things will be things you don't like. This brings us to power.

Whenever you speak of government, law, "ought"'s, and "should"'s, you are really talking about power. Who should have it?

Balance of power is good. The most tyrannical regimes have none. The USA has some balance of power. The ultimate balance of power is for individuals to retain it, and this requires individual freedom, power, and responsibility

Another way to put this is: Who knows what's best for me? Who knows what I want? Who knows what turns my crank? A bloated bureaucracy (ie, the government), or me?

The idea that the government should decide which forms of "fun" - or what sports are "sporting" - is ludicrous.

So, under the principle of freedom: If I own guns and shoot them safely, putting no one else in danger, you have absolutely no right to say I cannot have them.

If you claim that you do, then you implicitly claim some power over me. If you claim it's "to make society safe", then you are reverting to some argument based on perceived Utility.

[Trisha]

Hello, James.

You bring up a point I have always found truly fascinating: the concept that our anthropological history as becoming the most successful killer, the most ingenious, the superpredator - bar none - is somehow to be viewed with horror and disavowed vehemently in today's society.

It has become unfashionable to celebrate that genetic fact in recent decades as blatently socialistic forces have encroached and are reaching for dominance in mass media. A simple sociological overview on your part will bear this out, as you compare even just television programs from the mid-50's to today. The result has been just as obvious: tell someone a lie often enough and it will eventually supplant the truth.

Beyond my study of firearms, I pursue martial arts, edged weapons, history, philosophy, art history and music as related fields. My reasoning is simple. An intelligent and diverse human is predisposed to curiosity to the surroundings, to the signs of other predators, to the achievements of culture, to the horrors of our shared past. Insight and depth gained from such studies yields an enhanced command of language and conceptual nuance - and that delivers the consciousness to new heights of perception.

Consider - without the evolved facilities to express one's self, anthropologists believe that the capacity for intelligence is inherently restricted in humans.

What has this to do with your subject? Simple. The suprepredator/human possesses the intellectual depth to secure a measure of safety from other superpredator/humans. The strong prey on the weak, both individually and as organized cultures when the stakes are survival and the accumulation of physical goods deemed either desirable or necessary to insure or accentuate some envisioned quality of life.

It is not wrong to be strong, to pursue the arts of war - it is the human birthright.

It has been my experience to discover the more I study and train, the more I value not only my life but the lives of others, both locally and far beyond. I have discovered real calm and peace to be in my heart, even when confronted by some consumed by pathological hatred - for I understand very well just how fragile their life is should the threat escalate to my being unable to escape without using the skills (with the tools - both material and mental) of war to secure my safety.

Contemporary media, in its' pursuit of advertizing and with its' cheerful disregard of reality delivers hyperbole and fantasy in popular entertainment. That you mention a concern for weapons fire in a pressurized aircraft highlights this. A study of physics wwould immediately dispel your concersn, as would converstaions with pilots who've operated aircraft that have sustained astonishing structural damage - and no lives were lost. Such images as you express concern over are more often found in science fiction/fantasy screenplays.

Personally, I find life far more interesting, sparking more curiosity and delight as I am able to live freely without the abject fear (or not - if one is in complete denial) bourn of the victim mentality. You see, James, humans are competitive. We strive to out do 'the Jone's' next door. We pursue excellence in every venture to standards of our conscious choosing, likely often compensating for failure in one area with less strenuous achievement in another.

I will never aquiesce and relegate any or all aspects and applications of everyday life that are even fractionally congruent to my safety and security and thus my natural and inherent liberty to another person, civil authority, or theologic dogma - even under duress to comply with a contemporary and popular fad that so deviously and methodically insitst I cherish helplessness, weakness, and thence devoiton to the patriarchial governance of the cattle-herder of the socialist.

There is a wonder to be embraced with relish and joy in achieving and pursuing the legitimacy to stand beside the ghosts of those bloodied patriots, men and women and children, ordinary people, who shook the bedrock of this planet and, for the first time saw simple ideas become the words:

"We, the People. . ."

That's derided today, in public education, in fashionable serialized plays of fiction, even with those who are elected to serve their constituents in our Republic's Capitol. When those firmply penned words are lost today, I hear another voice.

A voice that was also heard around the planet, speaking simple words that made Americans open their eyes and weep with joy, reclaiming their most unique history:

"Lets roll!"

Ask yourself this, James; a hypothetical question and one I pray never comes to pass: were you to see masked terrorists jump out of a van directly in front of you, savagely gunning down a uniformed police officer on patrol in front of a church for a wedding and hear gunfire within the church, with screams fo the wounded rising - would you take up the fallen officer's weapon and unhesitatingly advance to defy the murderers, even at the risk of your own life?

Would you know how to apply the arts of war as an American?

Admittedly, my hypothetical scenario could be argued many ways by many people - so write your own from a review of Angel Shamaya's KeepAndBearArms.com

Liberty is an individual reality, not a bandied concept droned past foggy minds and uncaring, easily distracted hearts during a civics class that involves old guys that've been dead a long time.

It is not bestowed benevolently by a totalitarian government, authorized by a theocratic dogma - it is what makes us completely unique in the entire history of man - and it has incredible, broad, persistent responsibilities.

Welcome to THR, James!

[geekWithA.45]

First, I'd also like to extend a friendly welcome. It's good to encounter someone open minded enough to explore the issue, and what I've found is that when the open minded explore _this_ issue, they eventually come to their own conclusions, and ultimately wind up being an ally of the peaceable armed citizen.

Now, as to why:

Let's start with the very first principles.

I (we) exist.

Inherent in that existence is the right to continue that existence, and that right exists everywhere we are.

There is nowhere on this earth or off it where the right to defend yourself does not exist.

Implicit in this right of self defense is the right to take positive action to actually effect that defense.

Since you have the right to take action to defend yourself, you also have the right to use tools to make that defense as effective as possible.

Since an immediate threat to your life is the most dire circumstance imaginable, and that this threat can emerge at any time, and in any place, and since failing to deal effectively with the threat means that you DIE FOREVER (as far as we can tell, anyway) any and all means are legitimate to effect your defense.

Therefore, you naturally have the right to posess and have with you, anywhere, the most effective means available to defend yourself, be it a stick, spear, sword, flintlock, modern firearm, forcefield, or phaser.

If you deny any element of the above, the whole thing will unravel all the way back to your very existence, and you are really arguing that someone else has a right to make you not exist.

(Since most gun banners feel that banning guns somehow contributes to their continued existence, they ultimately undermine themselves, and achieve the opposite effect!)

[Sheslinger]

To add to what everyone else is saying, I could never understand why parents are ok to send their kids to Karate or Aikido schools but the same people are not ok with teaching kids basic gun safety.

Aikido teaches one to kill a person with their bare hands (self-defense, of course). What's the difference?

The bottom line is that just because someone possesses a skill or a tool that can be used for evil, does not mean they will. We cannot prosecute for what we might do.

You will also find that even though THR members mostly believe the same basic concepts, we are all over the board on details. For example, I believe there should be a background check so if you are a wife abuser or a violent criminal, you should not own guns. On the other hand, I believe that those of us who have Permits to Carry should not go through any more backgroud checks if they buy guns until it is time to renew the permit. Our info and fingerprints are probably in all FBI databases known to man and should be enough to rule that we are not a menace to society.

Once again, welcome and I hope that we can change your mind on a thing or two about firearms. If you ever want to go target shooting and learn gun safety and see what the mystique is all about, I am sure, we have a couple of THR'rers near you who would be happy to help.

Oh, yes, and I am a girl. Thought I would let you know.
Sheslinger

[Sarge]

Either you're open-minded to the constitutional guarantee to keep and bear arms, or you're not. If you're not, nothing anyone says here will matter. If you are, there are any number of far more credible sources for the information you seek (delcining crime rates in CCW states, the effect of small-arms fire in aircraft at high altitude, etc.) than the opinions of a bunch of folks who already subscribe to ideas that you find distasteful.

I do have an opinion based on observation though, if you're really interested. I've been a cop for about 18 years, and done about every LE job from uniform patrol to investigations to mid-level management. During that time I cannot recall a single instance where the litany of gun-control laws have saved a single person from being assaulted, raped, robbed or murdered. Those laws do not prevent volent criminals from being repeat offenders.

I can think of several instances however where the presence of a firearm in the hands of an intended victim prevented them from fulfilling that role, and a couple where a criminal who suffered a 'terminal failure of the victim selection process' will most assuredly NOT be a repeat offender. We will also not have to see our tax dollars pay for those individual's prison meals or public defender.

That's a "win" in my book.

A gun is a tool, like an auto, axe or machete. They are inanimate objects. The individual weilding it determines the outcome of it's use, for good or for evil.

[cslinger]

Hi, Honey:D

Sheslinger is my wife. Probably another stereotype breaker right there.

We are middle to upper middle class, professional people just for the record.

[fish2xs]

If your exposure to guns is limited to movies & the nightly news, then your opinion on them is going to be very skewed. The NRA website, and others have sections listing news articles where guns were used in a 'good' way. Where people who otherwise would be victims, succesfully defended themselves. You'd be suprised how many times this happens.

I have been interested in guns (and archery) as hobbies. But if I hear someone breaking into my house, I'm not going to grab my compund bow....

I won't rehash the responses of others - except to say that they should ban motorcycles before they ban guns. And that leads to..... basically hell.

I recently took some people from work to my gun club for a friday 'offsite meeting'. One participant included a woman who was anti-gun, but decided that in order for her to consider herself really anti-gun, she should try one out. You could sense her nervousness - but after explaining all the mandatory rules of gun safety she took to the firing line.

Long story short: She can't wait to go back!

Keep an open mind and balance your information sources.

-Phil

ps. welcome!

[Mikul]

Most people who hate guns live in good neighborhoods. They don't fear their neighbors and there are no drug deals going on outside of their bedroom windows. There is no gunfire where their children play. There are no robberies to pay for the drug deals. That's great, but we all need stop being arrogant and realize that our experieces are greatly different than others, and what we have no use for, others may. You may want to keep in mind that while you may never stroll into a bad neighborhood, a bad neighborhood may just come to you.

What is more valuable to you than your life or the life of those that you love? If someone threatens to take my life, I'm going to use deadly force to protect it. If your life is threatened, you're going to call the police, who are going to bring deadly force to protect your life. There is no difference except that I don't want to wait for help to arrive and I can't, in good conceince, expect another person (a police officer) to risk his life for mine when I am not willing to do the same.

Welcome to The High Road.

[Sean Smith]

however, the skill is nothing less than being a more efficient killer.

There is a fundamental mental garble at work here.

Knowing how to do something, and being able to do something, are not the same as doing it. Yet you say that practice with a firearm in any context is "being a more efficient killer." You've criminalized the mere posession of skill and knowledge in your mind, based on non-events. If I've never killed, and have no intent to kill, how can I be a "efficient killer" just because I'm in theory more capable of it than somebody else?

Using your reasoning, engaging in consentual sex would make me a more efficient rapist.

On a totally different tack, there is no evidence that gun control reduces rates of violent crime, which is the stated objective of gun control as a policy. Indeed, there seems to be a pretty clear negative correlation between the strictness of gun control in the U.S. and the violent crime rate. Thus, there is no reason to persue gun control as a policy on practical grounds. The ability of gun control advocates to appeal to blubbery sentimentality in the face of evidence that the end and means are incompatible is astounding. But even if you viscerally dislike firearms, and have no stake in the advancement of constitutional rights per se, you still have every reason to oppose gun control on simple practical grounds.

At this point I would like to point out that the Bill of Right's ain't the Buffet of Rights... you don't get to pick and choose for the sake of expediency.

Looking at it a different way, the vast majority of people accept the right of self-defense as being absolute. If someone threatens you, you are totally justified to respond in kind, up to and including killing them to save yourself. This is a perfectly legal and moral thing to do under any sensible sort of belief system.

Next thought: to deny the means to exercise a right is to deny the right itself. The words on paper don't matter if, as a practical matter, exercising the right isn't a real possibility. Does saying a 5'2", 100 pound woman has the "right" to self defense have real meaning if it is illegal for her to effectively arm herself, and she is attacked by a 6'2", 220 pound man? What about the college professor in a wheelchair? We had racial equality on paper in 1865, but 100 years later black people were still getting beat on for trying to get a ham sandwich at the wrong end of the counter. Rights aren't about words on paper, rights are about the world we live in.

Really, shifting gears one more time, this all makes perfect sense. The whole premise of gun control reducing crime is that people who have no qualms about committing acts that everyone agrees are crimes, and will get them put to death, will suddenly decide to obey laws that much of the law-abiding population thinks are bogus, and have feebler penalties and flabbier enforcement.

[DigitalWarrior]

First Off I am a member of a highly unpopular minority group, in that I belong to no minority groups.

The constructive value of a gun is that it can save my life. If a threat to my life occurs, I will not have time to ask for help from police.

Being an efficient killer is not bad. I know that when I shoot, I will hit. My confidence shows and may actually prevent attacks.

If you feel that we take killing lightly, read "In the Gravest Extreme" by Massad Ayoob (Looky, another unpopular minority). Then look at how many times that book has been recommended to those who are new here.

[SDC]

Hi, James, and welcome. For me, the issue comes down to the simple concepts of TRUST and responsibility. In essence, whenever a government passes a gun-control law, what they are REALLY saying is that they've decided that the people they are supposed to be serving are too stupid or too dangerous to be TRUSTED with something that's potentially dangerous. Considering the multitude of other potentially dangerous objects that they don't seem to have any problem trusting us with (including things that are involved in far, far more deaths than firearms), the "we're just saving lives" argument just doesn't go very far with me. In short, if responsible non-criminal adults can be trusted, then leave us the hell alone, and if we screw up or commit a crime, then punish us to your hearts content; if those same responsible non-criminal adults CAN'T be trusted, then lock us all in cages and push food through the bars once in a while.
While you're here, I hope you take the time to inform yourself as to the reality of the situation; murder rates are a function of demographic and social problems, not gun control laws. One of the most interesting studies I've ever seen plotted the murder rate of each county in the US versus which candidate that county voted for in the last presidential election; while those counties that voted Bush/Republican had an average murder rate of less than 2.5 per 100,000 (comparable to the Canadian national murder rate), the murder rate in those counties that voted Gore/Democrat had an average murder rate of almost 13.0 per 100,000. Something very interesting is going on here, and simply saying "Guns are bad" can't account for it.

edited to ad link : http://www.ycsi.net/users/gunsmith/map.htm

and to say that the figures are even more shocking than I remembered; the average rate in those counties that voted Bush/Republican was only .1 per 100,000, while the average rate in those counties that voted Gore/Democrat was 13.2 per 100,000.

[Mr. Black]

We don't need guns. We also don't "need" most things. A need has a goal as it's final meaning.

We don't need cars.
We don't need to eat meat.
We don't need schools.
We don't need love.
We don't need a lot of things.

So how is it that one removed entity gets to define the goals of our lives to us? I LIKE cars. I LIKE to eat meat. Those things make my life more enjoyable. I like firearms. They're "fun."

Moreover, despite all the verbal wrangling; we do have the right to keep and bear arms. Hatchets, pole-arms and machine guns. The Constitution is preemptive of everything else and the wording, legislative intent, etc. is definitely all there.

You want to make an amendment banning guns. Fine.

But don't play these silly games, making up contradictory (and illegal) laws. All that does is violate our constitutional rights and disenfranchise the polity. Doing the latter is a very stupid thing. Eventually, the part of the populous that figures out that the system isn't play by it's own rules will decide that they need not obey those rules either.

When I was younger, I never saw the need to carry. In fact, I thought handguns should have been outlawed and destroyed.

Largely now I still don't see the need to carry a gun. I could point to the gruesome rape/ attempted murder and murder that happened only a few hundred yards from my house a while back, the perpetrator armed only with an ice pick. "What would a gun have done in that situation?" I could say. But the truth is a knife, or even a brain probably could have prevented that horrible chain of events.

That doesn't mean that I feel less safe when I'm walking at night with my fiance and am armed.

But what made me decide that I would get my concealed carry permit, and decide that people should be able to own anything up to and including "machine guns," was three years of school and a couple of semesters of constitutional law.

[Tamara]

As someone who has actually needed a gun in the past, I find the "no need" argument to be... um, well, incorrect.

I have needed a handgun before, and there is no guarantee that I won't need one again. (I own the other sixty-something firearms just because I can. ;) )

[Navy joe]

Hi James, welcome. Yes I am military, I am not a right wing redneck(possible good ol' boy material), never starred in Tremors, Deliverance, etc. You're right, this site is nice for its diversity, stick around, you never know who will turn up here.

also, the bill of rights says what it says...but is everyone out there really so paranoid that the government is going to come along one day, become a corrupt dictatorship, and kill everyone who opposes it?

Yep.

Sean, I disagree that becoming a more efficient killer is criminal. That is the root purpose of guns once we get past all the fun stuff we do with them. All murder is homicide(unless you belong to PETA); all homicide is not murder. Guns kill, that's why we have them, whether for table or defense. We don't like to think of ourselves as more efficient lawful killers, but that's sometimes how it shakes out.

James, a possible bad analogy for you. I really don't like abortion, but if forced to make a political choice about it I'd be pro-choice. In my mind that means none of the governments business, not a political issue. Same with guns, you don't have to like them, just recognize others rights to them. Becoming familiar with them may ease any fears you have of them though.

If you're really interested, find a introductory course taught by a NRA certified instructor. It will open your eyes, because the people there learning to take care of their own will look a lot like this forum, all kinds.

[bogie]

Something to remember too... MANY folks view the concept of gun ownership/use as a rite of passage into adulthood - "Here, son, you're now responsible enough, so have at it." They are then expected (and 99.99% _are_) to be responsible. No big deal. But when someone on TV or in the newspaper calls 'em an accident waiting to happen, or a potential murderer, well, them's fightin' words!

FWIW, I'm 42 years old, a minority (straight white male - grin), and have a Grateful Dead sticker right next to the National Benchrest Shooters Association sticker on my van... The car has Dead stickers next to the NRA stuff. I'm pro-choice, pro-legalization of happyweed, and I don't like kluckers and their ilk.

[Marko Kloos]

James,

welcome to THR.

As other folks have already pointed out, a human right (that to self-defense) is not subject to "need". A further complication when using "need" as a yardstick is that the granting of such a right would automatically become subjective. Who decides what constitutes a valid "need" for a gun? The county sheriff? The local Chief of Police? Any time you convert a right into a privilege and leave the granting of that privilege up to elected officials, the stage is set for abuse of authority and outright favoritism and corruption. ("Want a carry permit? How much have you contributed to my re-re-election fund last year?")

Regardless of your stance on guns, gun control is inherently illogical, and it cannot possibly work. Everybody knows that you cannot get rid of an article that is in demand. Alcohol was banned outright during the Prohibition, and nobody would seriously argue that the Prohibition actually worked. It only served to greatly exaggerate the perceived "problem", and created a whole bunch of other problems, like the rise of organized crime. We've had drug prohibition for decades, yet you can buy drugs at every street corner in this country. A ban on guns would never get rid of them as long as there's a demand for them. Crooks will always have guns; therefore the good people will always have a demand for guns as well. Gun control is victim disarmament; it tilts the playing field in favor of the crook.

I suggest the excellent essay "A World Without Guns" byDave Kopel, Paul Gallant, and Joanne Eisen as reading material. I have it posted on my web site, if you're interested in a reasoned and logical approach to the idea of gun prohibition:

A World Without Guns (http://www.frontiernet.net/~lendringser/wwog.htm)

[bogie]

Oh yeah - Post the city/area in which you live. You've _gotta_ go shooting. Just tell folks what you want to play with, and we can hook you up.

[0007]

Last but not least, when we gun owners talk about "gun control", we mean hitting the target we are aiming at. When the anti-self-defense groups talk about "gun control" they are really talking about defenseless people control. :rolleyes:

[JohnBT]

James,

Send me your address. I'll send you a keyboard with a working shift key. :D

If you're in or near Richmond Virginia I'll take you shooting if you like and buy lunch.

John

[Bartholomew Roberts]

on the other side of the coin though, i dont like guns. i see them as having no constructive value whatsoever.

Well, let's examine that statement. Are you suggesting we disarm our military and police? Somehow, I don't think you are. This tends to suggest that you acknowledge at least SOME constructive value in firearms. Now the question is just why do you feel a disconnect when the subject is privately-owned firearms?

my view on hunting is the same as my view on somone that grows vegetables in a home garden rather than going to a grocery store. you do it because its cheaper sometimes, its fresherand tastes better, and theres some feeling of accomplishment. but why own guns like the m16 and tommygun? you cant hunt with those.

Well, actually you can hunt with both of those - in fact, I prefer military weapons for hunting and recreational use for several reasons:

1) They are far more durable and reliable than traditional hunting weapons due to the high standards and testing applied to them

2) They are much cheaper than an equivalent civilian weapon because government purchases allow economy of scale.

3) Ammunition is cheaper and more available for the same reason

4) Rather than find out for myself obscure details about the making the gun perform, I can read what taxpayer funded groups like the Army Marksmanship Unit have discovered.

However, all of this obscures the fact that for many of us, hunting isn't a primary reason for owning firearms. My primary reason for owning a firearm is to protect my own life and the lives of those I love and I want the best firearm I can get my hands on when it comes to that. My second reason is I enjoy shooting,

also, the bill of rights says what it says...but is everyone out there really so paranoid that the government is going to come along one day, become a corrupt dictatorship, and kill everyone who opposes it?

First, I highly recommend this law article on the subject:
http://ls.wustl.edu/WULQ/75-3/753-4.html

Also, I would point out that it isn't paranoid to believe this as government using gun control to deny people protection from terrorism and intimidation has happened within the last century.

Here are a few good quotes on the subject:

"The lesson this [a successful example of resistance to lynchers] teaches and which every African American should ponder well, is that a Winchester rifle should have a place of honor in every black home, and it should be used for that protection which the law refuses to give." — Civil rights leader Ida B. Wells, Southern Horrors: Lynch Law In All Its Phases (New York, 1892), 22-23.

“In a Birmingham drenched with racial ugliness, another aunt, Genoa McPhatter, remembers Mrs. Rice (Condi's mother) facing down a clerk who tried to bar Condoleezza from a fitting room. And when a bomb rocked a neighborhood church on a terrible Sunday in 1963, Condoleeza knew one of the four
children killed.

"My father and the men in the community protected the community by going out there armed so that night riders didn't come through," said, Rice, who became a staunch gun defender. "I can guarantee you if their guns had been registered, Bull Conner would have gathered up everyone of them." Biography magazine, September 2001

Another good link in this vein:
http://www.law.ukans.edu/jrnl/cramer.htm

as proven on 9-11 by the passengers on board the plane that crashed in pennsylvania, you don't need a gun on airplanes.

Not as long as you don't mind dying to foil the attempt I guess. Personally I would have preferred the pilot was armed when the hijackers assaulted the cockpit.

besides, what would happen to an airliner at 35000 feet if a bullet went through the side of the passenger compartment?

Nothing. An aircraft isn't an airtight tube. The pressurization is able to handle numerous small holes and cracks. It would take a major hole or crack before depressurization became a concern.

okay, enough questions for now. what i will say about this forum, however, is the diversity of its members. for example, people like skunkabilly, microbalrog, runt_of_the_litter (i didnt expect to find any women here), etc. i was expecting to only find a bunch of rednecks, ex-military/ military, and guys like you see in the movie tremors.

So do you think that says something about this forum, something about you or maybe a little of both? :)

[DonP]

I think most of your questions have been addressed in several ways, but if you still have questions feel free to re-post them here. That's what I love about this forum. Courtesy, information, a variety of opinions, cultural diversity and a sense of humor all in one place

If you'd like suggestions on other forums to visit for other points of view we'll share that with you too.

The offer to take you shooting for the experience of it is a sincere one and wherever you are in the country, there are undoubtedly folks here, myself included (Chicago/Illinois area) with years of experience (more than most police officers) that will teach you the safe way to shoot.

The feeling you get from hitting that target the first time in the center is very much akin to the feeling of a great chip onto the green that rolls to an easy one putt. (Not that I have ever been able to do that either!)

Are there idiots out there that fit that good ole boy image? Sure, a few, same as there are people to fulfill any other negative racial, ethnic, gender or other stereotype people can conjur up in their twisted minds.

But if we jumped to conclusions based on stereotypes on any of those issues we'd be rightfully considered a bigot or racist. Over the last twnety years though it has become OK to stereotype gun owners all as right wing extremists or slavering red necks looking to shoot something, anything.

We are far from homogenous. We are as diverse as any other group out there, maybe more so, because our basic doctrine is tolerance of other's choices.

Most of us believe we are struggling with an issue that we all truly believe affects the long term safety of our nation(s). Eeven over on the Democratic Underground, a very left wing area for the most part, there are folks just like us defending the 2nd amendment against what come across as rabid emotional attacks fromw hat we call "gun-grabbers".

There are even a few folks over there that have been very anti in the past but are now suddenly concerned that the changes that John Ashcroft is making in civil liberties are a good reason to own a gun since they see him as a threat to individual liberties. (A few of those here too, I might add.)

I hope you avail yourself of the chance to try shooting first hand before you pass any final moral or ethical judgement on the issue.

Good luck in your information quest.

Don P.

[Glock Glockler]

James,

Welcome to THR. I wish more people had your courage and conviction, to willingly post on a website where you know 99% of the members will disagree with you.

The main question I will ask you is is about the root of your antipathy towards guns: is it a logical or emotional? I know that none of us want to admit that an opinion of our is based upon emotion, but we all do it, even me:)

I used to be all about marijuana prohibition, until I did research on the subject and realised that it was not a logical idea, but I could still feel the desire to lock up those that used it. Well, my desire to do so came from my hatred of hippie-crunchie types that claim they want to save the world, but all they do is smoke pot and smell bad. Oh yeah, that talk a lot of anti-capitalist smack and are all about socialism.

I don't like those people James, in fact, I'd be quite happy if they all got on a spaceship and went off to Hippieland. All that is irrelevant though, and it has nothing to do with whether or not something should be legal. It would be wrong for me to use the arm of the law to persecute those that I don't like, just as it's wrong for Nazis to stuff the people they don't like. It's not easy to come to terms with our true desires, in fact, the introspection and soul-searching are often extremely painful, but we come out far better people for having done so.

Do you have an emotional foundation for your dislike of guns? What might have created it? Do you think that any messages in the media might have colored your opinion of guns? There are anti-gun messages abound in the media, might any have slipped past your radar into your sub-conscious?

James, comgradulations for being couragous and open, both with us and yourself. I just ask that you continue that path, and if you do, you will come out the better for it.

[grenadier]

Welcome aboard. I appreciate that you wish to discuss this in a civil manner.

however, the skill is nothing less than being a more efficient killer.


As for increasing skills with a firearm, it means that you stand a better chance of defending yourself from a criminal that is out to kill you, your loved ones, and / or your friends. If I must be in a situation, I want to survive, and I would certainly want the loved ones and friends to survive as well.

You simply don't shoot to kill. You shoot to stop the bad guy. If he must die as a result, then so be it, but I would much rather it be he, than my family / friends.


because its cheaper sometimes, its fresherand tastes better, and theres some feeling of accomplishment. but why own guns like the m16 and tommygun? you cant hunt with those.


There is nothing special about a Thompson or a M16. One uses a low velocity handgun cartridge, the other a very light rifle cartridge. Neither of these pack nearly the same power that common hunting cartridges do.

Your statement is very much akin to someone claiming "You don't need to own a pickup truck to drive to work." People use different tools for different jobs.


also, the bill of rights says what it says...but is everyone out there really so paranoid that the government is going to come along one day, become a corrupt dictatorship, and kill everyone who opposes it? in addition, what are the chances of a foreign invasion (much less one that our military couldn't defend against on its own)?


The fact remains, that a major event can happen at any time. Who would have ever thought that the riots of 1992 in Los Angeles would have ever escalated to such a degree? Not surprisingly, if you look at the Korean community there, the businesses that remained intact were owned by those who were able to repulse arsonists / looters using their own firearms.

In some cases, overwhelming numbers of rioters / looters / arsonists would barge into stores where the unarmed owners could not protect themselves or their property, and the criminals would steal items, beat up the owners, and then torch the businesses, without any regards for the people inside.


need a gun on airplanes. besides, what would happen to an airliner at 35000 feet if a bullet went through the side of the passenger compartment? stuff like handguns and gun safety ill talk about later since everyone on this forum sounds as though they are sane enough, smart enough, and mature enough to handle such things accordingly.


Simple. If a bullet passes through the hull of an airplane, a slowly leaking hole will be created, until small debris plugs up the hole. What you see in Hollywood does NOT happen like that. Such violent decompression does not occur in that kind of an event. Remember, these are the same Hollywood people who make it look like you can continue to pull the trigger on an semiautomatic pistol that has an empty magazine (which cannot happen when the slide locks back as a result), or the same Hollywood people who make it look like you can cock the hammer of a Glock pistol, when no such hammer exists.

It's also the same Hollywood that asserts that Teflon coatings on bullets increase penetration. That simply isn't the case. Teflon, or any other coating on a bullet, does NOTHING to increase the penetration of a projectile.

I would strongly encourage you to one day, take some time on the firing range, and learn how firearms operate. Once you do this, you will gain an understanding of how things truly work.

[synoptic]

First I'll address the question most people here have:
besides, what would happen to an airliner at 35000 feet if a bullet went through the side of the passenger compartment?
At best, nothing, at worst (unlikely), it crashes. What happens when you try to protect the plane with your bare hands? We saw the result in pennsylvania.
Why do I own guns? For the sheer enjoyment. I am at the point in my shoting right now where I greatly enjoy the solitude. I pick times to go to the club when I don't think many people will be there. I put on my earmuffs and begin to shoot. At this point it is just me, my thoughts, and my gun. This is similar to my love of walking alone on the beach. But I have no beach here, so I turn to the next best thing. I also enjoy feeling the power of my shotgun. The recoil is the main reason I bought it.
Now that I have guns I think about things like what would I do if someone broke in, started shooting outside, etc... Defense to me is still secondary to enjoyment, but my hobby could save my life one day so that is just icing on the cake.

Now, being a more efficient killer. Is this really a bad thing? To me, more efficient would mean hitting the bad guy as opposed to the innocent bystander behind him.

There is a great story of posted on another forum about someone who was in a real situation and his training saved his life and kept his girlfriend from possibly getting raped. We had a thread here that linked to it but I can't seem to find it. It was a very good recap of the incident along with what happened post shooting. If anyone remembers what I am talking about and knows where to find it, post a link. It is a great example of need.

Good luck with your research. Let us know what it is and we can prolly help out pretty well.

[pax]

James,

Welcome to The High Road. I hope you stick around, learn much, and post lots. As others have said, we don't all fit the stereotypes.

The other folks who've responded have pretty much said most of what needs to be said on the topic of needing a gun. I want to address what you said about 9/11.

Since 9/11, the President made it clear that the military will shoot down any passenger airline which has been taken over by terrorists.

But, we are told, it is too dangerous to allow the people aboard the flights to have weapons to protect themselves -- since discharging a handgun might damage the airplane so badly that it cannot fly.

So the military will shoot down an airplane taken over by terrorists. But the people on the airplane can't have guns to fight back against terrorists, because the airplane might crash if they do.

Does this policy make any sense at all?

pax

[Gilmore]

"the bill of rights says what it says..."

Right! It says what it says because the men who wrote it knew things, they specifically wrote every word for our own well being. Thankfully.

[280PLUS]

and welcome to thr too!!

no yakkers around here, eh?:what:

James' got some reading to do,,,

:D

[bogie]

Oh, one other thing...

A simple .38 is enough to transform a potential victim into someone who has the ability to say "No, please go away, and bother someone else," and have it stick.

If that fellow in Texas who go dragged behind the pickup by those rednecks, or that gay guy who got crucified on the fence by those other rednecks had been armed, they'd probably still be with us.

In addition, when one calls 911, more than likely they're requesting that someone with a gun show up, generally as rapidly as possible. Many of us here realize that 911 doesn't work all that fast... In addition, many of us are _better trained_ than most police (most cops just aren't into guns, and can be downright hazardous). We actually _like_ what we're doing when we go to the range. So we practice more.

[ojibweindian]

Trish;

An excellent post!

[NRA Instructor]

Good morning James and welcome to The High Road. Your posting leads many of us to believe that you have an open mind. We are pleased to provide you with facts, not the fiction that comes from the anti-gun sources.

First, no one likes war. But Freedom isn't free. A local Marine just came back from Iraq. He wasn't sure when he left if the "trip was worthwhile". But after seeing how that the average citizen had been so poorly treated while the rulers had so much wealth he said it was more than worthwhile. The one thing that stood out in his mind was a young boy drinking out of mud puddle, his only source of water. Not too far away was a palace that was made of marble decorated with gold and had fountains in front.

Target shooting, a.k.a. shooting sports, is something I wish you would try. Find a local NRA Instructor and learn the basic of shooting, which always starts and ends with safe handling lectures.

After many years of instructing I am still pleased to see the big smile on the faces of first time shooters. An example, one student in my last class told me after graduation that she wasn't pro-gun when she started and had a bad image of the NRA. That all changed during the class and she is now becoming a darn good competitive shooter.

By the way, half of the students I see are female.

Yes, it may appear to a non-shooter to be just a hole shot in piece of paper. You have to experience yourself the thrill of making that hole with either a rifle or pistol. Those first shots are not easy. As you shoot more you realize the concentration target shooting requires. After awhile you will try, as we all do, to put all of the bullets through a single hole. To be competitive doesn't mean join a club or shooting in a league. You will find you will compete against yourself and trying to make each group smaller, and smaller, and smaller. Give it a try.

You see, you don't have to be a hunter to have a great deal of fun shooting. Nor do you have to spend a lot of money. Many of us start with .22 cal. rifles and pistols. They are relatively inexpensive and so is the ammo.

Hope some of us will see you on the range.

With a big grin.:D

[Betty]

Welcome to THR, James!

Our members are from every walk of life - male, female, GLBT, black, white, cops, lawyers, photographers, you name it!

I own an array of firearms from 5-shot revolvers to bolt action rifles to an AR15. I own them because I can. I own them because I like shooting. I also own them for self-defense, and carry a gun on me every day. I don't go through my day in paranoia, wondering when something's going to happen - I believe it's better to be safe than sorry. I've had a psycho-ex threaten me before, and my gun was the only equalizer. I remember waiting for the police seemed like eternity.

[Felonious Monk]

I don't want to turn this thread into anything self-congratulatory, but I feel I MUST say:

There have been some sound, well-reasoned answers to James here (and not a SINGLE flame, AFAIK).

But Trisha, that was the most eloquent piece of prose I have seen since "Metal and Wood". I just became an Even Bigger Fan of yours!!! :D :D :D

FM

[mephisto]

Guns

I think there has been enough post that put it better than I can, so I wont. I will tell you why I have guns. I use them to go deer and elk hunting, I have hunted birds in the past also. I enjoy shooting with my friends. The most important reason to me is…. Protection of my family and myself. I hope and pray I never have to shoot a human. There are those people that go out in the bush and kill any small animals that they see; I am not that kind of person. I do remember one-night 3 years ago when I was awaken at 2:30 AM by a noise at my sliding glass door. As I looked out my bedroom window I could see 3 men trying to “jimmy” the door. So I went to my closet and opened the gun safe that I have and pulled out my 12 gauge. Let me tell you that I was so pumped up with fear I was almost in tears, my wife was, and I could not load my gun. So I walked in my kitchen and finally shoved a shell into the tube magazine and walked closer to the door. I was standing 3 feet from the door and I was trying to yell but I could not, I was all cotton mouthed, so I put the barrel through the blinds and pumped the shell into the breach. At that moment I heard “holy ????” and the sound of metal hitting the concrete. They ran off. My wife called the cop during this incident. As the arrived, 10 minutes later, they received a call of a breaking and entering a couple of streets over. An hour later they came back to my house. The officer told me they had caught three men in a vacant home, the owners were on vacation. All three had knives. There is more to the story but I don’t have time to go over the whole thing. So that’s why I have guns. Once again I never want to shoot anyone but I don’t want to be a victim. I heard a statement once that went like this “ I don’t shoot to kill, I shoot to stay alive”.

Mephisto

:)

[Double Maduro]

James,

Welcome to the board. As you can tell from the responses to your questions there are many different answers. We all have our own reasons for owning, using and carrying firearms.

I thank you for your questions and your open mind. I hope we have given you something to think about. If nothing else comes from this thread you have made many of us think about the reasons we own guns. This introspection is good for us and makes us stronger.

Thank you.

Now what have you learned from this thread?

[pax]

Btw, James, have you seen the "Pamela White" thread in Legal? It's at http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=27331 -- an article written by a pacifist woman about her experiences in taking a shooting class. Interesting stuff.

pax

Because the state can no longer protect us from crime, it wants to take away from us the means of protecting ourselves. This is the logic of gun control. -- Joseph Sobran

[Skunkabilly]

Hi James...just caught this thread, and WELCOME!!!

[simon]

After all these well put out thoughts on why we like firearms as much as we do & the reasons,I'd like to see what James' thoughts are now...

By the way,WELCOME James'....

[MAURICE]

As a new guy to the boards myself, welcome, James.

Maurice

[John G]

I have a fire extinguisher just in case there's a fire. I have a gun just in case my life, (or the lives of innocents) is threatened. I'll probably never NEED either one, but I'm a former boy scout, and I still believe in their motto. "Be prepared."

[simon]

Trisha, WOW!!!

While I consider myself considerably literate,(though not able to voice my thoughts as well as I'd like), that was amazing!
You have another fan here.....

[Standing Wolf]

i see them as having no constructive value whatsoever. objectively speaking, they are a means to get a bullet from point a to point b, but they were originally designed for killing things.

Tell that to the woman whose life I saved quite a few years ago.

[Intune]

Welcome to THR James & Maurice! Responsibility dictates that I have the means, in addition to the ability, to protect my loved ones and myself.

Gun-Free zones are nothing more than killing fields waiting for the butcher. Criminals BREAK laws not adhere to them.

I wish I could put my finger on the study that showed the incidence of crime committed by people who possess a CCW permit. IIRC it was a miniscule percentage. Citizens who carry usually go out of their way to avoid trouble and confrontation.

[P12]

Welcome to The High Road. I respect you for your courage and honesty. Most anti-gun individuals wouldn’t care what pro-gun people think.

I’m sure your questions will be answered fully and in great detail. I will leave that to those more educated and better communicators than I.

I do have a question for you. Please keep in mind, this question is more for an anti-gun mind, than you directly. Don’t take it as an insult or an attack.

So far in my 44 years of life I have needed or been thankful for having a firearm on me or handy a total of six times. And this from a guy who has a very unflattering and boring life. Thankfully I haven’t been forced to pull the trigger, and I pray that I will never have to.

I don’t hunt. Not because I don’t want to, but because I have other priorities. Some day I want to hunt on a regular basis, but not at this time. My firearms are owned for the purpose of self-defense. When I go to the range to shoot or to an IDPA match the targets are human silhouettes. At this time my shooting and training is for the purpose of self-defense only.

If anti-gun people in this country were to have their way, I would have been or would be in the future unarmed. Now my question:

Why do you want me and my family, dead?

[Anger Management]

.but is everyone out there really so paranoid that the government is going to come along one day, become a corrupt dictatorship, and kill everyone who opposes it?

Are we talking about the same government that over the years has:

Attempted to exterminate the native population by the most ruthless means imaginable to fulfill manifest destiny?

Irradiated thousands of soldiers and sailors testing atomic weapons in 1950s?

Knowingly infected black males with syphilis and then withheld treatment so they could chart the progress of the disease?

Fought tooth and nail against Vietnam vets exposed to Agent Orange and more recently Gulf War vets exposed to whatever nerve agents caused Gulf War Syndrome?

Yeah the government is really great. [Unnecessary personal comments edited out by Tamara]

[hso]

James,

Others have spoken about the ethical, moral, civil reasons that owning firearms is not an area that the federal government should speak on. Let me offer another.

I'm a health and safety specialist for a large corporation (hso stands for health and safety officer). My responsibility extends to 1,800 professionals scattered across the USA. There are another 35,000 fellow employess in other sectors that other folks just like me are responsible for. We spend our days (and often our nights) trying to ensure that our 30,000 + coworkers can perform their jobs safely.

When we look at hazards to workers we look at the statistics to determine if there is a trend or some indicator other than random chance. If the numbers are not small we look to introduce controls. The greater the hazard the greater the control. If the consequences are catastrophic and the potential for exposure is high we look at removing the hazard alltogether. Banning guns would represent a control to prevent "accidents" that are both catastrophic and have a high potential for exposure.

The numbers just aren't there for banning firearms.

The latest ('98) CDC death due to firearms statistics that I found support the postition that the government has no need to regulate firearms posession. The incidence rate of accidental deaths (that's total accidental deaths due to firearms adjusted to 100,000 population) is 0.28/100,000. This is less than the accidental injury (that's injury,not death) rate for insurance and banking industry employees. That's 866 accidental deaths for the entire population of the USA. Considering that OSHA considers an industry with an incidence rate below 1.0 not requiring specific regulation the incidence rate of accidental death due to firearms is so small as to be below the regulatable thresholds. And that's where the worker is being protected from the practices of the employer.

(Let me include that the incidence rate for all deaths due to firearms is equivalent to 10.54/100,000. This includes all the non-accidental willfull shooting deaths as well as accidental and suicides).

Why is it then that the govenment proposes to restrict/ban firearms ownership if guns represent less of a threat to the safety of the public than working as a clerk in an insurance company? As a health and safety professional there are no statistics that indicate that firearms ownership represents a credible risk to the American public.

http://www.bls.gov/iif/oshwc/osh/os/ostb1133.txt
http://www.bls.gov/iif/oshwc/cfoi/cftb0146.pdf

[bogie]

Okay... So one flame...

Guys, let's keep a control here... Remember that stupid is forever, but ignorance can be cured.

James, are you reading this?

[iamkris]

I have never seen more eloquent expressions about the right to keep and bear arms and the joy of shooting. Thanks everyone... I learned a lot and hope James did too.

[bogie]

That's 866 accidental deaths for the entire population of the USA.

Oh, and regarding the large numbers of "non-accidental" deaths that you'll see posted: When you take suicide out of the equation...

How many of those were criminals who were shot by police?

How many of them were criminals who were shot by citizens who were in fear of their lives?

How many of them were criminals who were shot by other criminals?

I don't know the exact numbers, but I'll wager that the dangerous thing that we're looking at isn't the availability/use of firearms, but in actuality is the criminal lifestyle. And I'll wager that when you remove criminals from the numbers, the remainder will be VERY small... Anyone have the numbers?

[Detachment Charlie]

To James, welcome and thank you for the intellectual honesty to journey into the belly of the beast to seek fact and/or well-informed opinion

To my fellow THR members, you are to be congratulated on the level of discussion and discourse on this thread. I am proud to be in your company. Where James may have expected to find a bunch of redneck, knuckle-dragging, beer-swilling "Homers," he has been exposed to thoughtful, forthright, intelligent people...for the most part.

For those who are one of the redneck, knuckle-dragging, beer-swilling "Homers," allow me to say: "Hey, ya'll, hold my beer and watch this."
DOH!

[Nightfall]

Hi James, and welcome to THR. I hope you'll stay around and input your viewpoints into the various discussions here. It's always nice to have multiple viewpoints on any issue, and THR certainly encourages it! :)

Many have responded to your questions and statements far more eloquently than I could, so I'll limit myself to one point:

...but they were originally designed for killing things. i know that many of you here have killed more paper targets/ watermelons/ bowling pins/ old household appliances than living things, and see that as just as a hobby or honing of a skill. however, the skill is nothing less than being a more efficient killer.


Do you wear a seatbelt when you're driving in a vehicle, James? Hopefully, you do! Why would you do that though? You're not planning on getting in a car wreck are you? Should we assume that just because you put on your seatbelt, that you're now going to go out and cause damage/death in a car simply because you've prepared for an accident? Or perhaps you put that seatbelt on just in case something unforseen happens. Just in case somebody is (illegally) driving drunk down the road and collides with you, or incase you have to swerve to avoid a child that ran into the road, causing you to hit a telephone pole or such. This is the same reasoning behind those who practice skills applicable to defending themselves with firearms. They aren't planning on killing anybody, nor do they hope to. They are simply preparing themselves in case they are required to defend against violent, criminal attacks.

With that in mind, I hope you'll take a second to consider your view of what defines becoming a 'more efficient killer'.

[DF357]

the http://www.flashbunny.org site. The 'movies' explain a lot.

[sm]

James, welcome to THR!!

I was made aware of this thread via email-asked to give my .02.

I'm another whom has had to use a firearm to defend myself or others-more than once.

Others have provided you answers and links as to the need, rights and training.

Firearms and firearm safety was just part of growing up for me. Firearms are just tools. Anything can be a tool. Computers, matches, guns, hammers, even a stick.Tools are inanimate objects that by themselves can do NO harm. A tool only becomes a tool when a user put it to use. A tool only becomes a weapon when there is an intent.

Your computer, an inamimate object that can do nothing without a user. A tool if you will, to communicate. It may be to write a letter, do a spreadsheet or a PowerPoint presentation. Now if your intent was evil , you could do harm by hacking and stealing personal ID's, bank accounts, or spreading falsehoods via the Web. Your computer is a tool and by the intent of the user defines the outcome. So, should we make computers illegal, and ban them?

Your Kitchen stove. You were taught I'm sure how to use it safely. That stove cannot do anything without a user. So you have been taught to use safely the stove to cook food. Now lets say you have intent to do harm. Your tool of choice is the stove, you place someone's hand forcefully onto the burner to force them against their will. Your stove is now a weapon because of your intent to do harm with a tool as innocent as a stove.

I was very young and shooting for recreation. My parents were away for a very short time to get medicine for a sick brother and I, being the eldest was babysitting my siblings. Bad men started to break in the front door and threatned to kill all of us inside. I sent/put my sibs under my parents bed and retrieved the family firearm. We did not have 911 at that time. I used a firearm to keep myself and sibs (including a 6 month y/o baby) safe and secure. I called a neighbor afterwards, they called the police, and they arrived some 30-40 min afterwards. My parents made it home to find the police there, and my parents, the police and neighbors understood I did what I had to do--The right thing. My firearm teaching of use and safety for recreation proved itself in defending my sibs. This was the first time, there have been others.

Please stick around , ask questions, follow the advice and references you will be given.

'73

[Sam Adams]

James, welcome to THR. Thanks for being open-minded enough to ask questions honestly, rather than to simply accuse or villify gun owners. I, and everyone else here, wish that all other anti-gunners would have the same attitude. I will try to address your questions briefly, without too much technical mumbo-jumbo. I hope that you find my opinions to be reasonably presented - we're not all a bunch of rude, ignorant rednecks or ex-military Rambos.

i dont like guns. i see them as having no constructive value whatsoever. objectively speaking, they are a means to get a bullet from point a to point b, but they were originally designed for killing things. i know that many of you here have killed more paper targets/ watermelons/ bowling pins/ old household appliances than living things, and see that as just as a hobby or honing of a skill. however, the skill is nothing less than being a more efficient killer.

... but why own guns like the m16 and tommygun? you cant hunt with those. also, the bill of rights says what it says...but is everyone out there really so paranoid that the government is going to come along one day, become a corrupt dictatorship, and kill everyone who opposes it? in addition, what are the chances of a foreign invasion (much less one that our military couldn't defend against on its own)?

... as proven on 9-11 by the passengers on board the plane that crashed in pennsylvania, you don't need a gun on airplanes. besides, what would happen to an airliner at 35000 feet if a bullet went through the side of the passenger compartment?

Guns have 3 primary constructive uses:

1) Personal protection against criminals;
2) Hunting, target shooting and various other sporting uses; and
3) Protection of personal freedoms against domestic or foreign tyrants.

The first of these is important, though not critical to the safety of the nation. Many arguments pro and con can be made about carrying around personal protection that is stronger than your anti-perspirant, but I won't get into them (others have, but this is a secondary issue to me). Suffice it to say that I believe that it is my personal responsibility to look after the safety of myself and my family, and that the police cannot possibly be everywhere (nor would I WANT them everywhere).

The second of these is fun/entertainment based (except for hunting where no other source of food is available), and are, therefore, not strictly necessary.

Constitutionally speaking, those activities are NOT protected by the 2nd Amendment. I, like most others here, love to target shoot, and I also happen to have a carry permit for personal protection. All of this is, however, very secondary to what I view as the primary purpose of firearms, to wit: the protection of my personal liberty and that of my family against the power of a domestic or foreign government.

You have indicated that you think a dictatorship or foreign invasion is unlikely. I hope that you are correct, and believe that you are - precisely because 80-90 million Americans own somewhere north of 1/4 of a BILLION firearms. All of that firepower is a HUGE deterrant to any would-be dictator or invader. Read The Federalist #46 by James Madison - it was specifically intended that the American People would be able to defeat any army that the proposed "powerful central government" could conceiveably raise, so as to prevent the imposition of a domestic dictatorship. So far, at least, it has worked. Take a look at another view from a somewhat more recent famous person:

At what point shall we expect the approach of danger? By what means shall we fortify against it? Shall we expect some transatlantic military giant to step the ocean and crush us at a blow? Never! All the armies of Europe, Asia, and Africa combined, with all the treasure of the earth in their military chests; with a Buonaparte for a commander, could not by force take a drink from the Ohio, or make a track on the Blue Ridge, in the trial of a thousand years.

At what point then is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us, it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we ourselves must be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide.

Abraham Lincoln
January 27, 1838

Powerful stuff - Lincoln says that no foreign armies can conquer us - obviously because even in his day there were sufficient arms to defeat any such armies - but that we can allow ourselves to be enslaved. The agenda of those who admire the concept of the nanny state is, IMHO, just such a devise - even if not intended as such by most advocates. I, personally, worry a great deal about the powers being granted to the Executive and to various unaccountable bureaucrats by such laws as the Patriot Act. Given the wrong set of circumstances, a potential dictator could see such laws as the means of putting themselves in power permanently. The presence of literally millions of people skilled enough to deliver lead projectiles at high velocities to a man-sized target from 500 yards away, and with the equipment to do so, is a HUGE deterrent to such an action. Who knows, perhaps it has already saved us from a dictator, and we just don't know it - I recall some liberals unexpectedly expressing gratitude at the existence of a large body of armed civilians in 1974 (since they worried about what Nixon would do to maintain power), and many on this and other conservatively leaning boards wondered what would have happened if Clinton just decided that he wasn't going to leave the White House on 1/20/01.

As to foreign invasion, as recently as WW2 we faced at least a serious possibility of one from Japan. Admiral Yamamoto, who planned Pearl Harbor and the Japanese onslaught of 12/41-6/42 against much of Asia, eliminated this as a possibility. You see, he had been a military attache here in the 1920's, IIRC, and knew this nation better than almost everyone else at the higher levels of the Japanese government. He said words to the effect of "To invade America would be insane - there is a rifle behind every blade of grass." An exaggerated perception, to be sure, but one which saved untold misery and, perhaps, our very freedom.

Regarding 9/11 - if the terrorists knew that passengers could be armed on board (as was the case, IIRC, before the early 1970's), then they never would have hijacked those planes. If they knew that the pilots were armed, they never would have hijacked those planes. Had Todd Beamer and the other passengers been armed, they'd have shot the hijackers and the plane would've landed safely. As for small holes in the aircraft body causing explosive decompression - it looks good in the movies, but it isn't the truth. All civilian jets are built to military specs by law (they're part of the reserve air fleet in case of war), and both fighters and bombers have routinely returned safely from missions with dozens or hundreds of holes, each of which is larger than what a mere handgun might put into a plane's skin. 9/11 proves the opposite of what you have concluded - guns SHOULD be on planes.

As for me - I'm Jewish. I've been told that my grandparents counted the number of relatives that they knew to have been alive before 1939 who they never heard from again, and came up with over 100 cousins, aunts and uncles. My wife's uncle has a tattoo on his arm from Birkenau (the work camp adjacent to Auschwitz), and was a "guest" at 3 other concentration camps. He witnessed the murder of his father and brother, and every other member of his family was murdered except him - he was shot along side his father and brother, but survived because it (obviously) wasn't a fatal wound and he was buried by the dead bodies of those around him - he waited until dark to escape. All of this, and lots more, was perpetrated by the "most civilized" European nation. Let me tell you a not-so-secret secret: Mankind is not a terribly civilized animal when the chips are down. Also, human nature doesn't change when you cross an ocean - some in the US are as capable of such activities as those people in Europe 60 years ago. If you don't believe that, see a documentary entitled The Tenth Level, which is about a psychological study done in the 1960's. I won't go into the details, but a substantial portion of the test subjects inflicted what they thought was "intolerable pain" on others (see it - it is quite disturbing). The long and the short of it is: I am a law-abiding citizen, not dangerous to anyone unless they present a threat to me. As such, any government that wants my guns is up to no good. Therefore, as a human being, as an American and as a Jew, I will not be disarmed until my firearm is warmer than my body.

You might also want to check out my taglines for some short snapshots of my philosophy.

I hope that this has helped answer your questions.

[Combat-wombat]

Welcome to THR, James!:)

Basically, the Second Amendment looks over our other rights. Once we lose the ability to defend ourselves, it becomes much easier for a government to take other rights away, and then it turns into something like George Orwell's 1984. Although it may seem that people who use this logic are paranoid, we are not, for we know that "1984" type situations have occoured all around the world in Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, China, and many other places. Disarmament leads to genocide. It's a proven fact. If the government does not trust me to own a gun, how can I be expected to trust the government?

Anyway, we're glad to have a new member, hopefully you can stay around for a while.

[280PLUS]

this has grown,,,

and here i am stiil, back at trish's post trying to look up all them multi-syllabic words...

:D

[George Hill]

Guns are Fun.
Guns are an Investment.
Guns are History.
Guns are Tools.
Guns are Defense.
Guns are a lot of things to different people. But I think it was said best by Dennis Batemen - This is entitled Metal and Wood:



It is a rare person who does not attach some sort of value or emotion to some
physical object or to an event. A home becomes more than a building. A statue of
the Virgin Mary, a crucifix, a flag or a song, or even a photograph can stir
emotions greater than the value of the material item.

I have a piece of paper showing I served in the military until I was discharged
honorably. But, oh, the memories that piece of paper conjures up. The friends,
the fun times. The bad times. The times when we were bound closer to strangers
than to our own families and, in frightening chaos, our lives hung by a thread.
Many of our friends died far from home. Ask us about the feeling of “American
soil” upon returning to the land we loved. Ask those returning soldiers about
America.

Remember the old, faintly humorous band of American Legionnaires, wearing
out-dated military uniforms straining at the buttons. But, God how proudly they
marched. Grinning, waving to friends and families, and always, always “The Flag!” Ask them if the flag is mere cloth, I dare you.

See the elderly lady sitting in a lawn chair watching the fourth of July parade. Three flags carefully folded some forty years ago into triangles now rest in her lap - one for each lost son. Ask her if those flags are mere cloth, I dare you.

Look at the old man quietly crying, leaning against the Iwo Jiima Memorial at
Arlington Cemetery. As he turns to you, smiles with some embarrassment, and
says in a choked whisper, “I was there.” Ask him, “Is it just metal and clay?” Ask
him. I dare you.

The Wall. My God, the Wall. See the young man lightly tracing the name of his
father there inscribed. Ask him if its just rock. Ask him. I dare you.

My guns? They’re of little real value compared to my family and my home. They
are toys, or tools, or both. But what those guns represent to me is greater than all
of us, greater than myself, my family, indeed greater than our entire generation.
What could be of such value?

The freedom of man to live within civil, self-imposed limitations rather than under
restrictions placed upon him by a ruler or a ruling class.

Imagine the daring, the bravery of a few men to declare they intended to create a
new country, independent of the burden of their established Rulers!

Those men we call our forefathers were brilliant men. They could have
maneuvered themselves into positions of influence within the structure of the
times, but they did not. They struggled to free themselves from tyranny. They
wrote the Declaration of Independence. And they backed up their words and ideals with metal and wood.

They knew the dangers of such dreams and actions. They knew it was a frightening and dangerous venture into the unknown when they dared reach beyond their grasp for a vision - for an ideal. But they dared to dedicate
themselves to achieve Liberty and Freedom for their children, and their children’s
children, through the generations.

Imagine the dreams and yearnings of centuries finally being reduced to the written word. The Rights of “We the People!” instead of the “Powers of the Monarchy.”

Our forefathers dared to create a new government - a new form of government.
And they knew that any organization has, as its first and foremost goal, its
continued existence. Second only to that it strives to increase its power. It plots,
it devises, it maneuvers to achieve control over its environment - over its subjects.

Our Forefathers decided to make America different from any country, anywhere, at
any time in the entire history of the entire world. This country, this new nation of
immigrants, would be based upon the concept that people could rule themselves better than any single person or small group of persons could rule them.

Other countries have had outstanding documents with guarantees for its citizens -
but the citizens have become enslaved. How, these great men pondered, can we
ensure this new government will remain subject to the will of the People?

They wanted limits upon this new government. Therefore, our forefathers wrote
limitations into the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. And one of those Rights
was that metal and wood, as the final power of the people, would secure this country for the future generations.

Metal and wood were the means by which we won our freedom.
Metal and wood were the means by which we kept our freedom.
Metal and wood may be the means by which we regain our freedom.

Metal and wood are the final power of the people. Take away the metal and wood
and the people become powerless - they can only beg, they supplicate for favors.

We are unique in our ability to rule ourselves but we are letting it slip away.
Today we compromise. We try to appease man’s insatiable appetite for power by
throwing him bits of our freedoms. But the insatiable appetite for power can not
be appeased. The freedoms we feed him only make us weaker and him stronger.

We must conquer him and again ensure the “Blessings of Liberty” won for us by our forefathers.

We must be ready to use metal and wood again, for if we are ready, truly ready,
we may be able to conquer the monster with words - for in its heart it is a coward.
But if we continue to feed the monster our freedoms, we will become too weak to
win, to weak even to fight, and we will become a conquered people. We will have
sold ourselves and our future generations into servitude.

If words fail us, we will use metal and wood, we will regain what we have lost, we
will achieve what we seek, we will guarantee the America of our forefathers for the future generations.

So you see, our guns are more than metal and wood. They are our heritage of freedom. They are the universally understood symbol that the government, no matter how big and strong it may be, answers to us! They are the tools we will use to prevent tyranny in the land of our forefathers and our children. So, ask me what my guns mean to me. Ask my children what our guns mean to them. Ask us. I dare you.


http://www.a-human-right.com/ You need to check that site out. Oleg has some thoughts for you... Pictures are worth a thousand words:
http://www.a-human-right.com/RKBA/twoways_s.jpg

I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. - J.R.R.Tolkien, The Two Towers

[makdaddy03]

I dont know a single person that owns a M16. I own the AR15 for target practice, shooting Crows, Coyotes and even a stray cat or two. (Pest Control):neener:

[Henry Bowman]

Saw that Combat-Wombat just weighed in on this.

Add to our diversity the fact that we (THR) have many young (teenaged) members who exibit remarkable intelligence and clarity of expression.

[AJ Dual]

There is so much excellent explanation and rebuttal in this thread, I can hardly hope to add more, but, you mention:

i know that many of you here have killed more paper targets/ watermelons/ bowling pins/ old household appliances than living things, and see that as just as a hobby or honing of a skill. however, the skill is nothing less than being a more efficient killer.

Most organized sports, practice and competitions have thier roots in war and military training. Remember the Olympics? Swimming, Running, Jumping, Javelin, Archery, Shotput...

Are those just ancient Greek sports carried to the current day? Nope. They are competitions for ancient combat prowess. How far and fast can one run, jump, and swim into battle, how far and accurately can one fling spears and arrows at thier enemies, or stones on their heads?

So the next time you watch the Olympics the "one best peacful expression of humanity" blah. blah. blah. these "atheletes" are merely spending every four years honing thier skils at "being a more efficient killers" too, I guess...

[Drjones]

I won't bother saying anything as its already been said, and some of it better than I would have said it anyway.

A question for you james:

Why is killing always bad?

[geekWithA.45]

This thread should be archived, printed, read into the Congressional Record, and mailed to Sarah Brady.

Maybe Senator Larry Craig or Senator Ron Paul could help us out?

[XavierBreath]

Welcome to the forum James.......I hope you are reading this and will respond. It's rather rare that I come across an anti-gun person that is not carrying a lot of emotional (no matter how well justified) baggage with their perceptions. I haven't read what others have posted, but I am sure by now most of a pro-gun person's viewpoint has been voiced. I can only state why I own and carry a gun.

I am a Home Health Nurse who goes into crime ridden areas of my city at all hours of the night and day to administer to the sick. I do this by choice, and view it as a calling. I cannot control when I am needed at a house, nor can I control when I must leave, or what is going on around that house. Often, I am percieved as having money, (although I don't carry money, but I am a stranger in a car and $10 is often enough to get you robbed in these areas,) having drugs or at least syringes (although I often do not have them either) and eventhough I stand 6'1" and weigh 240, I am a ripe target for any crackhead or gang that has gathered while I am in a patient's home. I can only imagine what it would be like for a female nurse.

I carry a semi-automatic handgun, and an extra magazine. That is 20 rounds to keep me alive. If I were not allowed to carry a gun, I would not work these areas. My life is just as important as my patient's lives. I tell my patients I carry a gun (they have a right to say what comes into their home, just as I have a right to refuse care if I must go unarmed), and I also tell them that I do not carry drugs or syringes in my car. No doubt the word gets around.

Thankfully, I have never had to use my handgun in self defense as a civilian (I am past military.) I train with it each week for at least 45 minutes, often more. I actually get more handgun training than most police officers. I stay familiar with current legislation, and know the boundaries that I must be within to use my handgun in self defense lawfully. I am in agreement with those laws. I can say without qualification that if I must ever use my weapon again to preserve my life, I will. I refuse to orphan my children while I let my murderer live.

My having a handgun has repulsed two potential attacks that I know of thus far, in seven years. I do not know what the plans of the young men involved were, but as soon as I threw back my labcoat and put a hand on my weapon, they backed up and disappeared. Had I not had a weapon, I have little doubt that I would have been robbed at knifepoint at the least, and likely cut up since I do not carry enough money. I may have ended up dead. As it was they went looking for an easier target.

I would not worry if the government took away my guns as long as I could know that the criminals had no guns as well. Since you cannot legislate criminals to not break the law, I have to assume criminals would still have guns.

I too, sometimes wonder why people feel they must have fully automatic weapons. I will not try to remove their rights to have them though. Regarding fully automatic weapons, I think the laws are very good as they stand. In my post military mind, fully automatic weapons are useful only for repulsing a wave of many men from attacking. For a home invasion, a lowly 12 guage shotgun with a light mounted is the best defense. A Marine guard detail generally carries an M16 and a 12 guage. Kinda says something, doesn't it? I do object to banning certain firearms because of the way they look, which is what is happening now. That is silliness that is happewning because the people making the laws know next to nothing about what they are trying to legislate. You will note that the Crips and Bloods do attack with fully automatic weapons, the law keeping them from you and me does not keep them from the gangs.

Many anti-gunners paint pro-gunners as redneck lunatics with a firey temper. Demonizing the "enemy" is the best way to rally support. Fact is, gun ownership is usually a well thought out part of one's life, and tends to make the person LESS likely to react violently in a confrontation. And think about it. If one of your neighbors owns guns, and the other does not, when your home is invaded, and if you live to run away, which way will you run? Perhaps the gunowner is not the enemy afterall.

FWIW, my wife is also a Home Health Nurse, and she also carries a weapon. We have quite a few guns, and shoot for recreation. She enjoys old military weapons. We are teaching our seven year old girl to shoot. Our 19 year old son shoots, and plans to go into med school. He is far from a redneck. Our 23 year old daughter finally saw the light living in Baton Rouge over the past three years. Remember the Serial Killer there? It's a shame that she had not trained with a pistol enough to adequately defend herself. Just having a gun is not defense. training with one is. She had a steep learning curve before she finally felt secure.

At any rate, James, welcome to this forum, and thanks for an intelligent post. Expect to occasionally get a couple of flames, as it is the nature of the beast. It is good for the readers here to get the other viewpoint, just as it is good for you to recieve theirs. When I get home tonight, I am going to read this WHOLE thread! it is interesting. Do post again James, and keep coming back.

[Cliff]

WOW!, I posted a welcome to James at 4:36 AM after his post at 4:02 AM,and I expected a slew of reply's,but the reply count has blown me away. The depth and quality of the responses to James initial query's is something to behold also. Just another in a long list of reasons as to why this forum is as great as it is. I'm very proud to be a member of The Highroad.:D

[Carlos Cabeza]

Hi James , and welcome to The High Road !
Some very thought provoking messages in this thread. I have been extremely impressed with the varying degrees of opinion, yet the level of unity amongst us as gun owners. There is not much I can add to this excellent thread that another member hasn't so eloquently stated. In a different approach, The most primary and basic human instinct is self preservation and the protection of offspring and elders. This is not a priviledge that is granted, it is a BASIC HUMAN RIGHT to life. I hope you find true enlightenment and the answers to your quest for knowledge.

Sincerely,
Carl

[Byron Quick]

James,

If I did not carry a firearm on a daily basis, I would have been killed or brain damaged for the past couple of decades.
I think that is a good reason to own and carry. I didn't have to kill or even wound. Once my assailant realized he was about to be shot...he decided to cease his attack, so I halted my defense. Having a firearm did not make me into a more efficient killer for I killed no one. Rather it made my assailant decide that I was not prey.

I hunt. But not because it's cheaper. It's not by the time you add up all the various costs. Does taste better though.

I own a selective fire Uzi. Why? Why not? The real reason is this: In May of 1986 a law was passed banning the future manufacture of machineguns for sale to peons in the US. I decided that I would have semi automatic Uzi converted. So I got fingerprinted, sent in the applications, and was checked out by the government. They approved it.

150,000 Americans made the same choice as I did in 1986. Net effect of the law was to double the number of registered machine guns owned by the public. At the prior rate of registration, that number would not have been reached until about 2086. Very smart move by the anti gun folks, wasn't it?

i was expecting to only find a bunch of rednecks, ex-military/ military, and guys like you see in the movie tremors.

You should go to some gun stores, gun shows, or gun websites and check out the prices. You're not going to find many low income folks with impressive collections. Also, check out the demographics of the NRA's membership. The membership of the NRA has the HIGHEST level of education of any non-professional group in the country.

[Drjones]

Xavier; first, I must complement you on your excellent post. I am very impressed by how much you train and shoot. That is wonderful.

Now I have some comments.

I too, sometimes wonder why people feel they must have fully automatic weapons.
I wonder why people feel they must have a refrigerator absolutely filled to the brim with food. A much smaller box of about one cubic foot and preferably less, will hold all the food an individual needs.

I wonder why people feel they must have more than one pair of shoes. One pair will do. Any more is just absurd. There are people walking around America without food, let alone shoes.

I wonder why people feel they must have such large homes. People should live in one-room homes like they used to. One room is more than enough space, even for a large family. Besides, it will strengthen family bonds if everyone lives so close together.

Do you see where I am going with this?


I will not try to remove their rights to have them though. Regarding fully automatic weapons, I think the laws are very good as they stand. In my post military mind, fully automatic weapons are useful only for repulsing a wave of many men from attacking. For a home invasion, a lowly 12 guage shotgun with a light mounted is the best defense. First, thank you so very much for your service, sir.

Many ex-military people do not think "civilians" should be allowed to own military-type hardware of any sort "because they've seen what it can do." This is, to me, a completely irrational emotional bias.

The lowly .22 used to be the favored weapon of the mob for whacking people. Does that mean that civilians should not be allowed to own them too?

Xavier, here are two situations in which a fully automatic weapon very well could mean the difference between life and death for a law-abiding citizen: riots and natural disasters. During the 1992 LA Riots, the Korean shops whose owners stood on the rooftops with AK-47s were not burned to the ground. Unarmed shops were. I wonder why?

During natural disasters, often civil unrest ensues. It pretty much goes without saying that you are largely on your own, as the police and other public servants are busy doing many other things. Looters and mobs of thugs looking to take advantage of the situation are not uncommon.

A Marine guard detail generally carries an M16 and a 12 guage. Kinda says something, doesn't it? You will note that the Crips and Bloods do attack with fully automatic weapons, the law keeping them from you and me does not keep them from the gangs. Yes, it says that the Marines understand the value of being well-armed. Every American citizen shares that right, and many understand that same value that the Marines do. To deprive law-abiding Americans of that right is perverse at best.

Xavier, you acknowledge that some criminals obtain and use fully-automatic weapons. You also fully understand that no law will ever stop a criminal from doing what he wants, including obtaining whatever weapon catches his fancy.

Please explain to me exactly why I should not be allowed to fight back with the same or better firepower than what criminals have.

Please explain to me exactly why my actions (me being a law-abiding citizen) should be dictated by criminals.

I submit that while I do not have current and exact numbers handy, the number of fully-automatic weapons used in crimes is ridiculously low.

The number of legally owned fully automatic weapons used in crime is absolutely zero. That is correct, a law-abiding citizen has NEVER used their legally owned fully automatic firearm in the commission of a crime.

Xavier, if you wish to limit anyone from owning fully automatic weapons, it really should be the government, and I am dead serious. There have been three incidents since 1934 in which police officers have used their personal legally owned automatic weapons in the commission of crimes.

Based on sheer numbers alone, the govt. already has three strikes against it. Three strikes and they're out, as far as I'm concerned.

Lastly, I would like to leave you all with this thought that you must ponder. It is a positively crucial thought and distinction to keep in mind; the government exists to serve the people and the Constitution is a limit on the government's powers, NOT the people's.

Think about that for a good long while.


Drjones

[ElToro]

I really think this was/is a troll looking to get a rise, but i'll thro in my .02c..

you are aware that the Supreme Court has held on various occasions that your local police are NOT legally obligated to defend you, right ? One famous case was started in my home town of San Jose in the 70's a ex-lover of some woman called her up and said he was coming over to kill her. she called the cops. the dispatcher heard her being slaughtered over the phone. courts held police not repsonsible becuase that was the 5th time that week she had called and they took their sweet time getting there on that 5th time.. cops not liable.. many other cases where cops not held liable for not defending somebody. So i think its my responsibility to myself and my companions to defend myself.

dittos to what everybody else said

[Miss Demeanors]

Welcome James,

There isn't much more I can add that hasn't already been said but I will stress to keep an open mind. I was anti a few years back, I kept an open mind and today I am proud to say that I am a gun owner who can protect myself and my family. :) I would strongly suggest allowing someone to take you the range. Sometimes it's easier to understand certain aspects of gun ownership when you have tried it yourself.

Best of luck to you!

[mephisto]

What would happen if a pro-gun went to an anti-gun site and asked the question of why not have a gun? I really think that the members who have replied to this thread have shown a great deal of respect to the thread starter. Bravo THR members.

[ReadyontheRight]

they were originally designed for killing things

They still are. That's the point. Many of us make a sport out of a tool that can feed or protect a family, a village or a society.

Are golf, bowling or basketball somehow "better" or more "moral" than shooting just because the basic skill involved has no inherent value?

[ReadyontheRight]

but is everyone out there really so paranoid that the government is going to come along one day, become a corrupt dictatorship

Possibly. It doesn't have to be the federal government. It happened in the USA in 1946.

http://www.jpfo.org/athens.htm

[Bobarino]

reasons i own guns:

protection of self and loved ones.

sport/hobby

i'm fascinated by many things mechanical and technical. guns are both.

(this one sounds corny) to honor those who wrote the 2nd ammendment. they wrote it for a reason. they DID have to fight a tyranical government to gain their freedom. they were able to to achieve victory thanks in part to the fact that they were armed. today, the people who oppose guns have never had to fight for anything as precious as their freedom or their most basic of rights, thier right to live/exist/survive. those that cannot see the value of the second amendment and the reasons behind it are spoiled by, and take for granted, the freedoms granted them by peope who suffered to give them those rights. i think the people that aim to take away or limit ANY of the rights granted by the constitution or the bill of rights terribly dishonor the people who founded this land where they live so freely.

i've nearly had my life taken away from me by cancer. it made me realize that i don't want to die. i like my life. i've fought battles to keep it in tact. (medical battles that is) and i will fight to the bitter end anyone or anything that tries to take my life away from me. a firearm is an excellent tool for just that purpose in the everyday world.

to add to the demographics file:

WASP male, 26 years old, small business owner.
other hobbies:

flying (private pilot)
R/C airplanes
R/C helicopters
golf
snowboarding
old car restoration
German sports cars
various sports

Bobby

[LightPlanePilot]

Hi James

Welcome to THR

A few comments for you - take them for what they're worth.

A fear of a gun is more likely a fear of the unknown - a loud noise, a bigh flash and a tremendous recoil. Thanks to Hollywood, most all of them are wrong.

Take Dirty Harry for example. He shoots a bad guy who is lifted off his feat and blown through a glass fish tank. Harry is still standing holding this beast of a gun with one hand.

Remember a guy way back when named Newton? Well, for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. So why is Harry still standing perfectly still after firing one handed? Well, getting hit and maybe moving back a foot and then slumping to the ground doesn't make for good film.

Thats the first mistake. But thats the image everyone is left with - the myth of power perpetrated by Hollywood.

What about loud noises and the big flash? Well, thats easily solved with $12 ear muffs or 50 cent foam inserts. The flash, no big deal unless its coming towards you. ;)

I would echo the comments of everyone else. If you get a chance to go to a range, you'll find its not so scary. Remove the mystery and it becomes 'normal'.

I own guns. I have as many as I need for right now (and thats more than four) but not as many as I want. As a law abiding citizen, I should be able to exercise my rights. I will continue to do so.

[XavierBreath]

Dr Jones,

Not to be argumentative, but I must submit that if there were Korean shop owners on the rooftops with AK-47's they were likely not fully automatic. If they were, there are some shop owners in jail. (How would ANYONE know they were AK47's and not SAR1's otherwise?)

FWIW, I own a SAR1 and a CETME. I bump fire the SAR. I am not against anyone owning a fully automatic weapon as long as they qualify to do so. I am glad that my neighbor cannot walk over to the local hardware store and buy one of the shelf. That does not make me anti-gun, or your enemy.

The main purpose of a gun for a civilian is to aid in removing oneself from danger. The main purpose of a fully automatic weapon is to defend a position against high numbers of people in an organized assault, or to advance on an enemy by using supressive fire. In your example of the Korean shop owners, had they killed anyone, they would likely be charged with murder. You cannot defend property with a weapon and escape with impunity. You can defend your life. If they needed to defend anything from a rooftop, a scoped semi-automatic rifle with a couple of cases of ammo would have been a better choice in my opinion. Charles Whitman did quite well with one.

I have never felt the need for a fully automatic weapon outside of the military, and I HAVE had to defend my home against looters during a natural disaster. I do not feel obligated to explain to you why you should not be allowed to have weapons that are illegal for you to own. If you want them, go though the legal process and get what you want, or obtain them illegally and try your luck.

No need to retort........

[ReadyontheRight]

the bill of rights says what it says...but is everyone out there really so paranoid that the government is going to come along one day, become a corrupt dictatorship, and kill everyone who opposes it?

"We can't be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary americans." - Bill Clinton (USA Today, 3/11/93 PG. 2-A)

Just because we're paranoid, it doesn't mean that they are not out to get us.:D

It wasn't the Nazis who took the guns away from ordinary Germans, it was the Wiemar Republic. The Nazis just took advantage of the situation.

[iamkris]

ElToro said:

I really think this was/is a troll looking to get a rise, but i'll thro in my .02c..


If it was a troll, isn't it fabulous that this sane discussion, vs. a rise, resulted. This could be the best discussion I've seen.

[T.Stahl]

Hello James,

welcome to THR, one of the best places you can find on the 'net.

objectively speaking, they are a means to get a bullet from point a to point b, but they were originally designed for killing things. ... however, the skill is nothing less than being a more efficient killer.

Yes, that is exactly what they are designed for, to project a bullet through an area or volume in front of you, with more or less accuracy, effective range, reliability, costs,...
Shooting is a skill and just like many other skills it can be abused, if the person chooses to do so.
I know people (who are anti-gun) who claim that being used to guns and being able to (theoretically) use them effectively will lower the threshold to actually use and abuse them and that skill.
I think the opposite is true. The more you know about guns and their abilities, the more restrained you will be to use them.
Tamara mentioned that one time she really needed a gun (and fortunately had one at hand). Maybe you could ask her whether experience or inexperience would cause someone to draw and shoot earlier (before it is necessary and justified).


also, the bill of rights says what it says...but is everyone out there really so paranoid that the government is going to come along one day, become a corrupt dictatorship, and kill everyone who opposes it?

Well, if you compare what happened during the 18th-20th century in northern America and Europe (or the rest of the world), you'll find that in northern America there has been not one dictatorship compared to...uuh...more than I can count.
As my chemistry teacher said: "Success proves you're right!"

besides, what would happen to an airliner at 35000 feet if a bullet went through the side of the passenger compartment?

As an aeronautical engineer I say: between nothing at all and nothing to worry about.
Unless you hit a hydraulic line or similar. That could be fatal.

[DontShootMe]

But I have this feeling that we are not going to be hearing from James again...

[jacketch]

In my 56 years I have had the misfortune of being assualted twice. The first time I was able to fight the assailants off with a knife and was not seriously injured. The second time I was assaulted I had pepper spray which really didn't help much; I was able to escape without serious injury because a car approached and the bad guys ran.
The third time I was approached by several miscreants (who were shouting threats) I had a pistol in my jacket pocket. I opted to use the Nike defense and I ran. No harm, no foul.

A gun is designed for killing but a person has to make the decision to do so, even in self defense. My guns are for living!

[Drjones]

I want to modify what I said earlier about killing.

James; sure guns can kill. That is why they are so darn effective. They are the best tool for their intended job. Why do you think the police and military have them?

You are looking at it from the wrong angle. You, like many others, assume that once someone has a gun, they randomly go about shooting small children at schools, small cute furry animals, neighbors, etc.

It is a simple fact that gun owners are on the whole better educated, more law-abiding, and have higher income levels than non-gun owners.

We gun owners realize fully that human beings understand words, feelings, compassion, etc. Predators understand strength. http://www.a-human-right.com/RKBA/s_strength.jpg

James, what I'm getting at is that guns kill or threaten to kill not for killings' sake, but so that I may live.

If you value the life and wellbeing of a predator who would kill you for $20 then rape your wife more than the lives of yourself and your loved ones, frankly buddy, that's your problem.

Are you going to respond here?

[sm]

I was just wondering...;) Even if James did not respond, and I hope he is just thinking about all the replies, and does. Or even if this was just a thread to see how THR member's would respond, two thoughts:

I

I believe once again we have shown responsible gun owners do not fit the stereotypical profile as some are led to believe. We accepted, welcomed, and James was given respect. Many answers given and facts, real life experiences expressed..

II

Wondering part: what would happen if this thread was posted on some anti-gun/gun control sites? Courtesy reciprocated?

[Orthonym]

Welcome! I was one of the two people online when you signed on, but hung back on responding. (See "What do you do for RKBA?" in my profile. (Thanks, nightcrawler!)). Other people here have provided every principled and utilitarian argument known to man for arming one's self. I have a personal reason. If you have at least half a brain and any empathy/sympathy whatsoever, owning a deadly weapon will improve your manners! To people who have met me recently and think I'm rude, I can only say,"You should have seen me BEFORE!" :eek:

[280PLUS]

"But I have this feeling that we are not going to be hearing from James again..."

maybe, but what if he tunes back in a 4 am again tomorrow morning, won't he be surprised...

i took the liberty of emailing him, let's see what happens...

:D

[gburner]

Welcome, James...

As you can read from our varied responses, we are neither knee jerk rednecks, power hungry elitists or paranoid/delusional nut cases.

I take weapons ownership/use very seriously because of what I believe is the moral obligation placed upon me by the Creator; to sustain and protect the gift of life I have been given as well as the lives of my family and assorted loved ones. To squander or compromise this most basic of rights is to render life forfeit; to have it held hostage to the whims of others.

The right to keep and bear arms makes possible, tangible and irrevocable that which was previously only read, spoken or dreamed of and is the foundation on which all other rights depend. It makes of us citizens, free people, no ones subjects.

[Moparmike]

Wow. There have been a lot of excellent replys here, all of which reinforce why I believe in the 2nd. It also convinces me that owning a gun isnt a right or privledge, its required.

I have two good quotes that I cant remember the source of for this topic:

If you outlaw guns, only the outlaws will have them.


"Sir, did you shoot to kill?"
"Hell no! I shot to live!"

May you learn as much as I hope to from this forum.

[hops]

James,

If you disapprove of guns, for yourself, that is fine. What I object to is that anti's also feel that they need to impose their view regarding guns upon me, by trying to get laws past that deny me the right own and use guns because I approve of guns in the hands of ordinary people.

I perfer to take responsibility for my self- defence and not outsource it to gov.org. I have a greater interest in my well being than gov.org or some other benevolent organziation.

As far as airplanes and gun shots a 35K feet. There might be a quick decompression, say 3 seconds, as the oxygen masks fall down. The structural integrity of the plane will be just fine. The forces that nature places upon the plane are far greater than man even with a gun can place upon a plane.

As far as 9/11 had more people known that they could care 3 or 4 inch blade knives on aircraft legally and had more people taken an active role in their well being by not outsourcing their self-defence to gov.org, a number of passangers armed with knives would have won the day over a few terrorists wiith razor blades.

Think about this. Gov.org denies us the chance to save ourselves on a plane, by taking all our weapons (other than our bodies) and their solution is to send up and F-16 to shoot down a plane full of people and a couple of terrorists. Why - because passengers armed with guns might hit and kill a few passangers in their effort to kill the terrorists. So Gov.org can kill 300 people but we, the people, who really are the gov in theory at least, can't kill 3 or 4 people to save that other 206 people on the plane.

So what is it what you said about some of us gun owners being paranoid about a tryancial goverment? Just based upon the above gov policy, I think we have arrived.

[faustulus]

Welcome aboard.
I understand your position, but as you may surmise I cannot agree with it.
You and I come from different philosophies that shape our world view. Mine I imagine is pretty radicial to you just as I assume yours would be to me.
I start with the principle that everyone is good, until I have reason to believe otherwise. However, I also believe a man is responsible for his actions. I believe that if someone committs an act I consider evil, he must be held responsible for that action.
Many times today in America we blame evil actions on conditions. "What made him do it?" is a question often asked. I am of the belief that such questions are unanswerable. I cannot know the man's mind and any theories I can come up with usually say more about me than the person I am trying to analyze.
So if I cannot descern thoughts I must judge actions as best I can. Therefore the man is ultimatly responsible for his actions.
All this has a point. To me very few things in life should be restricted. Not drugs, not alchol not guns, not tobacco. I don't like tobacco personally. I believe it causes health problems. However, I do not have the right to tell someone they cannot cause themselves harm. I do not want anyone in the position of dictating their beliefs to me.
If I am a good man then I will arrive at my own beliefs, which may differ from yours, but as long as I do not take any actions which would could be proven to be bad -- actions that directly (not indirectly) affect anothers rights (to life, to liberty, to happiness et cetera) -- then I should be left alone to do as I wish.
This means I do not believe in preventative actions, especially ones that cause others harm.
It shouldn't matter why I want a gun, so long as I don't cause any harm with it then I should have one. It isn't society's place to dictate wants.
As for the reason to the second amendment, I think it is exactly as you mentioned.
The belief is it cannot happen here, but the germans believed that before WWII, given a dire enough situtation and people are likely to agree to things that normally they would question. It is possible, and it could happen. History teaches us that.
Again welcome, hope enjoy it here.

[arinvolvo]

Carrying a gun does not mean that you are paranoid.

I also carry a pen every day...and it is not because I am "paranoid" that i may need to sign something.

All of the things that go into my pockets, and onto my belt in the morning, are things that would be better to have and not need, than to need....and not have.

And in the case of a gun...it may be the difference between my life, my fiance's life, or another innocent's life. To protect these things, I will use the items in my pockets, on my belt....and between my ears.

I pray to God that I never EVER need to use a weapon of any sort to defend myself or my loved ones...But in the same breath...I pray that God will give me a steady hand and a swift trigger finger if I ever need to.



But I digress....however, a different sort of digression...I am going to elevate the rawness of this post.

You are going to tell me what situation you prefer.

A. Two men break through your downstairs window, late at night. You hear the breaking glass...spring out of bed, your wife still asleep...open the bedside drawer grab the flashlight....about the time you arrive at your bedroom door, it flies open...the two men burst in, hit you in the face, and throw you into the corner....You wife wakes up, she is sceaming and crying...struggling for the phone...It is torn away from her at the same time the second man climbs on top of her and wrestles her arms back against the bed.

You are in the corner, bleeding from your face....while the first man keeps you at bay with a kitchen knife...You watch your wife, in horror, and hope to God that these two men dont realize your 6 year old daughter is asleep in her room down the hall. You look down at the flashlight in your hands, and begin to cry.

B. Same story as above...except you grabbed a flashlight AND a 357 revolver from the lock box in the bedside drawer. When the two men bust through the door, brandishing knives, you blow their heads off. Your wife DOESNT get raped, you DONT get beaten almost to death, and your 6 year old DOESNT get murdered with a knife in her sleep.



I am sorry that was graphic....It makes a point. Put yourself in that situation, and then again tell me that guns have no use, and no good can come of their existence.

You are right, no one NEEDS a gun...except those who do. Do you need a gun? no way...YOU aren't going to be murdered today...are you? You dont wear a seatbelt? of course you dont!!!...YOU arent going to get into a car wreck today!!...get the point?

Oh, and welcome to the forums....It is always good to hear a different viewpoint.

[4 eyed six shooter]

Hello James, I was a police officer for 15 years. In that time I have seen many cases of people who are alive today because they used a firearm to stop a crime against them or their family. When I say used, I mean in most cases only had to pull their firearm, not shoot it to send the criminal fleeing. Guns in the hands of honest people are not a threat to law abiding citizens like you and me. What of the criminals you say. Well they will be able to get or make a firearm no mater what law is passed. Owning a firearm is a personel choice. I have run into many people in my time on the force who felt as you do about guns. More often then not a victime of a violent crime. You would be surprised how many of them bought a firearm (and took lessons on how to use it) after their assult, rape etc. as they vowed to never be a victim again. James, it is a choice, but can you imagine how you would feel if a rapest broke into your home, tied you up and raped you wife as you watched. At that point I'll bet you would give your right arm to have had a firearm in your left hand. Guns do stop crime hundreds of times a day in the hands of citizens like you and me. I can tell you that twice in off duty situations that I pulled my firearm to save my life. One was an attempted robbery of myself in which the bad guy had a large piece of pipe and stated that he was going to bash my head in, the second was a person I interupted taking the tires off of my neighbors truck. This huge biker came at me with a 10" knife. The first ran away as fast as his feet would carry him. The second got down on the ground as I instructed him to, neither were shot.
As to the police protecting you, 90% of the time the crime has already been committed and we take the report and then go look for the bad guy. Sad but true.
It used to be that a man took care of himself and family. Today the media is telling us that the government, police etc. will take care of us. I belive that you have bought into this theory. The end result is that a generation of victims has been made. A responsable gun owner will call the police, try to get away and avoid shooting someone if possible. But he or she has the ability to stop an attact if the police do not get there in time or are not able to be called.
Instead of trying to get laws against honest people owning guns, why not lobby for people who missuse guns to get put away for a long time, get them off the streets where they wuill not hurt anyone. Most violent crimes are committed by a small percentage of the population. If they are in jail where they belong, they won't hurt you or me.
As to semi auto weapons, Why not. They are fun to shoot. May I suggest that you go to a firing range with an experienced shooter and try firing verious weapons. You will not only find that it is fun, but is not as easy as it looks.
I have a great deal of respect for you coming onto this forum and asking for our opinions. As you have found out by now we a a good bunch of people. We own guns for many differant reasons. To many of us it is a life long hobby just as golf may be to you. You have the right to choose if you want to own a firearm or not, but please respect my right to own one.
Best of luck to you, John K

[James Castilla]

All I can say is Wow...
-JohnBT: I'll send you a keyboard with a working shift key.-

Thanks, but this ones fine. :p My goodness, where to start...

"I really think this was/is a troll looking to get a rise..." -El Toro
First, my philosophy when debating a topic is to not change a persons beliefs--only to understand them.

I never expected to get this magnitude of responses to what I had posted. Especially Trishas eloquent declaration:
Liberty is an individual reality, not a bandied concept droned past foggy minds and uncaring, easily distracted hearts during a civics class that involves old guys that've been dead a long time. It is not bestowed benevolently by a totalitarian government, authorized by a theocratic dogma - it is what makes us completely unique in the entire history of man - and it has incredible, broad, persistent responsibilities.

Followed by GeekWithA.45s undeniable logic: I (we) exist. Inherent in that existence is the right to continue that existence, and that right exists everywhere we are. There is nowhere on this earth or off it where the right to defend yourself does not exist. Implicit in this right of self defense is the right to take positive action to actually effect that defense.

And then Paxian logic: So the military will shoot down an airplane taken over by terrorists. But the people on the airplane can't have guns to fight back against terrorists, because the airplane might crash if they do.

Then mephistos story...P12s final question was/ is pretty unnerving... AngerManagements post, though edited before I could read it all sounded very characteristic of someone living in CT :evil:... hsos statistics, later supplemented by bogie... re1973s faux rant on all things inanimate :)... Sam Adams quoting Abraham Lincoln (think of the irony with the names there, folks)... George Hill for putting Metal and Wood on the forum and for quoting Tolkien... ReadyontheRights humor: Just because we're paranoid, it doesn't mean that they are not out to get us...

As an anti, I didnt mean to come across as someone who wants to take away whats rightfully yours to have. For example, I dont like to listen to the radio in my truck (too many commercials and the songs are always the same). Instead I listen to CDs--and not feel one way or the other about those who would rather tune in to their favorite FM station.

Alas, my beliefs were wrong concerning the plane and the laws of physics. I apologise on account of faulty evidence.
My thoughts with the M16/ AR15/ Tommygun were that they were deisgned to kill a lot of things at a really close range really quickly and that the average person would have no need for such a thing.

"Our Forefathers decided to make America different from any country, anywhere, at any time in the entire history of the entire world. This country, this new nation of immigrants, would be based upon the concept that people could rule themselves better than any single person or small group of persons could rule them." -Metal and Wood

What I glean from this is that we all know what is best for ourselves. Hopefully, we all know what would/ will/ does bring us contentment in life.

"I took the time to talk with some of them and ask them questions about guns...I made a lot of new friends that were gun owners. They answered my questions and helped me to understand things that I didn't see before." -Borrowed from Miss Demeanors site

My take on all of this was just that I dont have a gun and couldnt think of a reason why Id ever really need or want one. My younger brother has recently become interested in them, and it just struck me as odd. At first I thought his new found interest was akin to something like pyromania, and Ive seen some pretty bad burns from kids being stupid about things theyve seen on TV. Also, he has had a propensity toward bending the rules, so I was sure that something bad was going to happen. He has a rifle that looks almost like an AK47, a shotgun, and a hunting rifle. As I stated earlier, the hunting rifle makes sense but it seems as though he got the AK47 just because he saw it in a movie or something. Same with the shotgun too.

"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."
I did not want to come across as someone who wants to take away your rights. As stated above, it is not a privelige. It is a right--open to those who choose to take advantage of it and those who choose not to. I am one who has chosen not to get one (or sixty-something of them like Tamara has). I just wanted to hear why you all had one (or 100).

PS arinvolvo: Id go with B. But how would I clean the blood off the wall :D?

Final sentiment: S_O_Laban may've been right--"After rereading your post I'm not so sure you are the "anti" that you think you are." Now I think so too. How about the title of curious middler instead of rights-abolishing anti?

PPS This is probably the most insightful, true, informative stuff Ive read in a while. Thanks for welcoming me...Ill be around. ;)

[Stickjockey]

James-

There's really nothing I could say that hasn't already been said. But, I will say this; if you are in the Portland, OR area, PM me. I'd be glad to set up a day to introduce you to the world of firearms. :D

[Moparmike]

Originally posted by 4 eyed six shooter
the second was a person I interupted taking the tires off of my neighbors truck. This huge biker came at me with a 10" knife. The first ran away as fast as his feet would carry him. The second got down on the ground as I instructed him to, neither were shot.


I realize you are a police officer, but I have heard stories about how firearms cant be used for protecting property, only life. Is this different where you live, or is there some rule I need to be aware of? Like a citizen's arrest or something?

Thanks,

PS: (edit after seeing James's post while I was posting) Glad to have you around. I am sure that the members of this board will go to sleep better having (forgive the expression:)) "converted" you. I personally am very happy that the group came together in a very tactful and informative manner and educated the less knowledgeable on such a delicate topic.

May you contribute as well as others here, and learn just as much as the others have taught.

[James Castilla]

Needless to say, I wasnt expecting this thread to be floated...:uhoh: but ah well:)

[arinvolvo]

A floated thread is the highest honor that you can have. The float designates this thread as something that is of utmost importance, interest, and insight.


And to elaborate on StickJockey's offer...I am almost positive, that any THR member would be more than happy to recieve a private message from you, inquiring about some range time.

I know that I personally would provide the firearms, the ammunition, the instruction and the friendship if you were to have a desire to investigate any questions you may have about guns, gun ownership and safety.

Sometimes all it takes is putting a few bullets downrange into a target, or making some soda cans dance to get one hooked for life. However, even then, there are always those who will not see the fun, or recreation in it. HOWEVER, informing yourself in all decisions is always key. Learn about, and shoot some guns, then re-evaluate any stance you may hold. If your stance stays the same, at least you can rest easy knowing that your decision was educated.

And again, if you are ever in the Las Vegas area, give me a buzz....I am sure you will have fun, or at least learn a little something.
:D :D :D

[arinvolvo]

Gburner...if I may quote you:

"To squander or compromise this most basic of rights is to render life forfeit; to have it held hostage to the whims of others."

I got chills, and am still getting them while posting this, and re-reading your quote....Eloquent, and powerful to say the least.

With your permission, I would love to include it in my peanut gallery of a signature...most likely to replace one of the others.

[ed dixon]

I'm hereby setting the over-under for James buying his first gun at Labor Day.:D

[Giant]

James, welcome to the forum. You have asked our thoughts on firearm ownership, for someone who seems somewhat undecided about guns it is a fair question.

I own guns because I would use them to protect myself and my family from criminals who would do us harm, especially if I had no gun. The police can not respond to a majority of criminal attacks in time to do anything to prevent the crime from happening, so I feel it is the duty of each citizen to defend their family and neighbors. You see, James, I know you don't have a gun, so when the bad guy comes to your home I would use my gun to protect you and your family from harm. After all, you are my neighbor. However, I might not be home at some time in the future, and if you were attacked I would expect you to have a gun. Also, if you saw your neighbor being attacked by armed criminals and you knew there was a possibility your neighbor was being killed, wouldn't you want to become involved and prevent that from happening? Would it be fair to simply not get involved, perhaps run away and hide, perhaps say it is the responsibility of someone else? I'm your neighbor James, I protected you and your family when the criminals came to your home, now I need your help -- What will you do James?

Giant

[CasualShooter]

Moparmike quoteing 4 eyed six shooter-
I realize you are a police officer, but I have heard stories about how firearms cant be used for protecting property, only life. Is this different where you live, or is there some rule I need to be aware of? Like a citizen's arrest or something?

Seems to me that the moment that huge biker started comming at him with a 10 inch knife, the situation changed. 4 eyed six shooter was then no longer investigating/protecting property - he was protecting HIS LIFE.:fire:

This brings up a good point, though. The Laws do vary in different states and it's important for anyone who chooses to use a weapon to know what the law is whereever he/she may be.

[only1asterisk]

Mr. Castilla,

The vast magority of Anti's and Semi Anti's are lacking any point of reference for dealing with firearms. The best solution is experience.

This is an open invitation to accompany me to the range, my treat.
Your profile does't mention a location, but if you are ever within a 4 hour radius of Pittsburg, PA and have a day to kill, email me.


Dave

[WingZero]

I beg to differ on your stance of what one can, or can not hunt with. You can hunt with an SKS or AR-15 (civilian version of the M-16), why not? The only difference is that they are semi-auto, and most hunting rifles are bolt action.
As far as your remarks about the flight on 9-11; if the pilots had a gun in the cockpit, there would have been a greater chance that the terrorists would not have succeeded and those planes would have never crashed. Owning and carrying a gun, may not mean that you are a "Steven Segal, always win, hero", but it gives you a better chance to defend your live, and the lives of your loved ones. In a lot of cases, it is better to have the option and not need it, than need it and not have it.
And it is not that "we" are all paranoid of the government, it is that as long as the law abiding citizens are armed, there is less likely a chance that the government will become that dictatorship, or that someone would try to invade the U.S.

[Cliff]

James,
I'd like to add my invite to the range along with the others that have posted. I'm in the Washington D.C. area. You may not want to shoot ,just watch,thats fine,and its understood that some time may pass before you take us up on a visit to the range,regardless whenever your ready,we'll be here for you. At your convienience,just let us know what part of the country your in and a Highroader will respond.

[Delmar]

James, you sure know how to enter a forum:D
Another invite to the gun range should you ever be in the Dallas/Ft. Worth area. Sorry, no tommyguns or M-16's here, but I have a lot of fun here all the same. I target shoot, hunt and reload in the never ending quest to put 3 bullets in the same hole at long range. Kind of like golf-I want to go on a regulation course and shoot 18 holes in one-the problem being its usually 18 strokes on the first 4 holes!

[owen]

Shall we send James over to DU, or the MMM site, to ask the complementary question? You know "I'm a gun nut, and I want to know why guns are bad?"

We have nothing to lose in a fair exchange of knowledge here.

Owen

PS, I am proud of y'all

PPS, If you are in the Columbia, SC area, you are hereby invited to go shooting. PM me if interested

[XavierBreath]

James,
Glad to see you back.

Perhaps the best tactic to guide your brother is to become a gun owner yourself and take a couple of NRA courses together. That way you can become informed in a detailed way and he can get the guidance he deserves as a new shooter.

Here's an invite to the range if you are in the North Louisiana area. The ammo is on me.

[280PLUS]

"Perhaps the best tactic to guide your brother is to become a gun owner yourself and take a couple of NRA courses together."

good idea, shooting can also be a good family sport, especially if you have kids.

as they get older its hard to maintain contact with them. they always seem to have "other plans" i entice mine with a couple of "cool" guns and it almost never fails...

glad to see you came back!

:D

("Xavierbreath" heh heh, duh, now i get it... heh,,,good one :) )

[Sheslinger]

One more analogy - homeowners' insurance: I hope I never use it but it's there just in case. No one wants their home burned to the ground to collect on insurance, just like no one wants to kill a man in cold blood to see what it feels like (at least I would hope none of us here).

One more thing: moderators, could we keep this as a float for any new member lurking - lots of good points here.

Thanks
Sheslinger

[Aahzz]

Welcome, James.

If you're anywhere in CT, and interested, the first class is on me....

[St. Gunner]

James,

San Antonio Texas area, send me a message, a range day and a meal on me. Several of my fellow classmates have already discovered why we love to shoot so much, its fun.:D

[Oleg Volk]

Speaking of diverse gun owners, how's this (http://home.olemiss.edu/~ckelly/) for an example of a person who's pretty far removed from the Bubba stereotype. To that, I can also add that some of the Bubbas are as far removed from the stereotype as well -- I am friends with a few who are erudite and intelligent, and possessed of tolerance and goodwill towards all...and of a few requisite firearms, too.

[Russ]

James,

You memntioned you liked Lincoln's quote that no foreign army could take a drink from the Ohio. It is good. No days, that would be the fastest way to kill a foreign army. I work right next to the Great Ohio and I would venture to say the sewers in LA are cleaner. I don't dare spit in the river lest some of the water come back at and hit me!

I think a number of people were beginning to wonder if you were a troll. After 4 pages of reply and no response from you tends to make us wonder. Anyway, glad you came back and proved some of us wrong.

This is a good place to learn about guns and freedom of expression. Gun lovers have many things in common but I am amazed every day by the diversity of opinion on certain matters.

Go to a range, have someone teach you proper safety and have fun. My best memories are going shooting with my father. He taught me gun safety and responsibility. I treasure that time I spent with him. Years later, he taught me how to drive a car. He said a car is like driving a 4,000 pound rifle down the road so you need to be super careful.

When anti gun advocates talk about gun deaths they fail to mention that 10 times that many people die every year in car wrecks. Perhaps HCI should be Hate Cars Inc.

[cslinger]

James,

Welcome back. I personally would have probably been scared off when the whole village came out to greet me so Kudos to you.

You made a comment about you getting the feeling that his interest in guns was akin to pyromania and you have seen people burned etc.

Those people were burned because they mis-used a tool. Matches are not bad, fire is not bad. Heck fire can be used as a tool or for sheer entertainment like a bonfire celebration. Non of these things are likely to cause mayhem.

Guns are the same way. When used properly they provide a means of self defense, a means of gathering food, a tool for teaching responsibility and the respect for life, an entertainment device that teaches concentration and hand eye coordination and can even be a cathartic experience. I submit that going shooting after a stressful day will de-stress you and help you face the next day with a smile on your face instead of anger in your heart. I personally call this 12 gauge therapy.

Heck I can go shooting to get rid of a headache because shooting causes my adrenaline to rise a bit and therefore blocks out my headache.

All of the above things are much like that bonfire or matches. They are very unlikely to harm anybody. In the case of self defense it is a simple genetic instinct and I submit that if you or your loved ones were attacked you would fight tooth and nail to stop the attack. Not to kill per say but to stop the attack. That is all we gun owners wish to do in that event, stop the attack. Firearms are just the most efficient way of doing this.

Finally about the AK-47 clone your brother has. Hunting is great, self defense is noble etc. and so on. The chances of ever having to use a gun for defense are thankfully pretty small, even for police officers. Of course so is my house catching on fire but I still keep fire extinquishers. So why would he want an AK47 if you can't hunt with it and self defense with it is pretty unlikely?

Let's face facts it is cool, it is fun it is a blast so to speak. When used in a controlled setting like a range there simply is no other feeling like that of blasting away. The smell, the noise, the flash. I am not talking about target shooting I am talking about the simple experience of shooting. It is fun and cathartic. AKs are cheap to shoot, don't have a lot of recoil and look just plain mean and let's face facts that makes them cool.

We gun owners are kind of like little kids with our toys. We like to share, we like to have the coolest thing and show it off and we like to get together to play. We do this in very safe responsible ways and we have a lot of fun and meet lots of people at the same time.

I find it funny that the world thinks all of us gun owners are teetering on the edge of mass murder. I am thinking of getting a safe installed on the second floor of my house and have posted questions here. Since that post I have had no less then four people two of which I have never met offer to help me move the safe upstairs. Not for money, not for fame just because they want to help. I have seen gun owners mail $100 tools to other members of forums just because they needed it. They didn't know that member but trusted that they would send the tool back and they did. That is really what the gun culture is about. It is about community.

I wish the world in general was more like the gun culture. A community where everybody looks out for one another, offers to help one another and is always willing do what they can to give their fellow man/woman a lift. White, black, green, rich, poor it doesn't matter. That is what community is about and that is my overwheming experience with the gun community. Think about it. Does your local community where you live do this on a daily basis?

Sure there the idiots, the rednecks, the jerks and even the crazy killers waiting to happen. But you know what those people are in every part of society.

Ok rant mode off. If you are even in TN drop us a line and we will take you to dinner and show you what a beautiful word plinking is.

Take care
Chris

[bogie]

Hey, if you are in the St. Louis area, drop me a line. I'll buy the ammo, you can do a little plinking, and then after we clean 'em and put 'em away, we can BBQ and quaff a tasty Shiner or two...

[ReadyontheRight]

James -- Additional kudos to you for entering the debate logically and taking a few good-natured shots from the great folks here.

One of my biggest fears as a gun owner is people who do not have any experience with guns. Upon seeing a gun, many who know nothing about them will pick it up, point it at you or another person and say "bang". Often with their finger on the trigger. This happened to me once in college and I have never since had a gun out when someone I don't know well is around. A situation very similar to this killed the brother of a high school friend.

One afternoon of NRA training and a trip to the shooting range for all 14-year-olds in the USA would save more lives than anything HCI has done or will ever do.

I say all this because your brother has likely developed an interest in guns without a whole lot of guidance, background or experience. I suggest you do a search on "The Four Rules of Gun Safety" or print out this flier for your brother: http://www.tincher.to/flyer.pdf

An additional rule is to always lock the chamber open to ensure that the weapon is unloaded when handing it to another person.

It sounds like your brother is showing off his collection - probably to inexperienced folks like yourself - so you may want to suggest he get a $10 trigger lock for each gun. Master makes a nice combination trigger lock that has no key to steal or lose. Government-mandated trigger locks are a very bad thing (how do they enforce the law? Periodic checks of your gun collection?), but trigger locks themselves are a great way to keep a gun incapable of firing until ready.

Take advantage of the offers from THR members to go shooting. And bring your brother along.

I'll take the UNDER on James purchasing a fine weapon by Labor Day.:D

[cslinger]

Give him some time but my bet is pretty soon we will have James posting questions such as........

Which is better .45 or 9mm
Do all .40 caliber Glocks Kaboom

or that perenial favorite.....
1911s vs. Glocks.:what:

:D

James, if you do a search on any of the above subjects you will find that they are the standard beat a dead horse questions here. They are your basic Superman can beat up Green Lantern types of discussions they we all love to have.

Chris

[Drjones]

I am almost positive, that any THR member would be more than happy to recieve a private message from you, inquiring about some range time.

I know that I personally would provide the firearms, the ammunition, the instruction and the friendship if you were to have a desire to investigate any questions you may have about guns, gun ownership and safety.

Ditto for me 100%!!! I'm in Nor Cal.


-Drjones

[bogie]

Oh yeah, James... Your bro's "AK Lookalike" is likely a decent deer rifle - The 7.62x39mm standard round for 'em is very close ballistically to the 100+ year old .30-30.

Bambi taste good.

[P12]

...P12s final question was/ is pretty unnerving...

James, that question was meant to be disturbing and unnerving. Had you been an average anti-gun member of society, I think that question would have been right on the mark. Since you have now stated that you don’t want to take away the rights of others, then the question was off mark.

Please accept my apology.

Since you were sharing your personal view for yourself, I have another question to pose to you. Again, please don’t take offense to the question. It’s not as disturbing or unnerving. I pose the question to provoke thought, outside of your immediate environment.

As you stated, the first item of effective debate is to understand their position or view. So my position is this:

In my view of a perfect society all law-abiding members are armed as they deem necessary for their own personal protection. This would cause a decrease in the social cost involved with law enforcement. Their jobs would be basically traffic control and to file reports while ordering the collection of the body. This would cause a lot of the criminal elements to choose another path or a cleansing of the gene pool. The choice would be up to them.

I believe that this country was built on the backs of hard work and personal responsibility. Unfortunately we as a country are systematically moving away from this.

Again, please understand, I don’t ask this to instill anger. I only wish to better understand. Since you have chosen to subrogate your personal defense to the local government then I ask:

Why do you choose to contribute to this burden on society?

[Drjones]

James, something you positively MUST read is this: http://www.rkba.org/comment/cowards.html

Mr. Snyder has also written an excellent book by the same name. You should read it if you are interested.

I simply cannot stress enough how much you should read this work.

[MLH]

Don't worry about cleaning the blood off the wall. You'll be so happy it's not your or your loved one's blood that you won't mind. Besides they have people who will do that for you as it(blood) is considered a hazardous substance. Welcome to the board and join in often!:D

[TheOtherOne]

Having read the first post only, how come the word that immediately came to my mind was "Parody"?

[robear]

THESE are the kind of threads that make this board so DARN addictive!!!

cslinger, you summed up many of my feelings as a gun owner (and an American) in your recent post, in a most eloquent way.. (if not quite as eloquent as Trisha did, in that amazing post!! I think I have re-read that one at least 5 times!)

I am honored to be among all of you.. This is truly The High Road..

Thank you Rich Lucibella, for starting something 5 years ago that has grown to what it has today.. Yes, under a new name, new management, but still with the same TRUE heart, a community of GOOD people..

Thank you Oleg, for allowing this to continue..

Peace..

R

[Trisha]

http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?ID=1741

We are who we are, James; people who love and bleed and laugh and cry and have hopes and dreams and love to see children become a triumph of their potential and sleep untroubled at the day's end.

We have, within each of us to some degree, drawn a line in the sand, demarcating an absolute denial to the social predator, to those whose sly hearts would see them become lords and masters over the entire planet - a simple line that resolutely says, "No."

Likely as not, we absolutely terrify the ego-concentric hedonist whose focus lies solely within materialism and instant self-gratification, who rejects any responsibility (sadly, all to often) to community and the Republic - even to family. We speak with so many diverse and unashamed voices with a singular message of personal triumph over the myriad fears demanded we shoulder by the media as 'right,' and ordinary,' completely rejecting their profit-margin oriented mantra.

We go beyond merely standing on our hind legs as individuals, we greet the awakening flow of the iron blood of courage within our veins and walk into the dawning of this new milennium with songs and psalms in our hearts, determined to do the unthinkable, the shunned:

We indeed, will live our lives as "the People."

Why does this matter so much to me, a lesbian, a TS woman, a pagan, permanently disabled?

Because if I can do it, anyone else can - and must have the right!

:D

Trisha

[John Ross]

I'll add a thought:

The claim that 'guns are for killing people, and shooting at targets is practicing to become a better killer' is imprecise. A gas chamber or electric chair is designed for killing people, and these devices obviously serve different functions than guns. To be precise, a high capacity military-type rifle or handgun is designed for CONFLICT, and practicing with it is being better prepared for conflict.

If I need to protect myself, my family, and/or my freedom, I want the most reliable, most durable, highest capacity weapon possible. The only thing hunting and target shooting have to do with freedom is that they're good practice.

Like many of the people here, I feel a DUTY to be skilled with the tools of defense, just as I feel a duty to be educated on current events and political issues, a duty to speak out against injustice, and a duty to instill the same values in my offspring and, if possible, others around me.

I'll be blunt: When I hear someone tell me they don't want anything to do with guns, I feel the same way as if they'd told me they want nothing to do with books or reading.

And if I may be allowed a little self-promotion, read my novel UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES for more insight into the Gun Culture. You might check out my website too, at www.john-ross.net.

Thanks for asking an honest question.

John Ross

[Steve Smith]

John, welcome to THR.

Mind if I borrow your "high capacity military-type rifle or handgun is designed for CONFLICT" line? That's good!

[cslinger]

Wow, we get Jim Scouten, John Ross, Ted Kennedy.....oops wrong forum.:evil:

Anyway. Welcome to the forum John. I have yet to read your book but it is on my list of to read materials. Enjoy your time at our little oasis of the web.

Chris

[Thumper]

Well I'll be dipped...John Ross...

Welcome to THR. There's a Henry Bowman here somewhere, so you should feel right at home. You're gonna be inundated with requests for signed copies of UC. I've already got mine. :-)

I was thinking how the cream tends to rise to the top in these threads...anyone else notice that Dennis is conspicuously absent?

[P12]

Welcome to THR.

Good book.

[MonkeyMan]

Hi James, welcome to The High Road and more importantly, welcome back. I've been following this thread with awe and amazement that comes from the fact that no matter how many times I visit THR the folks on this board N-E-V-E-R cease to raise the bar on intelligent discourse and civility. This comes as a stark contrast to the "welcome" some THR folk have gotten on some of the more liberal boards. I hope you find the answers you're looking for, but if not here, then where?

Stay safe.

[Steve Smith]

Ok, ok, folks...let's stay on topic here!

[John G]

I love to see a group of intelligent, open-minded adults having a clean discussion. Everyone should give themselves a pat on the back, and hold this thread as the example of our goal here at THR.

[foghornl]

James:

Welcome to The High Road. Not much that I can add to the discussions here, as those things have been eloquently covered. I will; however, take the liberty to include my perspectives, and a bit of my history.

I was undecided about owning/shooting in my [sometimes mis-spent] youth, but I did start hunting around age 16. I remember the lessons in the price of liberty and freedom learned at my Dad's knee, a WWII Army infantryman, recipient of a Silver Star in the Pacific Theatre, and my grandfather, a WWI "Doughboy".

As I matured, I worked as an Auxillary Reserve Deputy Sheriff for a few years, 25+ years back. I saw even then that 'The Police' simply cannot be everywhere all the time, and you need to be able to defend yourself. I was bailed out of a couple of really sticky spots by armed citizens, have been the 'last man standing" in several cases of shots fired, and thank you for asking, but I respectfully decline to elaborate on those incidents.

I have been the victim of violent crime more times that I would really care to mention, but will cite a few...Awakened at 5:30 one Sunday morning buy a group of Bad Guys in my bedroom. I was bound and tossed to the floor, and could only witness unspeakable acts committed against wife by this gang. I have been "rolled" an an Interstate rest stop, forced to the floor in a c-store armed robbery, mugged at a bus stop, one attempted car jacking, and several other attempted break-ins. I even caught a guy trying to steal the battery out of my car when I left work early one morning.

I live in what I consider to be a very good neighborhood, but I still lock my cars in the garage, check all doors and windows before going to bed, and check my motion detector lights about once a week.

In closing, James, good luck to your and yours, stay safe and be vigilant. The next crime may be intended against you.

As good as my local city police department is, I would not count on them being 2 doors down the street when I REALLY needed them. My home is a 10-minute normal drive from the PD, but there are also 2 sets of railroad tracks in between.

[Oracle]

James,

I'll have to admit, I've never spoken to a person who claimed to be an "anti-gunner", but didn't want to governmentally-ban firearms or certain types of firearms. People who are willing to argue their likes and dislikes without saying that their feelings on a subject should be legislated into law are rare, and we are far more used to the anti-gunners that are willing to use government as an instrument of their will.

Basically, what you are saying, is that you prefer not to use or be around firearms, and that you might even wish to persuade others to hold your same opinion, but you would not want to force others to accept your opinion of firearms and give up their use of them. I can accept that, although I would argue the benefits of changing your opinion. I feel much like Mr. Ross expressed above, that arguing against learning to use the most effective means of defending yourself and your loved ones is like arguing against learning to read. Just as not wanting to learn to read or refusing to read anything whatsoever would be extremely detrimental to a person, or even going so far as to censor books so that others cannot read them; not wanting to learn or refusing to use firearms would be just as detrimental. Not learning to read or refusing to read would largely rob a person of the ability to learn from or to communicate with others, not learning to use or refusing to use firearms would largely rob a person of the ability to defend themselves and their loved ones.

[Jim March]

Virtually every person such as James who has concerns about the Second Amendment (or in some other cases, outright hate for it) fully respects the First Amendment.

In particular, good honest investigative journalists regardless of their political orientation are highly respected people. We also have a lot of laws on the books specifically to make their jobs easier, such as public access to campaign finance records, laws supporting public access to government records (Federal Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA) or state-level equivelent) and the like.

But, what happens when amateur or professional activists/journalists actually *use* such laws, and run into a crook? Especially when they investigate law enforcement, in states where access to legal gun carry ("CCW") permits are under the personal control of sheriffs and police chiefs?

In Alabama, a professional investigative journalist ran head-on into this question, and posted the following:

I am a local journalist in Alabama, and I am a CCW holder. Although, that may change if I have to renew the my license with my local sheriff. (Follow the link and read my story to find out what I mean.The story will be up for one week. It will be removed on midnight Wednesday, May 16.)

The article in question was titled "Deputy is violating law - Mayor pardons deputy..."

Source:

http://www.packing.org/news/article.jsp/3508

Here in California, I investigate the wrongdoing committed by sheriffs and police chiefs in the handling of CCW permits issued on a "discretionary basis".

In 1994, Sacramento County sheriff's deputies busted a drunk name of James Colafrancesco, who threatened somebody with a gun in a verbal argument over a parking spot. While arresting him, they realized he was a construction company executive and holder of one of the rare CCW permits issued by their own sheriff; in questioning him about the permit, Colafrancesco answered:

"It is all political. It is a big political game. I am a major contributor of Lou Blanas [then UnderSheriff, now Sheriff] and Glen Craig [Sheriff at that time], and they gave me a concealed weapons permit. They told me not to screw around, and not to mess it up, and I have tried real hard not to. You can call Mo Bailey [#3 man in the department]. You can call Lou Blanas. They know I am a good guy. They know that I would never point my gun at anyone."

Actual scanned police report on the incident:
http://www.equalccw.com/colafrancescopapers.pdf

Naturally, that got my attention. So over the last couple of years, several activists in this field have filed California Public Records Act Requests for the CCW issuance records by this sheriff. All were ignored, including mine, and including a request by NRA attorney Chuck Michel.

Then I got an interesting idea - I hooked up with a local reporter for a small paper, explained what was up, and got HIM to file a request, on the assumption that the sheriff would take a reporter more seriously.

Sure enough, the reporter's request netted at least a partial list of the sheriff's permitholders - 250 names.

I ran those names past sheriff Blanas' campaign contribution records, and came up with $105,000 in direct links between the permitholders and his campaign financing, another $75k or so in "indirect links" (family, business associated of campaign contributors scoring the permits).

I showed that to the reporter...who then chickened out of any follow-up inquiries or reporting on the subject.

Now, do you understand why I'm showing you these cases?

It's because you do not have any first amendment rights unless you also have the right to self defense. While speaking out is your right, it can also get you killed. You therefore need to be able to "lock'n'load" to meet the potential threat and if the threat is serious enough, an AR15/M16/AK47 or similar "battle rifle" could very well be a sane part of your preparations.

That's why the Bill Of Rights was written as a unit. Each right bolsters and supports the others. The right to free speech allows criticism of crooks in government; the right to arms gives you the right to SURVIVE making such criticism.

Lookit: the rise of civilized, limited government came about during the era of guns. This wasn't an accident. Guns allow the common man to rise up against a rotten government; without guns, the people are at the mercy of a professional warrior class. Study Japanese history for a horrifying look at where that leads: in the Samurai period, members of the warrior class had the right to kill anyone of any other class, on a whim. There was actually a term used for the practice of testing your brand new sword on the first peasant that walked by. While admittedly uncommon, just the fact that there was a NAME for that is one hell of a good reason not to give governments a monopoly on force!!!

Finally, be very wary of anybody eager to pass a law to disarm you or take action to that effect. They are NOT your friends.

In 1873, a group of local police in Louisiana disarmed local blacks, led by a cop name of Cruikshank. Rather than tell you what happened next, I'll quote from the official US Congress constitutional history page:


The Supreme Court decided the case of United States v. Cruikshank in 1876. The case grew out of a brutal massacre of blacks in the little Louisiana town of Colfax.

In Colfax whites burned the court house and murdered an unknown number of blacks. After the U.S. Army restored order, a federal grand jury indicted 72 white men. The United States Attorney brought nine to trial and won a conviction against William Cruikshank and two others.

Normally the federal government does not prosecute persons charged with murder. Control of ordinary crime has traditionally been the job of the states. In this case the U.S. Attorney used the 1870 Enforcement Act. This law makes it a crime for two or more persons to band together with intent to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any citizen.

The Supreme Court threw out the convictions of Cruikshank and his cohorts. As it had in the Slaughterhouse Cases, the Court acted to protect states' power. "Every republican government," Chief Justice Morrison Remick Waite wrote, "is in duty bound to protect all its citizens." He then added, "That duty was originally assumed by the States; and it still remains there."


Source:

http://www.constitutioncenter.org/sections/history/19th.asp

If it's not clear yet: Cruikshank and his co-conspirators clearly violated the black's rights to arms under the 2nd Amendment, in order to violate their 1st Amendment right to free speech, their 14th Amendment right to equal protection and their 15th Amendment right to vote. And according to the US Supreme Court in 1876, only a state could put a stop to it. This decision ensured the Klan would have free reign for generations.

But gun control isn't racist today, is it?

In California, where gun carry permits are of the aforementioned "discretionary" type, your odds of obtaining a CCW permit vary radically by county. If you're in the half of the state with a county-level black population below the state average number of blacks, your odds of having a permit and a gun legally concealed on your person are five times higher than if you're a resident of a county with a black population above the state average. See also this page for the data and statistical breakdown:

http://www.equalccw.com/ccwdata.html

In 1995, the Fresno Bee newspaper tallied up the 2,500 CCW permits in that county and analyzed them for Hispanic last names; they found a 3% Latino permit issuance rate in a county that is 44% Hispanic per US census data.

Full text of the story:

http://www.equalccw.com/fresnobee.html

In conclusion: nobody that wants to disarm you is your friend. Government attracts personalities that desire control over other people, and stripping people of self defense is the ultimate expression of that control. Every single effort to eliminate self defense is a violation of basic human rights and there are an increasing number of people who realize it, and will fight that FIRST by any possible legal/political means.

[Frohickey]

Why is it that when a new person, particularly, an anti-gun person, like James here comes along, THR gets busy like an anthill where a big fat worm just dropped on to? :D

James wrote:
My take on all of this was just that I dont have a gun and couldnt think of a reason why Id ever really need or want one.

Lets do a little bit of roleplaying, James. Let us say that you were with your lady friend/significant other. Minding your own business, walking down the street from a restaurant where you had a good filet mignon/caesar salad, to your favorite mode of transportation. You happen to spot a few unsavory characters that happen to be headed in your direction. You cannot read minds, so you do not know if they just want your wallet/money, or if they want your lady friend for some 'fun', or if they just want you to play 'punching bag' with.

Do you...
A) Run away as fast as you can, nevermind that your lady friend/significant other is in high heels, or is just recuperating from an injured leg.
B) Dial 9-1-1 from your cellphone, which takes about 3 seconds, plus the time the 9-1-1 operator needs to answer your call, ask you your location, dispatch a patrol unit (approaching 8 minutes).
C) Give them what they want, and hope that it stops at the wallet, and not your dignity, or your life.

If you consider yourself someone that positively contributes to society, why should you meekly allow yourself to be injured/killed by others that negatively contribute to society? Does doing so seem logical?

[grampster]

I would like to wake up one morning and wander out to the mailbox to get my copy of "America's First Freedom" and find the centerfold article in that magazine this very link.

As one who always has a LOT to say about EVERYTHING, I defer to the wisdom I have just read here today.

America is in good hands my friends. Y'all are really special and define the difference between reasonable folk and the rest of the litter. I salute you all.

Dick Besser:D :D :D :D

[Wild Bill]

Grampster

I second that salute!

The depth of the collective wisdom on this board is simply amazing. Y’all done good folks.

Ladies and Gentlemen I am extremely proud to be a humble member of your company!

[Monkeyleg]

Welcome to The High Road, James.

There's little that I can add that hasn't been already addressed. However, to your concern about your brother's purchase of an AK-47 variant: it may well be that he bought it because he saw it in a movie.

More than one member of this forum, including me, has done that. If he enjoys it, he'll probably keep it. If he doesn't, he probably sell it and buy something else.

It's just like any other hobby, except that the gun hobby also affords one the ability to defend himself and others. Try that with baseball cards. ;)

[Lord Grey Boots]

How I found out that the gun banners were lying...

I read their fact sheets, then checked their sources.

Go Read This (http://geocities.com/gebooth2001/docs/somebodylying.html)

[Drjones]

To touch on the movie influence:

Many of my favorite guns are ones I had toy models of when I was younger or saw in the movies.

I remember I had a plastic 1911, 92F, Mp5, AR-15 and Mac-10.

I have seen those guns in the movies a lot, and have always been a huge fan of the 92f, mostly due to Die Hard and Lethal Weapon.

My first firearms purchased were a Mossberg mod. 88 pump (have to have a shottie, and it came with a PG-only attachment...had one of those as a toy too! :D ) and a blued Beretta 96, just like the one I fell in love with from the movies. Well, ok, in the movies they use the 9mm 92f, but I wanted the larger .40. :)

What is wrong with that? I sure as heck don't use my guns irresponsibly like they do in the movies, and most any member of this forum could teach ANY film producer volumes about many different aspects of firearms.

I'm very safe with my guns, so why does it matter if I was influenced to buy them by movies?

Would you think it odd if I was influenced to buy a car because of a movie?

[Intune]

All walks of life, different beliefs, different ethnicities, different socioeconomic backgrounds, different talents, yet... UNITED!

I am a proud member of The High Road.

The Truth and The Will are unstoppable when united!

[mercedesrules]

but is everyone out there really so paranoid that the government is going to come along one day, become a corrupt dictatorship, and kill everyone who opposes it?

Yes. They might start by holding people in jail without disclosing their whereabouts and/or starting a war on the fraudulent say-so of one man.

in addition, what are the chances of a foreign invasion (much less one that our military couldn't defend against on its own)? as proven on 9-11 by the passengers on board the plane that crashed in pennsylvania, you don't need a gun on airplanes.

Sure, if you don't mind crashing in a hellacious fireball!
I prefer to shoot the hijackers and then land normally.

MR

[bjengs]

I would like to wake up one morning and wander out to the mailbox to get my copy of "America's First Freedom" and find the centerfold article in that magazine this very link.

As one who always has a LOT to say about EVERYTHING, I defer to the wisdom I have just read here today.

America is in good hands my friends. Y'all are really special and define the difference between reasonable folk and the rest of the litter. I salute you all.

Dick Besser Right on, Grampster!

[DontShootMe]

My apologies. I'm glad James has replied. I would've just felt awful if all this EXCELLENT info was just being 'preached to the choir'

:neener:

carry on!

[Jason Demond]

Would it shock you to know, that there are members on THR that are Clergy?

[citizen]

A MUCH more vociferous and developed thread; yet why does it remind me of "Wyld one"???? What happened; where is she?:confused:

BTW; Welcome, James. You have found America; Freedom with Responsibilities. Enjoy.:cool:

[12-34hom]

Man, what a long winded bunch...........;)

Why do i need guns?

Because it's my right and I enjoy owning & shooting them.

Can you hear me now?

12-34hom.

[Jerrywahid]

nice one 12-34hom

[Byron Quick]

James,


This is another view on the Second Amendment by a naturalized citizen:

"The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed—where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once. " -- Justice Alex Kozinski, US 9th Circuit Court, 2003

If you check out the judge's background...it will make an even greater impression.

[geekWithA.45]

If you check out the judge's background...it will make an even greater impression.

What's the story here? Or a link to follow?

[Byron Quick]

“My excellent colleagues have forgotten these bitter lessons of history. The prospect of tyranny may not grab the headlines the way vivid stories of gun crime routinely do. But few saw the Third Reich coming until it was too late.”

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/5/7/94802.shtml

http://www.bpnews.net/bpfeature.asp?ID=982

He's from Eastern Europe. And a Reagan appointee to the Ninth.

Damned shame Reagan couldn't have packed that court with his intellectual brethren.

Justice Kozinski is a beacon of hope for the states under the thrall of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. May he live long and prosper.

[blue86buick]

Wow. 5 pages of responses in 24 hours, 8 pages in 36. I'm impressed. I'm not sure what I could say, that hasn't been said already. So, I'll say this. I own guns, and desire to get more, because it's fun, and I want to be prepared (I'm an old Boy Scout too) for whatever I might need to use one for.

I too, will gladly take you, or anyone else out to the range. Then again, I've only got 2 .22's (so far), but ya gotta start somewhere!(and I certainly don't mind buying the ammo! :D)

edit: first post on page 8! :)

[fallingblock]

But welcome to the forum, James:)

If possible. take up some of the offers of shooting and see what we're about:) You'll find a fascinating cross-section of genuinely interesting people through the shooting sports. I've been shooting since age 6 (that's 48 years now!) and have made many lifelong friends through an interest in firearms and the associated desire to promote individual liberty.

Welcome to John Ross also:D

There are several copies of "Unintended Consequences" making their rounds through the shooting community out here in Australia.

Thank you for a thoroughly enjoyable and insightful work;)

[abdrdude]

James.Welcome to the High road. I thank you kind sir for coming to this forum with an open mind. It is my sincere hope that you have found the responses enlightning. I also hope that perhaps the members of this wonderful forum have persuaded you to become a firearms enthusiast.Please consider at least trying out this sport with the same open-mindedness that brought you here. It is in my humble opinion that if more people would look at guns with the same attitude that you have shown,our world would be a better place.
Fellow THR members... Excellent job with this thread. I plan to use many of your well versed arguements in future discussions in the never ending battle of our Right to Keep and Bear Arms.Thanks to all who spoke.Scott

[Mr. Goodglock]

Hi James,

For diversity record, I am a Thai/Male. Thailand may used to be the most gun friendly country, their use for self defense is really in need here according to the crime rate and the LE efficientcy. I also am a LE and I know the LE limit well. However, the present government is initiating a severe gun control law and many people feel the threat of being victim to the criminals as it is clear that gun control doesn’t put guns out of criminal hands. Even if all criminals doesn’t have gun they can murder the selected victims just as easily. We are setting up the first RKBA association here. We have a lot of shooting association but not the one to reclaim our rights. Just ask yourself simple question, what would you do under attack?

Wish you good tool not luck.

[Norwegian]

For what it is worth...shooting as a sport is one of the most demanding regarding consentration....as a matter of fact in that respect the handling of firearms over time might make you a calmer person then one who do not .

[Baba Louie]

Wow.

I am humbled by the written thoughts posted above.
Simple and concise.
What Rich started and Oleg continued...
Quality and quantity in a very short time span.

James, my take on the subject is simple. I was indoctrinated into the culture as a youngster.

My father taught me responsibility and self control, and the joy of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness in a very simple manner.

Other's have mentioned history, I have to ask you; why was "The shot heard round the world" fired on April 19, 1775 at Concord bridge? Why did Paul Revere ride the night before? Besides all of the other reasons, what one pivotal event caused us to become "Americans"?

This culture is certainly not for every-man. Many "americans" abuse and mis-use the tool/device/weapon daily for their own reasons, others would have us throw all of our firearms into the bottom of the ocean or regulate us and our ability to defend our lives, enjoy our sports, hobbies, etc., out of existance.

The price of freedom (however you define that), eh?

And it's not just "Americans". There are wise men and women over the globe represented here; Germany, Austrailia, Russia, Malaysia... and more.

Many, who are put off by firearms due to whatever reason, find out later that the ownership and use thereof is... a hoot, a challenge, a joy, something to share with other's whose friendship they cherish.

You'd be hard pressed to find a better group of individuals
Ahhhh, but the politics and P.R. that go along with that responsibility and self control... there's the intrigue. Read the writings of Mr. March. Fascinating. He's a champion, in the truest sense of the word.

Ms Trisha, thank you for your words. A sincere thanks.

James, You're obviously free to do and think as you choose. By posting here, you have shown that you can "Choose wisely". Print out these posts and discuss them with your brother, friends, any anti-gunners you know and judge their responses. It might open your mind yet some more. Please continue to post and ask questions, think thoughts and... maybe play the devils advocate. It certainly spices up life.

Let me also extend an invitation to you... If you're ever in the Las Vegas area, lets go make some noise and punch some holes in paper. My treat.

Adios

[Norwegian]

" Wow.

I am humbled by the written thoughts posted above.
Simple and concise. "

You mean mine...please say yes I need a boost :D :D

Really I`m SO relaxed when I shot it is unbeliveable , used to give me peace of mind and I hope I`ll start again sometime , well quite sure I will :D

[Idaho]

I would extend to James, or any other non-shooter (whether anti or undecided) on an all-expense paid range trip at any time. Generally non-shooters are hard to come by in southern Idaho, but the offer is there.

(No sandbagging by THR members trying to save money!)

[RAY WOODROW 3RD]

I can not add a thing to what has been said in the preceeding pages BUT I'll extend the same offer that Idaho and the others have to James and any other lurkers out there reading this post that have never shot before.

If your in New Jersey, I would be honored to take you out to punch holes in paper and enlighten you in "what is it all about" fashion. All it will cost you is your time.

I am a Certified Instructor so you will be in good hands. Send me an email and let the journey begin.:cool:

[CasualShooter]

Welcome, James.

It's pretty much all been said before -- both eloquently and concisely -- in earlier posts by other THR members; but, I'm impressed.

You started something with your post. I thank you for that and hope you will continue to respond.

In short, it's not just about guns. It's about Freedom - Individual Freedom - with responsibility.

[A. Partisan]

I have not read all of the posts. I'm sure I'll repeat some of the opinions and ideas already expressed. I strongly believe in "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."
I believe that some politicians would love to see that right taken away. Little by little that right is being taken away. Just my opinion. I have owned at least one gun or another for the past 32 years and never took it seriously. 9/11 changed all of that for me. I have bought a few more guns and shoot them several times a week now. I punch holes in paper to sharpen my skills. I hope it doesn't happen, but if the time comes I will be able to defend my family and myself. Besides I forgot that it's good therapy.

[Freedspeak]

From Florida I offer the same, if your in the area, a day at the range and a chance to meet the people who shoot.

[Big Mike]

James,

Welcome to THR!

For info on handguns and statistics, I would recommend you read this book: More Guns, Less Crime , by John Lott Jr.

I had the opportunity to listen to him talk in person at a book store in Las Vegas a couple years ago. He is an economist who looked at factual emperical data as it relates to crime and use of handguns.

My wife was a former anti until she heard him speak and read the book. Thankfully she is a logical woman and knowledeable of statistics and data, having been a grad student at the time. She was amazed at how he had been programmed to think all sorts of things about handguns that just aren't true.

Hope this helps and keep reading and posting. I have learned much since posting on The Firing Line and THR!

Be well! Mike

[bfason]

For info on handguns and statistics, I would recommend you read this book: More Guns, Less Crime , by John Lott Jr.

Lott's newest book is _The Bias Against Guns_ (2003, Regnery Publishing, Inc.). I actually found it more accessible than his earlier work. By Chapter 4 in _ More Guns_, the reader encounters tables of data of "National, county-level, cross-sectional, time-series evidence" with explanations such as this sentence. "The percentage reported in parentheses is the percent of a standard deviation change in the endogenous variable that can be explained by one-standard-deviation change in the exogenous variable. All regressions are weighted least squares, where the weigting is each county's population."

This book is not what I would recommend to an anti or an undecided unless he were an academician.

_The Bias Against Guns_ relies on statistics gathered by the Center for Disease Control and the Bureau of Justice Statistics to show that the media consistently lie about guns, but the numbers are presented in a straight-forward way that avoids terms such as "multivariate regression analysis."

[Art Eatman]

More recommended reading: "Under the Gun" by Wright, Rossi and Daly. Univ. of Fla. Press. Available at Amazon.com.

This 1985 book preceded most of the works usually referred to, today. These three statisticians analyzed Florida's gun control laws and crime rates. They interviewed prisoners in the Florida State Pen at Raiford...

Their primary conclusion was that there is no correlation between gun control laws and crime.

They admittedly began as gun-neutral to mildly anti-gun, insofar as personal opinions. While they didn't achieve epiphany :D, they essentially lost interest in guns as an issue in crime.

Art

[luxone]

Welcome James (I'm pretty new myself)

is everyone out there really so paranoid that the government is going to come along one day, become a corrupt dictatorship, and kill everyone who opposes it?

In short, I feel like the 2nd amendment is what keeps our government from being the type that you describe!

[jwmoore]

Wow, what an incredible thread... Y'all have just added one more member to the High Road. Thank you,

~Wesley

[LiquidTension]

I guess it's about time I contributed something to this thread. :)

While the reasons that I own guns are many, the order that I usually cite them in goes:

1) Because I can
2) Because I enjoy shooting
3) Self defense (defense of others falls under this)

Of course there are many more reasons, but most of them have already been stated by other members. One that I don't often talk about to non-gunnies is the feeling of absolute...bliss...I have when I leave the range. I'm never more relaxed and calm than when I finish a shooting session. Kinda odd considering the loud noises and sometimes bone-jarring recoil experienced during such sessions, but I'm sure I'm not the only one that just feels GOOD during and after shooting.

I have been in a situation where I needed a gun and did not have one, and it is not something that I intend to relive. I carry every day now. I'm not afraid to go about my day without my gun, but I find it kind of silly to have the ability to carry it but leave it at home instead (like my dad). Other members have brought up the seatbelt analogy, and it is the same thing. You don't put on your seatbelt when you're going to get in a wreck. If you don't use it all the time, it doesn't work. Until I fully develop my psychic powers :rolleyes: I think I'll stick to my 1911. Having a gun does not make you invincible (unless you're Steven Segal or some other movie star), but it does give you a MUCH higher chance of surviving a potentially deadly situation than if you are unarmed.

Regarding carrying a gun, I, like many others on this board, have been asked if I was expecting trouble. My response was the same as most others': "If I expect trouble somewhere, I DON'T GO THERE. The gun is for the trouble I DON'T EXPECT."

James, I do have to warn you about something as far as guns go, especially if you plan to read this board with any frequency. Guns are like drugs - very addictive. Before I started reading this board (and The Firing Line and FAL Files before it), I only owned 1 gun (hunting rifle). After hanging out on said boards, my collection has grown to several pistols and longarms. One more word of warning - avoid the picture threads if you want to save money! I should listen to my own advice, but I'm an addict and I love every second of it :D

[Thundercleese]

Welcome to THR, James.

2 little gems :

"If the 2nd amendment is the first to go, the 1st will be the second".

"When guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns."


Edited for clarity :)

[buttrap]

Hmmmm....

[Moparmike]

I checked this thread again (for the billionth time) for "Hmmm..."? ***?

[RandyB]

Hello James,

Welcome to the High Road. Stick around for a while. We do not get many like you around here and the fact that you felt comfortable enough to post is great. A wee bit about my self. I'm 34, Married, one child, and work as a Licensed Mental Health Counselor and Emergency Medical Technician. I have had a Concealed weapons Permit since the age of 21. I hunt (and gather), fish, etc. and enjoy the outdoors. I am a volunteer for Search and Rescue, cave rescue, amatuer radio, emergency management , and skywarn (most likely forgot one or two) and am very civic minded. My work in the mental health field has convinced me of the right and need to protect myself and even more so my family. I situation I might be able to run from is not one that I could run with my wife and daughter. I grew up shooting muzzleloaders at the age of 7 and didn't shoot a gun of modern design until I was 10-12 years old. I still prefer to hunt with black powder weapons, but also enjoy shooting modern shotguns, handguns, rifles, including "military assault style" weapons. Is it something I do every day, not hardly. I don't have the time, in fact I own two custom made rifles that I have had for a year and have never shot.:what: My point being in all this rambling is that if you asked me why I own a gun(s) and gave you one answer, I would be missing the point. Their are as many reasons why I own firearms as the reasons I have a car and why I have more than one kitchen knife in my silverware drawer. Good luck on your research and I hope that you will see that most folks who are firearms owners are not evil or psychotic and in fact honest, productive, law abiding citizens.

[RandyB]

Just had another brain fart and thought I'd share my 2 cents worth. The government cannot control our society and make us safe. Where would it end? Ok gun 1st. What about knives? I mean look as some of those Rambo machete types. Looks deadly? Hmm kind of like an M-16.... Of course 10 inches of steel rambo/kitchen/butcher knife doesn't matter if you are on the recieving end. What about baseball bats, golf clubs, gasoline, fertilizer, my 1/2 ton truck? All of these things can kill and especially the gas/car/and fertilizer can kill alot more people quicker than any assault weapon.



and ditto on the taking out for a shooting session here in southern Indiana.

[CasualShooter]

James,

Don't know if this has been said yet; but, arms (gun) control is not new. Centries ago before gun powder was invented the object of arms control was the banning of other weapons, i.e., swords, cross bows, etc.

The founding fathers were knowledgeable of history. They were aware of the disarming of the citizenry by other governments through the ages... and they very deliberately wrote their guarantee into the Bill of Rights to prevent such disarming of the people of the U.S.A. :D

[CasualShooter]

Another thought ...

I carried a badge and gun as a reserve police officer with full arrest powers in a major U.S. City for 13 years (no pay - just gratis - Community Service). Point is, I know from experience that the police can't be there when you need them most of the time.

And the fact is, the courts have repeatedly held that the government is not responsible for your personal protection - Only YOU are responsible for your OWN protection! :what: Now, if the government denies you the means with which to provide that personal protection, whatcha gonna do when your life, or that of your loved one(s) is threatened? :cuss: :banghead:

[Mr. Goodglock]

Just a bit more to my post. I forgot to type "IN ASIA" before..... Thailand may use to be the most gun friendly country. Now I am participating in the establishment of the first RKBA association in Thailand. We have several shooting association for certain kind of competition but apparantly they don't have RKBA mandate.

Regard.

[Griff]

Welcome, James

This has been some of the most engaging reading I've done in a long time. Why not share it with some friends?

Why, one could almost write a term paper with the information presented here...

[Drjones]

So where's James?

[2dogs]

Wait a minute..................................


you people


all


own



GUNS ? !!!!!!!!! :what:

[Mostly Harmless]

About 35 years ago when I was a young and stupid teenager, I was raped by 2 men, became pregnant, and was kicked out of school. Basically it was a major life-changing event.

I had been taught as a "good girl" to do what adults told me, to be polite, demure, not to resist, make a fuss, or to defend myself.

Five or 6 years later, while walking by the river late one night, I was accosted by a "gentleman" who asked me for a light for a cigarette. When I proffered my lighter, he grabbed me by the throat and attempted to strangle me. Unfortunately for him, I'd learned a little in the intervening years and was carrying a knife in my boot. I stabbed him and ran. I told no one, burned the bloody clothes I'd been wearing (dark colors are very useful as they don't show bloodstains to the naked eye in the dark) and nearly ruined the knife scrubbing it with peroxide. Funnily enough, there were no more reports of rape/murders of young women in the city for a while, though they had been happening on a regular if not very frequent basis. :rolleyes:

20 years ago, while in the Middle East, I got myself into the wrong place at the wrong time with the wrong people. Out in the desert late one night, we were being shot at. At the time I knew almost nothing about guns. I had been given a 9mm which I'd never shot, but had been shown how to operate it. I picked it up and shot back. My companions were also shooting with their .357s. Very quickly there was no more incoming fire. When that little mess was cleaned up, there were several BGs on their way to meet Allah, one of whom had a couple of 9mm holes in him.

These days I live a much less "exciting" life. I know a lot more about guns, shoot on a regular (but not frequent enough) basis, and am fully appreciative of my Constitutionally-guaranteed rights. I shoot for fun mainly; because it's something that both my son and I enjoy; and lastly because you never know when you'll find yourself in a situation where knowing how to shoot well could save your life. I don't carry on a daily basis (something to do with permits and unconstitutional laws and being an alien I guess) but will when I can do so legally.

Would I shoot and/or kill again? In self-defence, or in defence of my partner or son yes. Without hesitation or remorse. Am I a bloody-thirsty sociopath looking for an excuse to go berserk at the mall? Depends who you ask :evil: (I am after all Mostly Harmless :cool: )

Would I take up arms against a tyrannical government? Well, that was kinda sorta part of the reason I did what I did in the MidEast.... But as it's getting harder and harder to find a country where the government is not at least bordering on tyrannical in some way (my polite friends call them "coercive collectivist") I guess I might have to make a stand here one day.

J.
Not all Brits are anti-gun wimps.

[CasualShooter]

.... he grabbed me by the throat and attempted to strangle me. Unfortunately for him, I'd learned a little in the intervening years and was carrying a knife in my boot. I stabbed him and ran. I told no one, burned the bloody clothes I'd been wearing (dark colors are very useful as they don't show bloodstains to the naked eye in the dark) and nearly ruined the knife scrubbing it with peroxide. Funnily enough, there were no more reports of rape/murders of young women in the city for a while, though they had been happening on a regular if not very frequent basis.

Many years ago in a major U.S. City, I observed that when a perpetrator was killed in the act by the victum or in a shootout with police following a bank robbery or other violent feloneous act, a funny thing would happen.

For the next few weeks there would be a major reduction in the number of calls, broadcast by the police dispatcher, concerning not only robberies; but, also other violent "part I crimes", as well. :D

Those who espouse the mantra that effective and successful resistance by the victums (including CCW for self defense) is not a deterrant to crime are full of $---! They are either ignorant of the subject or they are liars trying to advance their agenda by any means. :cuss:

Criminals are generally bullies. :evil:

Bullies don't pick on the strong - They're Chicken. :what:

Good Guys still outnumber Bad Guys. :)

CCW deters crime and saves lives! :D

[Zackmeister]

It's the thread that wouldn't die! Just kidding.. it has been great to read everyone's eloquent responses. I own guns because I enjoy shooting and it lets me do something together with my dad. When I hit the big two-one, I'll probably get my CCW. I suppose that means another new gun because I don't think my Raging Bull .44 would very inconspicuous..

[gehwehrnut]

Wow! I stumbled across this board a few days ago and have just been kind of watching to see what kind of people were here. I've posted a couple of unimportant posts. Queries, mostly. I am very impressed with the level of respect and number of intelligent posts. This proves to me what a great board you all have here. I didn't see a belittling post in this thread (and I read 95% of the posts). Most everyone made very concise statements. Statements made to inform, not flame or bash.
I, myself, am not new to the wonderful world of firearms, having been around them all my life and pretty much always having owned them.

James, you are proof that antis shouldn't be stereo-typed and that there are some very open-minded and responsible thinking people in your ranks. I hope that the responses and answer provided by the fine members of this forum have helped to prove the same about us.

[MeekandMild]

on the other side of the coin though, i dont like guns. i see them as having no constructive value whatsoever

One doesn't just have to float around in a seas of subjective opinion. This question can be couched in terms of symbolic logic.

Are you familiar with game theory? Imagine a game of Prisoner's Dilemmna except that you only get one time to play it with each other prisoner and you only have to lose once to lose forever. In such a world then any tool neccessary to keep the majority of players honest has positive constructive value don't you think?

The gun has specific calculable value on a concrete level regardless of one player's inability to see it with such from their armchair perspective

I would suggest you draw a truth table then assign specific values using your local hometown statistics for criminal behavior to calculate a gun's constructive value for you given a lifetime of chance encounters with other players. Even if one entirely ignores the concept of "herd immunity" one should be able to denmonstrate utility.

[Orthonym]

James, are you there?

[AZLibertarian]

James,

I don't know if you're still out there, and I'm relatively new here myself and picked up this thread late. The eloquence of this group is still impressing me. I hope you're having the same impression.

Most of the others here have made my major points, but I'll add a couple...

I'm one of the few Arizonans who has renewed my CCW twice. I had to think long and hard about getting it at all. Fundamentally, I don't believe I ought to have to apply to the government to carry the means to defend myself and my loved ones, but the rest of AZ does, so I went with the majority. The reason I carry is about control. When the Bad Guy (BG) sticks a weapon in your face, he has a number of choices. He can take your wallet and watch; He can take these and go on to rape you (men get raped, too) or your loved ones; or he can rob you, rape you, and then kill you. In all of this, an unarmed victim has very little control over the outcome. However by me jumping through the hoops to carry my gun legally, I now have some element of control over the outcome of a very rare, but potentially very dangerous situation. I prefer to retain that control.

You have acknowledged your change in position about the dangers of a bullet hole in an airliner. I'll tell you that I am a Captain at a major national airline. A .45 inch hole in my plane would hardly be noticable. [BTW, I believe the Federal Air Marshals do not carry frangible ammunition. They're more concerned with one-shot kills done with hollow-point ammuntion, than damage from errant shots] Even if the hole enlarged, the situation might be something I'd concern myself about, but I wouldn't envision a catostrophic decompression. The masks would drop out of the ceiling, I'd descend to land somewhere short of my destination, but in all but the most extreme circumstance, everyone would sleep in clean sheets that night. Hollywood has done a great disservice to your first impression of what might happen. I'll also let you know of a little secret. In Congressional testimony regarding the 9/11 attacks, Boeing representatives said that they were aware of 11 cases of passenger planes being hit by gunfire. That these airplanes didn't fall out of the sky, or blow up, or whatever some scriptwriter has envisoned ought to mean something.

As an airline pilot, I would love to carry a gun at work. However, the government has that program so screwed up that I won't consider it until there are major changes. Today, I believe the Federal Flight Deck Officer program is more of a safety concern than an asset. But I also believe that there are still bad guys out there trying to find a way to take down another airliner, and that armed pilots are the most effective and cheapest way to protect us all from another 9/11. IMO, for the best, least biased information about arming airline pilots, I recommend http://www.secure-skies.org/index.asp

Additionally, regarding the effects of governments restricting gun rights, I would second the recommendation to pick up John Ross's book, Unintended Consequences. I haven't looked, but I doubt you can find it on Amazon or in a brick & mortar bookstore. I bought my copy a few years ago at a gun show and I re-read it about once a year. My local library used to have a couple of copies, but I think that is fairly unusual. BTW, I am honored to post in the same thread as the author. I treasure this book, and will pass it down to my children.

Finally, as many others have done, I extend an offer to come shooting sometime. PM me if you're in the east part of the Phoenix area and interested.

[CasualShooter]

I would second the recommendation to pick up John Ross's book, Unintended Consequences. I haven't looked, but I doubt you can find it on Amazon or in a brick & mortar bookstore

I ordered a copy from Amazon.com on July 2, 2003. They offered free (but slow) delivery. I'm looking to receive in in the next couple days. :D

When I ordered it, I believe I saw something about a sequel by John Ross which was either out or soon to be out. Anybody know anything about this? :)

[TearsOfRage]

I would second the recommendation to pick up John Ross's book, Unintended Consequences. I haven't looked, but I doubt you can find it on Amazon or in a brick & mortar bookstore

Actually, Barnes and Noble does carry it.... at least in New Hampshire. :D

Sometimes I take a copy out of the fiction section and leave it in the current events section. :evil:

I am also eagerly awaiting a sequel.

[ReadyontheRight]

I would second the recommendation to pick up John Ross's book, Unintended Consequences. I haven't looked, but I doubt you can find it on Amazon or in a brick & mortar bookstore.

I got mine through Amazon.

John -- Great book.

[Diesle]

Welcome James, if there is a James.... I’m starting to wonder if this wasn’t a set up....

Im late to the party. Hope theres some foam at the bottom of the keg....

It seems that many of you value your own lives and the lives of your loved ones enough to go through the 'hassle' of carrying protection. It’s a huge responsibility assumed by free adults willing to take ownership of their own actions and lives.

What I hear often from hard-core anti gunners is that there is no circumstance in existence that justifies killing another person. Including the defense of their own life or the life of a loved one. No amount of logic, diplomacy, or debate will spin these folks around. Its just not something they are willing to do... ever.... for any reason.

Now this is where it gets twisted. A. You wont kill B. The fact that you wont kill does not lessen your zest for life. You don’t want to be killed. Disarming EVERYBODY makes everybody equal right? Exactly. I wont have a gun and you wont have a gun and well all live very peaceably. Never once does the defense of one rights against government enter into the picture because 'who could ever imagine having to revolt in this day and age...? We are a civilized society...'

Well, you all know how this story ends....

Anyhow,

Diesle

P.S. Good Thread

[glocksman]

Welcome James, if there is a James.... I’m starting to wonder if this wasn’t a set up....

There really is a James. I found out about this thread from one that James started over at the Democratic Underground Forums (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/). It was commented on about how courteous people were over here to him.


I used to post at the DU forums, but I got banned for calling the
Widow Grunow (http://www.naplesdailynews.com/03/06/florida/d937392a.htm) 'greedy and moneygrubbing' in a thread about her suit.

At least I think that's what it was about. They won't tell me why I was banned. :confused:


Anyway, James is real.

And if you (James) see this, tell Jody and the rest of the pro-RKBA'ers that I said 'Hello' from tombstone land. :D

[JohnBT]

Anybody know if he took me up on my offer to buy him a keyboard with a shift key? The offer included a range trip and lunch, too.

You don't expect me to read each and every page do you? :)

John

[Silver Bullet]

He addressed it in one of his follow up messages.

You don't expect me to go back and look up the page number, do you? :)

[tatters]

This has to be the longest thread I have ever seen!!

Great answers, and all so well put.

Here's my humble reply.

I like to shoot. I like guns. I would do ANYTHING to defend my family and myself. I chose the tools to this end.

[skippie]

Welcome to THR....
I won't even try to top the great stuff on this tread but will say that I am glad to tip my hat to ya James, most people would not bother to get ant facts from the "other " side.
If you are ever in my neck of the woods, give a yell and we can go shooting...;)

[Ian11]

Welcome James,

I doubt I can add anything else to what everyone else has said. The length of this thread just shows you how desperately we want people to listen to understand our side of the story instead of the typical reaction we see everywhere else. But instead of us talking your ear off how about posing some questions or challenges against our side? We are more than ready to answer anything you'd like. :D

I hope you stay whether you change your mind or not. Its kinda interesting having an Anti amongst us.:uhoh: ;)


Now back up a little everyone. Let the man have some breathing room.:banghead:

[JohnBT]

Silver Bullet - Thanks. I'll go back and find it - as soon as I get back from the range. :) JT

[45King]

Without bothering to wade through 6 pages of posts, I'm going to throw in my $.02 worth and address a few points from your opening post.

i dont like guns. i see them as having no constructive value whatsoever. objectively speaking, they are a means to get a bullet from point a to point b, but they were originally designed for killing things.

Exactly, and what's wrong with killing things? It's how almost all living creatures survive. If killing is immoral, the exisitence of 99.9% of all life is immoral. Killing is immoral only when someone initiates the use of force against another. Killing in self defense is perfectly moral, as is killing for food.

but why own guns like the m16 and tommygun? you cant hunt with those.

Says who? They may not be the most effective hunting weapons, but they can be used for hunting if necessary, just as an Olympic grade .22 short target pistol can be used for self-defense, if necessary. The fact that a particular gun might not be the very best design for a purpose doesn't change the fact that it can serve the purpose. Besides, see my first point.

but is everyone out there really so paranoid that the government is going to come along one day, become a corrupt dictatorship, and kill everyone who opposes it?

Paranoia is an ureasoning fear of the unlikely or impossible. The government of the US HAS done all the following:

Burned citizens alive
Exposed citizens to lethal levels of radiation without their knowledge
Infected citizens with VD without their knowledge
Condoned through non-interference the lynchings of its citizens of color
Given aid to tyranical right wing gov'ts in other parts of the world

These things aren't even the tip of the iceberg; they are the tip of the tip of the iceberg. Are we paranoid, or merely being appropriately cautious?
Consider also the FACT that genocides perpertrated by GOVERNMENTS during the 20th century accounted for 10's of millions of deaths, not to mention the wars they started. Yes, GOVERNMENTS start wars; they may be fought by people, but they are started by GOVERNMENT.

George Washington said it best: Government is not reason; it is not eloquence. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. If we wish to remain the master of government, and not have it be OUR master, then we, the people, must cherish and embrace the RIGHT to be able to defend ourselves against it by being at least as well armed as the government apparatus.
The best way to make sure that "it can't happen here" is to assume that it CAN indeed happen, and be prepared to prevent it by any means possible, including the use of lethal force. As soon as the people begin to become complacent and think "it can't happen here," they begin paving the way to make sure it DOES happen here. A corruption-proof government cannot be designed; it's a flat impossibility.


what would happen to an airliner at 35000 feet if a bullet went through the side of the passenger compartment?

Not much of anything. The James Bond film Goldfinger has inadvertently perpetrated a huge misconception about depressurization. A modern airliner can survive some pretty serious damage. Several years ago, an airliner in flight had about 1/3 of the cabin blow out due to metal fatigue, IIRC, and it was able to land safely. Some people not wearing seat belts were killed because they were blown out by the wind, and some others died because they were in the part of the fuselage that blew out, but the point is that the plane made it back to the ground safely. If an airliner can survive that type thing, it stands to reason it can surely withstand a few less-than half an inch holes in the fuselage.

The right to keep and bear arms is nothing more than an extension of the basic right to life. My life and the fruits of my labor are mine to do with as I please. Because my life is MINE, I DO have the right to choose to be able to defend it. To believe otherwise means that one believes that some degree of slavery is acceptable. I find this abhorrent to the extreme. There is no such thing as an acceptable amount or degree of slavery, period. Anyone who disputes this is automatically an enemy of liberty, freedom, and justice. Such beliefs are beyond even extreme contempt. That's the ONE thing I think there should be zero tolerance for.

[goon]

To me, there is no need involved. I am an American.
The whole principle behind our country is that people get to live their lives as they choose as long as they don't harm anyone. That means if I want to own a gun for a lawful purpose, no one has any business telling me that I can't.
Likewise, I respect your choice to not have anything to do with guns. You have the right to make the choice that suits you best.

[CasualShooter]

Without bothering to wade through 6 pages of posts, I'm going to throw in my $.02 worth ....

You made some good points; But, you really should read the previous posts. Ya don't know what yer missin'! :D

[Tango7]

Welcome, James. I do hope you return, and observe the works you inspired!

BRAVO! What a ton of posts!

And all of them well thought, and well presented. I know I've only posted a little bit here, but I am impresed by the depth of the commentary. I will add but a minor flourish to a fluid masterpiece.

I was going to reiterate that the stastics presented as "facts" by most anti's (MMM/VPC/HCI) are "adjusted" stats that include as "preventable (hand)gun deaths":

Suicides
criminals killed by citizens/LEO in commision of crimes on citizens
criminals killed by criminals in commision of crimes on each other
accidental shootings (wrong place, wrong time, mistaken identity -i.e. hanging with those listed in above categories)
shooting accidents ("unloaded" guns, kids finding "hidden" guns, etc.)


They also have included "children" up to the age of 24. While it is true that everybody is somebody's child, the use of the term "child" carries a certain mental image, and emotional response ... one that the anti's use to their advantage, in the Psyop that is gun control.

As far as the choice to defend yourself...everybody has limits, and everybody faces different situations.

Some people would not raise a finger to defend themselves, so great is their belief in non-violence.

Others would use whatever means necessary. as long as they could physically function.

Others are somewhere inbetween.

The decision is yours, and yours alone.

You may find fun with firearms for target shooting and "plinking", but choose to never use them against someone.

That is your choice.

I changed from the "theoretical" use for self defense to "probable" use several years back, and have never regretted the decision. It has made me more aware, and more appreciative, of what I have been given, and my responsibility to safeguard those things.

I wish you luck in determining your course, as only you can.

BTW, If you wish to visit a range in the Northern suburbs of Chicago, please contact me!

[PileDriver]

i see them as having no constructive value whatsoever.





say that again after some scumbag breaks into your house and rapes your wife and daughter




. but why own guns like the m16 and tommygun? you cant hunt with those.




the second amendment says i can





but is everyone out there really so paranoid that the government is going to come along one day, become a corrupt dictatorship, and kill everyone who opposes it?




never happened before has it?





as proven on 9-11 by the passengers on board the plane that crashed in pennsylvania, you don't need a gun on airplanes. besides, what would happen to an airliner at 35000 feet if a bullet went through the side of the passenger compartment?




what was proven on 9.11? that a few cowards can crash a plane armed with only boxcutters? or that a few unarmed citizens can put up a fight that resulted in a crash despite their efforts?

a terrorist with two rounds in the head is a much less effective terrorist. as far as holes in the plane, it would take much more than a bullet hole or two to cause any problems.

i would submit to you this: how many terrorists would try and hijack planes if we were allowed to carry our weapons on board?

answer: how many israeli planes are hijacked? how many guards at an el al terminal do you think walk around with expensive bats? the people at lax are thanking god that those israeli guards were armed.




(i didnt expect to find any women here), etc. i was expecting to only find a bunch of rednecks, ex-military/ military, and guys like you see in the movie tremors.




sexist? or do all gun owners have pot bellies, mutton chops and spit tobacco?



you have every right to be anti gun and defenseless if you so choose. what you don't have is the right to dictate that everyone else has to abide your choices for themselves.

[only1asterisk]

Ah man,

I wanted to start page 10! PileDriver, very concise!


David

[Mastrogiacomo]

Hi James -- female shooter here. I got guns to get into armed security because my M.Ed. went nowhere. Later I found it a nice way to let off steam. Believe it or not, I don't shoot fruit or animals. I really do only shoot paper targets because I don't believe in killing for sport.

I've customized my guns (Berettas) because I've grown to love them very much. The trigger is lighter to make it easier to shoot in the event that it's needed. It also prevents innocent people from getting shot because it helps me to keep the gun pointed at the threat and only the threat instead of bouncing around while I try to pull the trigger. I didn't do it to become a more evil killer. That's the bad guy's job and he does it well. I've seen two of my high school friends murdered. One coming home late at night from her job, the other by her ex-boyfriend. The police really can't be in all places at once and so when I go get my car in the back of an empty, unlit parking lot with no one around -- I'm glad I have it. I don't apologize for wanting to protect myself and while I believe in the 2nd amendment -- I'm not a hick, red neck either. I'm a college educated, Catholic, Sicilian-American, Independent but usually votes Democrat type. How's that for a sterotype? If you have other questions for your paper, my e-mail is LAMAC1067@aol.com. Drop me a message.

[Sunray]

"...i dont like guns..." How can you like or dislike an inanimate object?
"...the skill is nothing less than being a more efficient killer..." Very few shooters have the psychological wherewithal to kill anybody. Game animals notwithstanding. Shooting has nothing whatever to do with killing. anymore than owning and shooting full auto has anything to do with hunting. Two different sports/hobbies.
"...i didnt expect to find any women here..." There are more women shooting recreationally and in CCW courses every year. And they're usually inherently better shots than men are. Why did you think there are no female shooters?
"...i was expecting to only find a bunch of rednecks, ex-military/ military, and guys like you see in the movie tremors..." Isn't it amazing what a little rational thought will do? I doubt you will chang your views or opinions regarding firearms until you try it. Stop by a public shooting range or drop in on one of the matches you've seen advertised here and you'll meet some of the most friendly people you could ever meet. Most of 'em will gladly let you try their firearm as well. But stay away from those ceramics jugs with the three 'X's.

[CasualShooter]

Mastrogiacomo...

I believe in the 2nd amendment -- I'm not a hick, red neck either. I'm a college educated, Catholic, Sicilian-American, Independent but usually votes Democrat type.

You're armed in Boston and usually vote for the people who would like to disarm you? No offense; but, I don't get it. :D

Just curious. :banghead:

[goon]

PileDriver- A little rough but it gets the point across.
I like it.
As an aside, I have a question for James, if he is still around.
Why do you think the 9/11 attacks were as successful as they were?
I submit that they worked as well as they did because Americans have been conditioned to be victims for the last 20 years. It took three planes full of people dying to get people to resist and even then it still cost them all their lives.
Forty years ago our grandfathers would have probably overpowered the terrorists and tossed their a$$es out over the Atlantic.
In this world, there are the predators and the prey.
Which do you wish to be?
I may be a barbarian, but I would rather be the victor than the victim.
That is what the Second Ammendment means to me.
If you can't see my point of view then you may be looking in the wrong place for your answers.

[dport]

"...i dont like guns..." How can you like or dislike an inanimate object?

Simple, I don't like brussel sprouts or beets. So I think that argument is a nonstarter.

However, just because I don't like something doesn't mean that everyone else should be forbidden it.

[DragonRider]

James,

Thanks for creating a thoughtful thread for not only you, but for us. It gave us I think an opportuinity to think again why we believe in what we do. Seeing the responses has been very rewarding for me. I do hope that you are a continual reader and I do understand if you withdrawl a bit and become a lurker if you think every post of yours becomes this long and thoughtful.

But please do post again. This country is based upon thoughts, and the freedom of thoughts. Those that can provoke thought and create a group of people to consider their value's in a manner such as this is good for all.

Welcome.

John

[blue86buick]

"...i dont like guns..." How can you like or dislike an inanimate object?

Simple, I don't like brussel sprouts or beets. So I think that argument is a nonstarter.
HA! This is exactly what I was going to say. :) Different veggies though, although I don't like those two either.

[arinvolvo]

It is simple to not like inanimate objects....Case in point, I dont like meat tenderizers....You know, those metal hammers with spikes on them?

I hate those things...

......evil hammers..:scrutiny:

[Mastrogiacomo]

I tried e-mailing this person but never received a reply. Has he even reponded to a post yet? Seems to me a paper should be fair to both sides but he has yet to respond to what everyone has contributed so far.

[CasualShooter]

Mastrogiacomo...

James has replied in this thread; but, it has been awhile. :)

He has also posted in other threads. Go back to his post at the start of this thread and click on "profile" and you will see when he last posted and to which thread. Click on "Search for all posts by this user" and you will get a list of all of his posts. You can then click on any you may be interested in to bring it up. :D

Still curious....:confused:

[only1asterisk]

A few days ago a mod checked on Mr. Castilla, he hasn't been logged in for a while. A pity, he seemed like a fine young man. I hope he carried something away with him.


I further hope this reply makes it to page 11...


David

[CasualShooter]

James' last 2 posts (on different threads) were on July 10, and previous to that on June 25.

So he's been away for a couple weeks before.

My bet is he'll be back. :D

At any rate, he certainly started a Great thread here! :)

[Rogelio]

Here in Peru we have very little guns and they are hard to get. That is why BG do as they like. Why do I own guns? Beacuase my family needs to stay alive

[Futo Inu]

Yes, guns are for killing.

Some people need killing. Those who would otherwise kill or maim you.

Animals - it's arguable. But hunting is needed in part for control of herd populations.

[chas_martel]

I have trouble understanding, and trusting, males with ZERO
intrigue of guns.

Just a'int right.....................

[Drjones]

I have trouble understanding, and trusting, males with ZERO
intrigue of guns.

Just a'int right.....................


"A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity."
--Sigmund Freud


I firmly believe that to be true.

[Drjones]

Rescinded.

[jsalcedo]

30 year vegetarian 21 year gun nut here.

I was raised on rabbit food, Eastern religion and generous doses of
war stories, plinking and gun collecting.

I have nothing against hunters or other types of carnivores
But it seems most of them have something against me.

[Frohickey]

Its not really that hunters and other bipedal sentient omnivores are against you. What they are against are the rabid vegetarians trying to force others to stop the eating of burnt animal flesh doused with tomato-based sauces with herbs and spices. (PETA)

Somehow, PETA has turned others against you in their extreme stance. Live and let live does not seem to be PETA's vocabulary.

[ump45]

30 year vegetarian 21 year gun nut here.

Nice to know I'm not alone.

[MountainPeak]

James, I'm 52 years old and have had to SHOW a firearm twice in my life to protect myself from serious injury, maybe death. I didn't fire or even point the firearm at anyone. Just the sight of it, and them knowing I was not going to be their victim changed minds. Jews For The Preservation Of Firearms recently put out a documentary of what can/did happen to societies after guns are banned. If you would like to have a reminder of what has and can happen again, I'll send you a copy. No charge, just PM me your address. All I ask is that you view it and maybe pass it on to friends that may believe that guns/gun owners are evil. Take Care.

[trooper]

Um, I know there is some good stuff in this thread but why did you unearth it again after six months? Obviously "James", whoever he is, chose not to respond a long time ago anyway.

Let this poor thing rest in peace.


Trooper

[P95Carry]

Probably this thread has well earned some rest ....... but it is a tour de force .... probably the greatest single thread ever likely on THR.

Somehow I missed it at its inception and then (due to the phenomenal THR traffic) ... obviously continued to miss it... pretty incredible but true. I have now tho, due it's probably brief resurrection been able to read it thru ... which has taken me a very long time .... not helped by flu and a wicked headache!

The standard of writing is for the most part staggering ..... and quite how any severely ''anti'' person could fail to be at least in part put on the ''straight and narrow'' .... is beyond me. But then I guess there are still some very closed minds out there.

This thread is real keeper.

Kudos to all .... and certainly .. if you ain't yet read ''Unintended Consequences'' ... go do so.:)

[Drjones]

Let this poor thing rest in peace.

Why for the love of anything holy would you want to let a thread as fine as this fade into obscurity? :confused: