That seems to get votes as well. Let's just abandon all our reasonable positions and take on all the Republican issues instead, from lower taxes for the rich and corporations to privatizing Medicare. It works! Boy, have we been suckers standing for the right things, when all along it is the wrong things that are so appealing to rabid Americans!

Thanks, but no thanks: I will not change my position on sensible gun safety laws, including a ban on assault weapons, and neither should the Democratic Party.

Remember the House Sit-In? It was our party's finest moment of late.

?preset=534-401

The idea that we have to be okay with gun violence to win elections is just stupid. I'll file this next to "be more racist"

...are quite different concepts.

But if you wish to continue getting pushback, keep promising to imprison 60+ million citizens because of what they have in their bedrooms, instead of refining your proposals to realistically target the actual problem.

Most of the gun laws / bans that are covered have little to do with gun violence.

Our platform should be: we don't care what gun you want to own, as long as you are not a criminal/crazy and store it safely.

Gun violence is never good .... No tolerance for that


I do not own a gun , I do know many people who do though

Democrats are going to have to address this subject differently ... just reread the Original post ........

If amendment or ban is then there will be another , and another ..... where does it stop ? I am not saying last statement that is what I have heard ........................

Your response is *exactly* why Gore failed to learn from Bill Clinton's mistakes in 2000, and lost; ditto Kerry in '04. Howard Dean worked hard to shed that fundamentalist mindset, and Dems did well in '06 and '08, before the Third Way authoritarians dragged the party back into the ditch in 2012-2013.

If you see mainstream gun ownership as a "sin" like racism and bigotry, then that failure to listen is certainly understandable. But purely from a pragmatic standpoint, it is helpful to understand the issue even if you personally don't like the guns in U.S. homes.

There is common ground to be found on violence prevention. Banning the most popular guns and magazines in U.S. homes isn't it.

then you are dealing with an obsession. And if all you can see are nuances, you're missing the forest for the trees.

Your theory is that Democrats who lost have lost on guns alone. And that Howard Dean was the answer. That's kind of crazy.

My contention is that Dems have lost a certain percentage of Dem and Independent gun-owner votes on the gun issue. That swing is much larger than the margin of loss here in NC.

If you're fine with that, keep pushing more of the same for the 2018 midterms and the 2020 presidential election. Because it definitely worked so well this year.

Did you pay any attention at all to the past year?

A lot of states that went for Obama in '08, I'll point out.

My state (NC) appears to have elected a pro-gun-owner Dem governor, while rejecting the anti-gun-owner presidential candidate. If you were to explore the reasons, you might find that threatening 2+ *million* NC residents with major felonies (a la the NY SAFE Act) might convince a few hundred thousand Dems and indies to stay home or leave the Presidential ballot blank. Just as in TN and WV in '00 (Gore lost his own home state), or a bunch of swing states in '04. And what was the margin of loss in heavily-gun-owning MI? FL? OH?

You may not *like* guns, but it is certainly helpful to understand that there are roughly 100 million gun owners, that they tend to vote at higher rates than the general population, and that they are more likely to vote the issue than are people who don't like guns. It's the ham and egg principle; if you're a chicken, you're concerned, but if you're a pig, you're involved.

And given those facts, is it too much to ask that the Dem leadership actually try to understand the nuances of the issue, instead of letting their policies and legislative proposals be set by those who don't understand, and can't avoid stepping on the mines?

Let me put it this way. If you proposed to outlaw hunting, and make it a Class D felony equivalent to rape for someone to go in the woods and shoot a deer, do you think you *might* get some pushback at the polls from the ~16 million Americans who hunt? If so, then why is it hard to grasp that threatening 60+ million with such felonies might create similar backlash?

that he would lose because of that.

It wasn't until after the 2012 election and the Sandy Hook murders (which neither a handgrip ban nor a magazine ban would have affected in the slightest) that the party went all-in on handgrip and magazine bans, rather than just pandering to Bloomberg's money.

Aside from greatly increasing rifle and magazine sales, the late-2012 reversion to the pre-2006 position ended up hurting Dems in the 2014 midterms and was a big part of losing *seven* Senate seats, which handed control of the Senate to the repubs.

Here in my state of NC, Kay Hagan shifted Third Way on gun control and lost her seat to a no-name repub in an upset. Udall in Colorado and Braley in Iowa, both strong ban proponents, lost to pro-gun repubs. Pro-gun Dem Max Baucus retired in Montana, so the party ran gun control zealot Amanda Curtis---in fricking Montana!---and lost the seat. Repubs picked up senate seats in South Dakota, where guns were a significant issue, and West Virginia, where it was huge. Pryor's loss in Arkansas can probably be blamed in part on the 2012-2014 gun ban push (do ya think people in Arkansas might, you know, own guns?).

I'm not saying gun and magazine bans were the *only* issue in play, but they are a really big one here in NC, and across most swing states. The number of states with majority gun control support can be counted on your fingers, with some fingers left over.

Gun nuts freaked out, and the polls changed zero. Also, in 2008 he made those (accurate) statements about people clinging to guns, religion, and xenophobia, which again were supposedly going to sink him. And the whole time the NRA was blasting him as the most anti-gun person in history.

The indiscriminate, hate-filled exploitation of the tragedy at Sandy Hook was when the "banic" occurred, when store shelves were cleared of ammo and AR production backlogged for a year, and when the die was cast for the loss of the Senate in 2014. And I would say that it wasn't Obama who was really responsible for it; it was mostly the corporate media (hate sells, via rageclicks and rage-shares on social media), plus a few hateful sound bites and draconian legislative proposals from a small set of Senate and House members, but mostly gun control activists on social media---and of course the NY SAFE Act. All I remember Obama actually doing was to express his dislike for people owning modern-looking guns, and much later the BATFE floating a half-baked proposal to ban M855 ammo that was later withdrawn as unworkable; the rest was basically restating and pledging to enforce existing law.

And the NRA is ~5 million members, compared to 12-15 million carry license holders, ~25-30 million "assault weapon" owners, ~60 million "high capacity magazine" owners, and ~100 million gun owners. What the NRA thinks, says, or does is not nearly as important to grassroots gun rights activism as gun-control activists seem to think.

You do realize I'm not an NRA member, right?

Were the NRA to disappear tomorrow, the gun control landscape wouldn't change in the slightest. You'd still run squarely against the fact that tens of millions of engaged, thoughtful, and highly motivated Americans own guns, and will keep them. You can accept that fact and look for common ground with the people you seem to hate but (realistically) have to coexist with, or the party can keep supporting useless, offensive crap like handgrip and magazine bans and carry-license harassment, and keep getting the same pushback.

The Third Way has been pushing to outlaw rifle handgrips for a frakking quarter century now, and so far they have achieved:

-- Mostly-ignored cosmetic bans in ~7 states, despite extreme penalties;
-- Record gun and ammo sales nearly every year for the last two decades;
-- Modern-looking rifles now dominate rifle ownership and the shooting sports;
-- Half a billion over-10-round magazines in U.S. homes;
-- Republican control of most state legislatures;
-- Republican control of the House and Senate;
-- President Trump.

Quite a track record. On the upside, rifle violence is now at historic lows...

Yeah, the NRA never thought Obama was serious about gun control! They loved the guy from the start!

Look, you're right that a lot of members of the "white working class" are totally indifferent to the tens of thousands of people killed by guns every year. And so if progressives decided that they didn't care about the massive and totally gratuitous loss of innocent life, they could pick up a few gun nut votes. Obviously.

But the same could be said about abortion, or climate change, or gay marriage, or whatever else.

at your peril.....that's on you.

You might be able to convince some other people that gun fanatics are actually misunderstood enlightened intellectuals (although from the looks of it few people here are buying it), but having had first hand experience, you're not going to be able to sell me on that particular piece of fiction.

I live in the Adirondack Park.....I still have my fire arms and you live in NYC..a cop may get to you eventually...I know many City cops, I'm in the City 2 times a month....I'll bet you beer/bullet money they agree with me more than you

What I especially like about the Adirondacks is that they're far enough away from NYC to keep city slickers like me from turning them into the Hamptons. Also the state or whoever is in charge does a good job protecting the nature. Lake Champlain too. The whole North Country is great.

When you need a Cop...call the 120th...it's in Staten Island but my cousin is OTJ...he may help you out...up here we mostly do for ourselves...because we can and have to.

You'll piss and moan about it but your post/mindset is why.....nobody to blame but yourself

And we Vote...and hope you stay the minority side of the ledger.

She wasn't going to try to overturn the ban on Manufacture law suits...she knew she couldn't..she was not threat to me.

by the OP is unnecessary. Looks like we're on the same side, supporting the party that supports stronger gun laws.

And of those, not a single one would be saved by requiring rifles to have stocks like this:

[img][/img]
http://www.ruger.com/products/mini14RanchRifle/specSheets/5802.html

instead of like this:


https://www.remington.com/rifles/modern-sporting/model-r-15/model-r-15-vtr-predator-moe-16-1/2

or like this:


http://www.ruger.com/products/sr22Rifle/specSheets/11134.html

Nor would any lives be saved by declaring common magazines verboten.

Nor would any lives be saved by telling carry license holders that we can't carry in restaurants with wine lists, or whatever.

Stuff like that isn't about preventing violence. Not in the slightest.

I would like to see European style gun laws in the US, and we could basically get there by reclassifying handguns and semi-automatic rifles under NFA.

Yeah, I know, never gonna happen. But that would be the right thing to do.

Failing that, universal background checks would be a move in the right direction.

Having said that, if I was going to murder a lot of people in a school, I would choose a rifle with a pistol grip, a front grip, and 30+ round magazines. And if you're going to tell me that instead you'd use a hunting rifle with a 5-round magazine, you're lying.

I mean, yeah, I hate the fact that my friend's gun nut uncle accidentally shot and killed his wife. And also the fact that another friend was woken up by a mysterious sound in the middle of the night and then found bullet holes in his apartment wall (nobody was hurt).

I travel to Europe a lot for business. Nobody there seems to have these kinds of stories. Hmm... And there are basically zero people in Europe who think that they should move towards US style laws. Everyone there (correctly) thinks the gun situation in the US is nuts. I remember once in London someone talking about a shady neighborhood where "someone might pull out a knife". Ahh, so quaint.

Yeah I get it: it's possible to kill people with a hunting rifle. Or without a gun at all. But, as everyone knows, a gun makes it a lot easier, and certain guns (handguns, mostly) make it a lot lot easier.

At the end of the day, the stats speak for themselves. We're the only first-world country that has epidemic levels of gun violence. We're also the only first-world country where you can just buy a handgun, no registration, no training, minor background check which you can avoid by buying secondhand, basically nothing. It's not a big secret what's going on.

Politically, sure you have a point. My friend's still-a-gun-nut-after-accidentally-killing-his-wife uncle will never vote for anyone who supports any gun control. But in terms of basic needs of society, Euro style laws are a no brainer.

I wouldn't mind if every semi-automatic rifle was banned in this country (and I even own one by inheritance), but I'd rather drop the issue on the national level if it's costing us elections. There are other issues far more important to me, like helping vulnerable citizens through economic/social hardships.

The entire first half of her campaign made it seem like, guns (how repubs interpret it), or gun violence (how Dems interpret it) was the #1 issue in the country instead of the economy.

She ran with that too long and hard. There are plenty of issues that resonate with both Democrat and Republican *voters*, some that she ran on, that she ran on but could have pushed harder on:

1. A job guarantee for those willing to work and a living wage, instead of chasing the imaginary debt boogeyman
2. Middle-Class Tax cuts
3. A public option
4. Going after her husbands policies, **Scrapping** free "trade" deals, workfare, and harsh sentencing laws
5. Massive debt jubilees

The language in their mailers is adequate to shake out millions of dollars from the gun hobbyists/paranoids.

In Ohio , it would be legal to bring a gun into a bar, and one could hold it until the bar employees asked you to take the gun outside. How pathetic

Get educated on Gun issues Guns in schools, guns in nursing homes, guns in day care centers, shoot first/stand your ground: all are stupid permissions.

then they wouldn't be controversial. The showdown comes when gun control advocates want prohibit carry by nondrinkers in restaurants with wine lists (or all restaurants, or all stores, or all churches, or whatever), and that is irrational and counterproductive.

Here in NC, it is illegal to carry while drinking, but you can carry in restaurants with wine lists (we had to fight the fundamentalists tooth and nail to get that changed). In Florida, it is illegal to carry in a an actual bar (e.g., an establishment that derives most of its income from alcohol sales), or at a bar in a restaurant with a bar.

Once again, it comes down to nuance, rather than fundamentalist attempts at prohibition. There is common ground if you look for it.

Guns in schools, guns in nursing homes, guns in day care centers, shoot first/stand your ground: all are stupid permissions.

Which is quite disingenous. They want less public spending and more tax cuts for millionaires.

Neither does mandating pre-1860s magazine capacities, or restricting licensed carry in restaurants with wine lists, all of which are complete non-issues.

So I ask again: Why the intense focus on harassing the peaceable and nonviolent, rather than addressing the actual problem areas? Namely, drug prohibition fueled violence, and people without pain management, mental health care, or hope?

I'll also point out that discouraging/barring gun owners from getting counseling for depression, or stigmatizing depression with felony-class criminal penalties like rights revocation, would *increase* suicides, not decrease it.

And what's the rational case against permitting a licensed, trained individual to discreetly carry while she is walking to/from the airport parking garage to pick up an arriving friend, and how is that different than her carrying while walking to/from a parking garage anywhere else?

No unchecked guns are allowed past an airport's security checkpoints, and you can already bring a gun up to the baggage check-in counter *without* a license (in a case) in order to fly with one, so allowing licensed carry when dropping off or picking up passengers doesn't really change the security situation in or around the airport.

This is another example of how gun control advocates view training and licensure with contempt, and thereby shoot themselves in the foot.

be studiously ignored.

As I've mentioned elsewhere, to get an NC license, I had to pass a Federal background check, state background check, FBI fingerprint check, mental health records check, take a class on self-defense law and tactics, and pass a shooting qualification on a range, live fire. For those of us who have passed that bar, there is no rational basis to say that it's OK to carry when transiting to/from a bus-station parking garage or a train-station parking garage, but not an airport parking garage, when picking up a friend late at night or whatever.

Your position comes down to "I despise gun owners and especially carry license holders, and I want to screw with them as much as possible." Pragmatically, one downside of that approach is that it makes gun owners oppose even common-ground positions like carry licensure (if you want to know why Vermont-style permitless carry is spreading across the country, look back at how you treat carry licensure). Expressing contempt for background checks, training, and licensure undermines any common ground you might otherwise try to achieve on background checks, training, and licensure, doesn't it?

The other downside is that "I hold you in contempt and I don't want your kind in my country" is a bummer of a campaign message when 15+ million voters have carry licenses, and as the Attorney General of Virginia found out the hard way last year, a whole heck of a lot of them are Democrats. And the thing is, that contempt-signaling doesn't gain you *anything* in terms of violence reduction; of the 13,500 murder victims in the United States annually, approximately 0 were shot between airport parking garages and terminals by holders of carry licenses.

Here in NC, there are between 550,000 and 600,000 holders of carry licenses, or three times Clinton's margin of loss in NC. Obviously carry licensure wasn't the issue driving the train here (there are also ca. 2 million "assault weapon" and over-10-round magazine owners here, and 4-5 million gun owners total, out of 10.5 million), and the Dem governor we just elected is a strong supporter of carry licensure, but the whole "Licensed Killers" meme is still asinine and counterproductive nationally. The demographics and political trends are both running strongly in the opposite direction.

I quit after its first sentence.

who commit violent crimes at less than 1/5th the rate of the population at large and 1/2 the rate of police officers. Especially given the gun control lobby's ostensible support for licensure and training.

By reflexively attacking licensed concealed carry, gun control advocates demonstrate that they are much more concerned with criminalizing gun possession by the trained, vetted, and nonviolent than they are about addressing misuse by the criminal or irresponsible.

What's *daft* is the gun control lobby's obsession with criminalizing the least misused guns and harassing the most thoroughly vetted owners, IMHO.

This guy wasn't carrying concealed. He checked an unloaded low-capacity Walther PPS pistol and multiple 7- or 8-round magazines through on a flight from Alaska, then retrieved it from baggage claim, loaded it in a rest room, and went on a shooting spree in the no-CCW-zone of the airport. He shot and reloaded until he used up all the ammo and magazines he brought with him, then surrendered when people with guns finally showed up.

If you recall, I said this upthread:

In your estimation, was that also a bad thing?

They just don't want to admit the truth.

That didn't happen...but you know that.

side walk...bad crap can happen.....You grabbers amaze me....your total ignorance of what happened in the case...
Hoyt you never fail to amuse me with your total ignorance of facts in the Zidiot-Martin case...and I know you won't debate me on it here....we did that on DI.....I handed you your ass...you had to make sock accounts

to notice.

....here is the testimony Hoyt....I can can do this minute by minute....

Last edited Sat Dec 3, 2016, 06:50 PM - Edit history (1)

gun traffickers for racist militia like the Aryan Nation.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/26/justice/zimmerman-trial/

You really want do do this again with me Hoyt....?

I've got ALL night to show minute by minute testimony you are wrong....
Shall we do this again?

with it. You support people like Zman, and will contort the truth. I bet you contributed to his defense.

Your pap crap of people supporting Zidiot is because you can't support YOUR grabber crap.
You lose constantly...because of your distortions.....and fake accounts...can't forget that.

No one is a Zidiot fan or supporter....do we support laws...yep. ...absolutely.

You've been at this for a long time...and have failed. It's not about Zidiot...a jury found him not guilty...of the crimes he was charged with...trying to label us with his idiocy gets you no where.

Old crap you are bringing up...a person that hasn't posted here in HOW many yrs....?

You don't like the laws that applied....and you hate armed self defense more, I get that.

You link has ZERO do do with supporting Zidiot.....has EVERYTHING to do with supporting the LAW that was applicable in the Martin case.

All the stereotypes you just so thoughtfully disproved. Let me also predict that race will be interjected into this thread, and somehow you will be proven to be a "racist"

One post down from yours and 25 minutes later, the ZOMG GUN OWNERS ARE RACISTS!! card came out. We could take bets on how soon the penis card will be played.

Typical gun control conversation, as seen on Facebook/Twitter/forums:

Gun owner: I think mentally competent adults with clean records should be able to lawfully own and use non-automatic, non-sound-suppressed civilian firearms under .51 caliber, plus shotguns.

Gun control advocate: Racist penis-compensating rural hick fucktard NRA dupe.

Gun owner: The FBI says rifles are used in less than 270 murders out of nearly 14,000 each year.

Gun control advocate: NRA-talking-point-spewing ignorant racist ammosexual scum.

Gun owner: You know, telling 80-100 million people you hate them every election isn't a good election strategy.

Gun control advocate: That's what all you racist penis-compensating bloodthirsty gun humpers say. Oh BTW, please vote for my favored candidate, kthanxbai!

But always a fun read

She isn't protesting the nearly 14,000 murders every year; she's protesting licensed, discreet carry by the peaceable and nonviolent, who are statistically far less likely to engage in aggression than the population without CHLs, or even police officers.

And in so doing, she reveals precisely how the gun control lobby feels about training, background checking, registration, and licensure; they hold it, and those who submit to it, in abject contempt. That hurts, not helps, her cause, by showing that the gun control lobby will not abide any middle ground or compromise. If you want to understand the push that is taking Vermont-style licenseless carry nationwide, there's one big reason for it.

And no, she wasn't protesting open carry; she was protesting licensed concealed by openly carrying a dildo and making derogatory insinuations, to provoke reactions. Doing so is her First Amendment right, and if she genuinely got the reactions she was trying to provoke (setting aside the cui bono question), then it would show that there are unfortunately childish personas on both sides of this discussion.

Ultimately, the gun control lobby does itself no favors by sinking her message to the level of childish culture-war playground taunts rather than rational debate. But namecalling, demonization, and penis jokes comprise pretty much the entire pro-restrictions argument these days.

She could always go compare the violence rate of CHL holders to the broader population without CHLs, or to police officers...but that would reinforce the pro-licensure side, not the CARRY LICENSURE IS JUST LIKE SEX TOYS side, so we can't have that...

In this thread so far, I have yet to see a cogent argument from you as to why your policy proposals (rifle handgrip bans, magazine bans, curtailing carry licensure) are rational. All I see is attempts at guilt by association, namecalling, and playground insults.

The same tactics that helped alienate swing-state voters and put Trump in the White House.

I disagreed a lot with Paul Helmke et al with regard to violence prevention strategies, but at least they tried to make a rational, civil defense of their legislative positions. Apparently the gun control lobby is no longer capable of that.

and the world.
You bullshit here about Zidiot...a hispanic male....yet claim to be about stopping bullying of Latina students....

Begs the question...why is any Latina more protected than any other....I know why...one used a firearm to not get his head crushed on a sidewalk

What is "gunbullying"........more of your made up crap....what is "gunbullying"...because some of us own a firearm or 10 and you don't like it....is "gunbullying".....poor put upon stoney....not going to change....we 2A supporting Dems are going to keep our arms....your pissy moany crap will have no or next to zero bearing....whine all you want sparky..you can't get them

Last edited Mon Dec 5, 2016, 06:36 PM - Edit history (1)

It's a gun grabber commercial and totally unsubstantiated claims after the fact....you keep linking to this video...proves SQUAT.....I notice you ran right to Ask The Admin after this deal..yet to be answered....I'm thinking they will read everything here and giggle at you...like most of your posts....

I'll bet you either get no reply...or better yet...one you hate...that discussion in this section of DU allows differing views...actually we welcome them...and I've only been here for a yearish.

Is she "white wing".....you crack me up as much here as you did at DI....never fail to amuse no matter how many ID's you tried to make.
That's why you were banned...repeatedly trying to "sock" the joint

I know you couldn't argue gun laws if Bloomberg wrote your script for you....

This is Fucking America, and our forefathers put it in the Constitution. And besides, it's the one thing that actually unites Democrats & Republicans. Heck....Democrats like guns as much as Republicans. Everybody loves a good gun, and 1 is not enough. There are so many different kinds. Sometimes you just need an AR-15, and it is your right as an American.

So forget about the guns! It's costing us elections. Accept them, and don't speak out against them.

One) people cross state lines and go to places like my beloved Florida to smuggle guns. Hell, there is a reason Florida guns keep showing up at places like Columbine. Al Qaeda even recommended this trick.

Two) there is a difference between a hunting rifle and a weapons that was made to KILL PEOPLE. If anyone is taking an ak 47 or a glock to shoot deer, they are awful hunters.

But of course, we have to appease a certain demographic, now matter how many bodies people up, and people will say "you better gimme everything I want" which of course, is what gun ownership in this country is truly about.

It pisses me off when the gun people say..."What About Chicago? They have strict laws, and still have a huge gun problem."

Well guess what, bright guy? Maybe.....just maybe....those guns were all brought in from another state. There is this new invention called an automobile. And since guns are so ingrained in this country, there's no telling really what's out there. And clearly the solution is to keep making more and more.

I guess for some, guns are like a good cd or dvd. You start out with Led Zeppelin 4, and before you know it, you're collecting cd's left and right.

And while 1 gun might be useful for say.....killing. Another gun might be useful for something completely different. Or not.

who they are...they have them on a list.

Figure there has to be a way to deal with the people actually responsible for the mayhem. Other locales have figured it out.

hunt.

For what it is worth, 5 rounds of .308 from of a bolt action Remington 700 are just as lethal for killing deer as 5 rounds out of an AR-10.

Both would be great choices for hunting (most Glocks, not so much).

Protection from all the other guns out there.

Again, the only solution is more guns, not less.

I guess I could have learned how to use a gun when I was younger. Gaining years of practice. So I could be enough of an expert, that I would be able to blow away a criminal who broke into my house. A criminal who was likely experienced with using a gun. Hopefully my gun would be better than his. And hopefully I have to time to get it from it's safe and secure spot in time.

2013 "A national survey finds that nearly half of gun owners (48%) volunteer that the main reason they own a gun is for protection..."


Yes, you could have grown up with them. Certainly makes it easier to be comfortable and proficient with them, but it isn't absolutely necessary.
Practice (and some natural coordination) definitely makes a difference - attitude too. Shooting is a blast besides.

You would also have a great advantage in your own home - it is your turf. Chances are VERY good you know it better then some fucker climbing through your window. Also yes - your gun should definitely better then his - one you know inside and out and are confident with. Shotgun, handgun, semi carbine - all viable choices. Besides not sure how much typical criminals actually practice.

Understandable guns for defense are not for everyone - a person's got to know their limitations.

If you are responsible, or perhaps just because you have others around, you keep the gun locked in a safe.

Won't you have to retrieve it and be ready in time, before the criminal who picked your front door, has opened it and pointed his gun at you?

And if you were ready, won't the presence of your gun make it more likely that he will react in a way which you might not be able to predict, whereby you end up missing him, but he in turn shoots you dead?

I guess I look at the alternative side when it comes to guns. Where some might think it's a way to protect yourself from harm, I view it as an item which is capable of causing death, and while perhaps not 50/50, still probably increases the chance of my own death. And maybe even due to my own, or someone else's, negligence.

one within reach - they have these quick bio safes to hold handguns etc.

It is also easier to keep one handy if you don't have kids and the like. Lock it up when you go out etc. (and/or CCW it)


If you have a gun on you or "within reach", odds are pretty good you will have the drop on someone coming through your door - from a position of cover besides. Of course you might miss, but no reason to expect it. (I really doubt I would miss.)

It does take responsibility and thought...anything to up your odds in your favor.

The alternative is to do nothing, and have little to no chance to defend yourself against bigger, stronger, armed, more, etc.


I think, like so many things, it may come down to experience. SO many people grow up with guns. HAVE used them all their lives. DO practice a lot. HAVE given thought to safety AND defense and practicality. HAVE used them as part of a career.

They are not always convenient, not always practical, not always worth the effort. But they can be nice to have around just in case.

I don't own a gun in lieu of other security measures, but in addition to them. The gun just means that I have the option to threaten or use countervailing force in the unlikely event of a home invasion. A gun isn't a substitute for decent doors/locks, a dog if permitted, a pepper spray (Kimber Pepper Blaster is a good option that can safely be used indoors), lighting, situational awareness, security system, etc. It's not either-or.

Owning a gun is certainly a deeply personal choice, and certainly depends on one's own experience/competence with them, attention to detail, etc. I personally am a competitive shooter and have been an avid shooter for 30+ years (I'm 46 now). I'd certainly recommend training, but one of the nice things about shooting a martial art is that it is a lot of fun.

As to choice of firearm, a handgun can be kept holstered on one's person, especially if one jumps through the hoops to qualify for a carry license, and habitually carries. For sheltering in place while calling 911, a long gun (small-caliber carbine like an AR, or a shotgun) is superior in a lot of ways (more precise, more powerful), but a lot less portable.

Both 1 and 2...
Let's just do 2..."..there is a difference between a hunting rifle and a weapons that was made to KILL PEOPLE.".....Really? What would be the difference? My hunting firearms are just as capable of killing a human as they are to kill a deer, a moose, a duck, a squirrel....Yet my arms have NEVER killed a human.
My AR has killed pigs in Texas, Florida, Arkansas, Alabama, Louisiana and south end of Pennsylvania..... but NEVER killed a human in any state...sun of a bitch...it must be defective.

Murder, by State, Types of Weapons, 2015

[font face="courier new"]Total murders...................... 13,455
Handguns............................ 6,447 (47.9%)
Firearms (type unknown)............. 2,648 (19.7%)
Clubs, rope, fire, etc.............. 1,671 (12.4%)
Knives and other cutting weapons.... 1,544 (11.5%)
Hands, fists, feet.................... 624 (4.6%)
Shotguns.............................. 269 (2.0%)
Rifles................................ 252 (1.9%) [/font]