The Second Amendment

[diamondback688]

This thread is a split-off of the rather heated political thread. I thought it would make a good discussion.

So, what is everyone's opinion on the second amendment, or firearms in general?

I enjoy firearms. Ever since I earned the rifle shooting merit badge with my Boy Scout troop, I have been interested in firearms. After I earned that merit badge, my dad bought a couple of used .22 caliber rifles that we could take out to our local shooting range and just shoot at targets.

I also earned the shotgun shoot merit badge, which got me interested in skeet shooting. When I turned 18(Which is the age you are allowed to purchase a rifle/shotgun), I bought a 20 gauge shotgun.

About eight months ago, I bought an AR-15, which is the civilian model of the military's M-16.

After I bought my AR-15, I joined an internet forum specific to the AR-15 rifle. That is when I started reading up on the second amendment.

So, with that back story in mind, my opinion is this. I am a law-abiding citizen. It is my right to own a firearm and I choose to exercise that right.

Now, I do think that there needs to be laws governing who can buy and/or possess a firearm. That includes criminals, whether it is a misdemeanor or a felony offense and people who have been deemed mentally unstable.

The second amendment is the main reason I did not vote for Barack Obama. One thing he wants to do is bring back the Assault Weapons Ban of 1993. That ban would make my ownership of a so-called "assault rifle" illegal. So, that is my opinion.

[kierbabi09]

Living in the city that I do (Phila.) and so many people, including so many COPS,being killed by guns, I'm so against them. I don't know if you mean hand guns, but I do not think people should have the right to own hand guns. That is just my opinion. I think people should be able to have them for hunting, but other than that, I don't think we should be able to have guns.
I can't tell you how many times I read of a 10 year old, who finds his parents gun, supposedly locked up, playing with it and shoorting someone by accident.
Again, just my opinion.

[diamondback688]

Living in the city that I do (Phila.) and so many people, including so many COPS,being killed by guns, I'm so against them. I don't know if you mean hand guns, but I do not think people should have the right to own hand guns. That is just my opinion. I think people should be able to have them for hunting, but other than that, I don't think we should be able to have guns.
I can't tell you how many times I read of a 10 year old, who finds his parents gun, supposedly locked up, playing with it and shoorting someone by accident.
Again, just my opinion.

I meant firearms in general.

[Jacob'sDad]

I'm no expert but I don't think the second amendment is there just to protect the right to own hunting firearms or even handguns. I think it's there so the citizens have the right to protect and defend themselves from an invasion from a hostile force, including their own government if it was ever overthrown or became hostile towards its citizens. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong.

[diamondback688]

I'm no expert but I don't think the second amendment is there just to protect the right to own hunting firearms or even handguns. I think it's there so the citizens have the right to protect and defend themselves from an invasion from a hostile force, including their own government if it was ever overthrown or became hostile towards its citizens. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong.

No. You're correct. But, the second amendment encompasses my right to own firearms, which would be needed if the government was ever overthrown or there was an invasion against this country.

[GAmom]

I'm no expert but I don't think the second amendment is there just to protect the right to own hunting firearms or even handguns. I think it's there so the citizens have the right to protect and defend themselves from an invasion from a hostile force, including their own government if it was ever overthrown or became hostile towards its citizens. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong.
You're right.
Hi bg and a handy gun would be a diaster here. So tho' my dh feels like you, I say no til type 1 is cured. Every one I know has a gun,but I live in the South. A friend of mine told me she had a list of Q's for playdates to ask parents when our dd's were little, and she said did I realize that I should ask the parent if they had a gun in the house. I just laughed, "this is South, just Know that everyone has a gun
in their house" except us. My parents live in a town that actually has a law that every household must own a gun. Home invasions have gone down, so my dh expouses. My parents now have a capgun;) We just have a Big Dog.
There is a lot of accidents around here with firearms, its scary.

[diamondback688]

You're right.
Hi bg and a handy gun would be a disaster here.

Would you mind explaining that to me? You're saying that I should not own a firearm because I'm a diabetic?:confused:

[Lance]

Living in the city that I do (Phila.) and so many people, including so many COPS,being killed by guns, I'm so against them. I don't know if you mean hand guns, but I do not think people should have the right to own hand guns. That is just my opinion. I think people should be able to have them for hunting, but other than that, I don't think we should be able to have guns.
I can't tell you how many times I read of a 10 year old, who finds his parents gun, supposedly locked up, playing with it and shoorting someone by accident.
Again, just my opinion.

Kiersten - First, let me say that I love the fact that at age 17, you aren't afraid to express your opinion. Too many people don't know how to disagree without being disagreeable. I've read a number of your posts, and you, along with some of your peers here, are remarkable kids. I hope my grandkids grow up with the same positive attitudes toward life that you all have.

Now, I'll tell you where I think you're wrong. ;)

You are free to be against having guns, but the Second Amendment grants the right to own them. I'm not a gun enthusiast, and wasn't raised around them at all - never had one in the house - until a couple years ago. Why did I do it? Simply to provide some protection for my family if needed. I hope I never need it - just like I hope I never need the homeowner's insurance I have. But if I do need it......

As for the argument about kids finding them and shooting someone, that is truly a tragedy. It happens everywhere. Here where I live, in the sunny http://www.asturcon3.com/emicons/beach.gif southwest, we have far more kids that drown in pools when their parents leave them unattended. Just as much of a tragedy, and just as avoidable. Responsible adults just need to do their job - protect the kids from these dangers. Don't count on the government to do it for them.

Here's where we can agree.... although I do think we all should have the RIGHT to own a gun, there are lots of people who I don't think SHOULD own a gun! :D

[MamaC]

I don't care for guns, won't own one. My opinion, my choice.

I don't question our Constitutional right to bear arms, as I interpret the intent of our forefathers (not a constitutional scholar).

Here comes the "BUT:"

"Arms" as we know them today have long since left the realm of reality addressed by the Second Amendment.

[BozziesMom]

I believe people should have the right to own guns if they choose. I have no problem with that. I do know that statistics show that a crime or incident is more likely to become deadly where a gun comes into play. (Taking a criminology class.) Nonetheless, I think people should be allowed to hunt, target shoot, and have one for protection if they feel the need.

My sister's dh has guns in the house. My girlfriend has a gun. My mom and dad keep guns. I won't have one. My first husband kept guns in the house. I used to hide the bullets. One day he found them and shot himself. I never liked them around my daughter.

If this husband decides he wants a gun in the house, he and his gun can live happily ever after.

Onward:

I don't see the need for an assault rifle for target practice. I used a bb gun when I was a teen. :) Perhaps decorative and unloaded in a nice display case if you're into the collecting thing.

And there was a comment on the other thread about warding off a group of attackers. I tell you, gun or no gun, I'd move out of any neighborhood where a group might decide to come attack. :) And if you're out somewhere inciting enough ire in a group that they decide to attack, chances are you're not going to have your automatic weapon with you.

[Jacob'sDad]

I don't care for guns, won't own one. My opinion, my choice.

I don't question our Constitutional right to bear arms, as I interpret the intent of our forefathers (not a constitutional scholar).

Here comes the "BUT:"

"Arms" as we know them today have long since left the realm of reality addressed by the Second Amendment.

Guns are a little different now aren't they? BUT back then both sides in a conflict would have had similar firearms, right? What would similar firearms be today?

[Kaylee's Mommy]

I, personally, would never own a firearm, I don't have a need for it.. but I don't have a problem with other people having them.. BUT something needs to be done about the criminals getting their hands on them.. and the kids.. did you hear about the 13 year old boy that was at a gun show with his dad, they let him shoot the gun ( it was at a target range).. the gun was to powerful, he lost control and shot himself in the head and died.. to me there is NO NEED of a young boy using an automatic gun.. I feel for those parents.. the dad especially, he gave permission for his son to use the gun..

I see no need for automatic guns (with exception of the military, of course).. or kids being able to target shoot like that.. I wouldn't let either of my children.. Obviously there are responsible people out there that will use the guns for what they are intended to be used for (hunting, target shooting, protection (police), military..etc..) but they easily get into the hands of those that don't use them correclty.. to many young people die every day because of guns being in the wrong hands.

obviously this IMO, if you (you as in general you) are responsible and doing everything you are suppose to and not using it in the wrong way there is no reason why you shoudn't be able to, its not my place to tell you you can't.. what needs to happen is a way to keep it out of the criminal's hands.. but that is near impossible with out keeping it out of the hands of those that use it correctly.. its like when someone in class does something wrong and every one pays for it.. not fair to those that were doing what they were suppose to be doing..

[diamondback688]

I don't see the need for an assault rifle for target practice.

Technically, an AR-15 can't be classified as an assault rifle. The definition of an assault rifle is "An assault rifle is a selective fire rifle or carbine firing ammunition with muzzle energies intermediate between those typical of pistol and high-powered rifle ammunition". (See Here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_Rifle))

[BozziesMom]

Technically, an AR-15 can't be classified as an assault rifle. The definition of an assault rifle is "An assault rifle is a selective fire rifle or carbine firing ammunition with muzzle energies intermediate between those typical of pistol and high-powered rifle ammunition". (See Here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_Rifle))

Good enough. But don't discount bb guns and those newfangled airsoft things if you're shooting at tin cans or bullseyes. Actually my son does have an airsoft gun - he's 12. Not thrilled about that really, but I do understand the drive to shoot at targets when you're young.

And I still think your AR-15 would look lovely behind a plexiglass pane. ;)

[LizinTX]

I think one should have the right to own a gun--provided they know how to shoot it too.

I grew up with guns in the house. Gun safety to me meant "Do NOT touch the gun". This was the mantra from mom and dad; dad was "old school" he taught the boys how to shoot, but not the girls. This was not a big deal to me.

Dh also grew up with guns, at one time he worked in a prison and carried a gun every day and trained with it every week. This was before we met.

Dh also had a little brother who was brought up a bit differently by the time the little brother came along their weren't any guns in the house. One day the little brother, along with a friend found a gun, loaded it and fired it----you can see where this is headed. His little brother bled to death before the ambulance got there. His little brother was and will forever be eleven; dh was 19 at the time.

When I got pregnant dh got rid of his guns. We don't expect anyone else to get rid of theirs. This was a choice we made. I can almost guarantee that nearly every house around us has at least one gun--this is Texas after all.

I don't think anything could have prevented the tragedy with Rocky, it was really a freak accident. I tell the story though, just let you know our reasons for not having a gun, yet supporting the right to own one.

I just think that along with gun ownership one also needs to be proficient with handling it and firing it.

[diamondback688]

Good enough. But don't discount bb guns and those newfangled airsoft things if you're shooting at tin cans or bullseyes.

I wasn't. I had BB guns when I was eight or nine.

[MamaC]

Guns are a little different now aren't they? BUT back then both sides in a conflict would have had similar firearms, right? What would similar firearms be today?

I admit that I don't have a clue how to answer that. I understand what you are saying, but really I just don't know much about guns other than the fact that they are way different than they were 200+ years ago. And I don't have a problem with my lack of detailed knowledge. I just don't think that anyone can completely protect himself from the bad guys. Cuz the bad guys always think they are one step ahead. That's what makes them dangerous.

Yes, I would live in a shell under a rock if I could.

[saxmaniac]

Technically, an AR-15 can't be classified as an assault rifle. The definition of an assault rifle is "An assault rifle is a selective fire rifle or carbine firing ammunition with muzzle energies intermediate between those typical of pistol and high-powered rifle ammunition". (See Here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_Rifle))

A technical detail, that almost doesn't matter. The word "assault" is likely a political world here, chosen to gain support for a bill, not a technical term. Politicans abuse technical terms all the time for emotional response. (There are laws classifying certain beer as "ales" that are not really ales. Technically, an ale is fermented at room temperature with a certain strain of yeast. Doesn't stop them from making laws!)

To uninitiated people like me, anything that's semi-auto or automatic that can "shoot fast" has little legitimate place in sporting or self-defense. It seems to me that any good sportsmen or self-defender is plenty well-equipped with a manual. My dad was a hunter - but with old fashioned rifles and bows & arrows. (Hunting with arrows, now that's a sport.)

The tough part about regulation is this. Other than fundamentalists who would have you believe that no restrictions ever can be made, everyone thinks the other guy needs to be regulated. Hey, that guy shouldn't be able to have any guns... because he's not like me. That guy shouldn't have gun type X... because I don't use that kind.

If you think it's okay to interpret the second amendment as excluding some class of citizens, then it's okay for others to exclude certain classes of arms. Welcome to judicial activism!

[Illinifan]

I, personally, would never own a firearm, I don't have a need for it.. but I don't have a problem with other people having them.. BUT something needs to be done about the criminals getting their hands on them.. and the kids.. did you hear about the 13 year old boy that was at a gun show with his dad, they let him shoot the gun ( it was at a target range).. the gun was to powerful, he lost control and shot himself in the head and died.. to me there is NO NEED of a young boy using an automatic gun.. I feel for those parents.. the dad especially, he gave permission for his son to use the gun..

I feel for this father. I also feel for the father of a teenage son who backs the family SUV out of the garage onto the driveway and in the process, runs over and kills their 3 year old adopted daughter. This happened this summer to Steven Curtis Chapman and his family. Do we restrict the purchase of SUVs because you can kill somebody with one?

<Looks in the matchbook. None left. Sigh. Must be time for bed.>

[saxmaniac]

I feel for this father. I also feel for the father of a teenage son who backs the family SUV out of the garage onto the driveway and in the process, runs over and kills their 3 year old adopted daughter. This happened this summer to Steven Curtis Chapman and his family. Do we restrict the purchase of SUVs because you can kill somebody with one?

I agree with that this tragedy is not a good case for regulation. The responsibility lies with the parent misjudging his child's ability to handle that firearm.

But SUVs aren't explicitly designed to kill things. Weapons do justly warrant separate treatment. We can't put weapons and peanut butter in the same category, just because the latter might kill people with allergies. Weapons have a purpose, and it's disingenuous to deny what it is.

Well, until someone weaponizes peanut butter, that is.

[twicker1]

I have not gone through the gun safety course, but I do intend to one day. We have a gun in the house and the kids know it.

Just recently, my neighbor's son and his roommates were awakened by a loud noise in their apartment. Turns out that an intruder had broken in before they got home for the evening and he hid in a closet. Somehow he fired his gun inside the closet. My neighbor's son was in his room, with the door closed, and could hear a lot of struggling and yelling going on. Next thing you know, the intruder came to his room through a bathroom, and the intruder was promptly shot at, and hit in the shoulder. He then went back to the living room, attempted to shoot one of the roommates, firing twice and he was shot AGAIN, but another boy, in the chest. THEN, he ran out of the apartment, but was luckily caught down the street.

I agree that majority of the time, the bad guy has the upper hand, and you won't have time to grab a gun, but in this case, it possibly saved five lives. I understand that some politicians and groups want to ban guns, but there is one HUGE problem with that. Just because law abiding citizens aren't allowed to get guns, that is in NO way going to stop the bad guys from having guns. The only thing they are preventing is self defense.

[frizzyrazzy]

could someone site some statistics showing that having a gun in the home protects you from crime?

[Lee]

While I do not allow firearms in my house, I am ranked marksmen with a Shotgun and a M16; I missed by one shot earning my marksmen with a pistol while in the Air Force.

So yeah - I like to shoot - but I also believe that things like thumbprint locks, security systems, etc are very important!

[Emma'sDad]

I believe that anyone who wishes to own any firearm should have extensive training as well before they are able to own one.

I totally agree with this! It's like driving, you need to prove that you can drive before you are allowed to get a license to drive a loaded car.

[frizzyrazzy]

While I do not allow firearms in my house, I am ranked marksmen with a Shotgun and a M16; I missed by one shot earning my marksmen with a pistol while in the Air Force.

So yeah - I like to shoot - but I also believe that things like thumbprint locks, security systems, etc are very important!
my dh loves shooting too and gets all giddy when they go to the range every few months. However, when he was over seas he said he definitely didn't like carrying a weapon all the time. It was just an uncomfortable feeling. (though he readily admits it would have been even more uncomfortable not having it)

i'm still waiting for the stats that show that having a gun in the home protects you from crime though. :)

[Jacob'sDad]

I admit that I don't have a clue how to answer that. I understand what you are saying, but really I just don't know much about guns other than the fact that they are way different than they were 200+ years ago. And I don't have a problem with my lack of detailed knowledge. I just don't think that anyone can completely protect himself from thge bad guys. Cuz the bad guys always think they are one step ahead. That's what makes them dangerous.

Yes, I would live in a shell under a rock if I could.

I understand what you are saying too. I doubt very much whether little children 200+ years ago were finding there Dad's black powder gun and accidently shooting their brother with it.

[sammysmom]

Since my hubby is a police officer there is no other option then to have a gun in the house. My hubby loves his guns. He loves to shoot and actually scores very high on his rifle/handgun qualification every year that he gets a bonus in his paycheck.

I do not like guns. Don't even want to know how to shoot one. We compromise. He has a dept issued locked gun cabinet where he keeps his guns while at home. I do not even have a key to the cabinet.

If the boys want to learn to shoot (which they do) their dad will teach them. I can not think of a better person to do it.

Even though I do not like guns, I am against anyone trying to take them away!

shannon

[hawkeyegirl]

i'm still waiting for the stats that show that having a gun in the home protects you from crime though. :)

I hope you're prepared for a long wait. ;)

A gun in the house is many, many more times likely to be used against another member of the house than to be used successfully against an intruder. I'd like to know what these people do who claim they need a gun for protection at home. Do they keep a loaded gun in their nightstand? 'Cause that's not feeling so safe to me.

I've also read that if you are armed and proficient with that weapon, an unarmed man still is more likely to be able to overpower you from a distance of 20' and closer before you can actually aim and shoot him with a degree of accuracy.

I have no interest in taking people's guns away. I do not think armor-piercing bullets should be sold to private citizens. I do not think assult rifles should be sold to private citizens. I think there should be rigorous background checks and safety classes required. There is no unfettered right to bear arms in the Constitution. Just as the government is allowed to place restrictions on free speech, they are also allowed to place restrictions on gun ownership.

[BozziesMom]

I understand what you are saying too. I doubt very much whether little children 200+ years ago were finding there Dad's black powder gun and accidently shooting their brother with it.

Black powder guns are very labor intensive just to set up for a shot. My BIL has one.

[frizzyrazzy]

another question - for our friends in Canada. It's my understanding that Canada has extremely tight gun control laws - is that correct? And canada also has much less incidence of violent crime involving guns, is that also correct? So to me that disproves the theory that if you take guns away from private citizens then you will only have criminals with guns. Anyone know anything about this?

[Nancy in VA]

I don't feel comfortable around them, have never handled one and don't intend to.

That said, until you find a way to get all of the weapons away from the criminals, you better not take away my right to own one.

I don't think that ANYONE needs automatic or semi-automatic weapons, but as long as they exist, criminals will get them and so I better be able to too!

[diamondback688]

Unfortunately in my state training is not required unless one wishes to have a carry and conceal license.

There are no courses you have to take before you are allowed to own a firearm in Florida either, unless you want to carry concealed(Which I plan to do when I turn 21)


but I also believe that things like thumbprint locks, security systems, etc are very important!

So do I. Which is why I bought a lockable gun cabinet after I bought my AR-15. It is bolted to the wall with screws and I have the only key.

I also keep locks on both of my .22 caliber rifles when they are in the locked gun cabinet.

A gun in the house is many, many more times likely to be used against another member of the house than to be used successfully against an intruder.

Do you have any proof of this?


I do not think armor-piercing bullets should be sold to private citizens.

I'm going to get technical again. There is no such thing as an armor-piercing bullet. It really depends on how much protection a bullet-proof vest provides. You could consider a .308 caliber bullet armor-piercing because it can go through a police officer's bullet-proof vest.


I do not think assualt rifles should be sold to private citizens.

That is your opinion and you are entitled to it, just as I am entitled to mine.

I think there should be rigorous background checks and safety classes required.

There are background checks performed whenever you buy a firearm. When I bought my AR-15, the dealer that I had it mailed to so he could transfer ownership to me(I bought it legally online) called the BATFE when I was standing there and checked me out. As for classes that are required, in the state of Florida, there is a hunter safety course that is required before you can get a hunting license. I have never taken it and do not plan to because I do not hunt.

[frizzyrazzy]

Nancy's thoughts make me wonder something else - what are the real statistics on how likely it is to be involved in a violent crime involving a weapon?

[diamondback688]

another question - for our friends in Canada. It's my understanding that Canada has extremely tight gun control laws - is that correct?

From what I have heard, Canada does have some strict gun laws. I have no read up on them because I do not live in Canada.

[Darryl]

Guns are for only one purpose, which is to kill. A bullet exits the gun faster than the speed of sound,
pierces the skin, rips through blood vessels, arteries, and internal organs, shatters bones, severs nerves,
and causes internal bleeding that results in death. Sometimes death by gun is instant, other times it
can take hours or days.

A person who fires a gun has assumed the role of God, taking the life of another person. But even God
commands us not to kill. The relationship between pro-life and pro-gun philosophy is interesting to say
the least.

Did anyone read about the 8-year old boy who died of multiple bullets piercing his brain last week, as
his father proudly placed into his son's hands, his son's first submachine gun at a gun show? After the
trainer showed the boy how to use the gun, the boy pulled the trigger on this gun that shoots 30 bullets
a second. The recoil drove the barrel of the gun upward, and blasted apart the boy's skull and brain.
The outrage over that incident lasted for a day or so. No charges will be filed, because, you know, the
2nd amendment and all that.

[frizzyrazzy]

There are no courses you have to take before you are allowed to own a firearm in Florida either, unless you want to carry concealed(Which I plan to do when I turn 21)




So do I. Which is why I bought a lockable gun cabinet after I bought my AR-15. It is bolted to the wall with screws and I have the only key.

I also keep locks on both of my .22 caliber rifles when they are in the locked gun cabinet.



Do you have any proof of this?



I'm going to get technical again. There is no such thing as an armor-piercing bullet. It really depends on how much protection a bullet-proof vest provides. You could consider a .308 caliber bullet armor-piercing because it can go through a police officer's bullet-proof vest.



That is your opinion and you are entitled to it, just as I am entitled to mine.



There are background checks performed whenever you buy a firearm. When I bought my AR-15, the dealer that I had it mailed to so he could transfer ownership to me(I bought it legally online) called the BATFE when I was standing there and checked me out. As for classes that are required, in the state of Florida, there is a hunter safety course that is required before you can get a hunting license. I have never taken it and do not plan to because I do not hunt.
Ryan you're naive to think that all people who own guns obtain them legally. There is plenty of statistical proof that guns obtained by criminals are obtained legally:
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/guns.htm
According to the 1997 Survey of State Prison Inmates, among those possessing a gun, the source of the gun was from -


a flea market or gun show for fewer than 2%
a retail store or pawnshop for about 12%
family, friends, a street buy, or an illegal source for 80%

so 80% of the guns owned by criminals in this one survey are not obtained through the proper channels.
That website is full of useful stats.

And for your reading enjoyment:
http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/issues/?page=home
which sites all the necessary research on why guns in the home are more likely to kill YOU.
Does a Gun in the Home Make You Safer?
No. Despite claims by the National Rifle Association (NRA) that you need a gun in your home to protect yourself and your family, public health research demonstrates that the person most likely to shoot you or a family member with a gun already has the keys to your house. Simply put: guns kept in the home for self-protection are more often used to kill somebody you know than to kill in self-defense; 22 times more likely, according to a 1998 study by the Journal of Trauma.[1 (http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/issues/?page=home#1)] More kids, teenagers and adult family members are dying from firearms in their own home than criminal intruders. When someone is home, a gun is used for protection in fewer than two percent of home invasion crimes.[2 (http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/issues/?page=home#2)] You may be surprised to know that, in 1999, according to the FBI's Uniform Crime Report, there were only 154 justifiable homicides committed by private citizens with a firearm compared with a total of 8,259 firearm murders in the United States. Once a bullet leaves a gun, who is to say that it will stop only a criminal and not a family member? Yet at every opportunity the NRA uses the fear of crime to promote the need for ordinary citizens to keep guns in their home for self-protection. Furthermore, the NRA continues to oppose life-saving measures that require safe-storage of guns in the home.
Keeping a Gun in the Home Can Be Deadly
Because handguns and other firearms are so easily accessible to many children, adolescents and other family members in their homes, the risk of gun violence in the home increases dramatically. Consider this: The risk of homicide in the home is three times greater in households with guns.[3 (http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/issues/?page=home#3)] The risk of suicide is five times greater in households with guns.[4 (http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/issues/?page=home#4)] What's more, tragic stories of accidental or unintentional shootings from the careless storage of guns at home are all too common. The statistic noted above bears repeating: a gun in the home is 22 times more likely to be used in a criminal, unintentional, or suicide-related shooting than to be used in a self-defense shooting.

[frizzyrazzy]

A person who fires a gun has assumed the role of God, taking the life of another person. But even God
commands us not to kill. The relationship between pro-life and pro-gun philosophy is interesting to say
the least.


that's something that always makes me go hmmmmmm.

[StillMamamia]

A person who fires a gun has assumed the role of God, taking the life of another person. But even God
commands us not to kill. The relationship between pro-life and pro-gun philosophy is interesting to say
the least.



Thank you for this excellent point. My thoughts exactly.
***hoping the discussion will not get blown out of proportion, otherwise thread will be closed for sure;)***

[vettechmomof2]

For anyone who is interested in statistics and guns look here.


http://www.gunfacts.info/pdfs/gun-facts/5.0/GunFacts5-0-screen.pdf

and in case you do not want to go directly to a pdf file, here is the main page.

http://www.gunfacts.info/

[diamondback688]

Did anyone read about the 8-year old boy who died of multiple bullets piercing his brain last week, as his father proudly placed into his son's hands, his son's first submachine gun at a gun show?

That story was posted on the gun forum I am a part of several times. I have read a few different versions of it. So, to answer your question, yes, I did read it.

Ryan you're naive to think that all people who own guns obtain them legally.

This is interesting. You seem to insult people who do not share your views.

Does a Gun in the Home Make You Safer?
No. Despite claims by the National Rifle Association (NRA) that you need a gun in your home to protect yourself and your family, public health research demonstrates that the person most likely to shoot you or a family member with a gun already has the keys to your house. Simply put: guns kept in the home for self-protection are more often used to kill somebody you know than to kill in self-defense; 22 times more likely, according to a 1998 study by the Journal of Trauma.[1 (http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/issues/?page=home#1)] More kids, teenagers and adult family members are dying from firearms in their own home than criminal intruders. When someone is home, a gun is used for protection in fewer than two percent of home invasion crimes.[2 (http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/issues/?page=home#2)] You may be surprised to know that, in 1999, according to the FBI's Uniform Crime Report, there were only 154 justifiable homicides committed by private citizens with a firearm compared with a total of 8,259 firearm murders in the United States. Once a bullet leaves a gun, who is to say that it will stop only a criminal and not a family member? Yet at every opportunity the NRA uses the fear of crime to promote the need for ordinary citizens to keep guns in their home for self-protection. Furthermore, the NRA continues to oppose life-saving measures that require safe-storage of guns in the home.

This article came from the Brady Campaign, which is one of the leading anti-gun campaigns that wishes to take away my right to own firearms.

TBH, I don't really care about the statistics that keeping a gun in the house does not protect you from an intruder. All I know is that if an intruder broke into my house, I can and will defend myself. If that means taking another human life, I would.

[frizzyrazzy]

That story was posted on the gun forum I am a part of several times. I have read a few different versions of it. So, to answer your question, yes, I did read it.



This is interesting. You seem to insult people who do not share your views.



This article came from the Brady Campaign, which is one of the leading anti-gun campaigns that wishes to take away my right to own firearms.

TBH, I don't really care about the statistics that keeping a gun in the house does not protect you from an intruder. All I know is that if an intruder broke into my house, I can and will defend myself. If that means taking another human life, I would.
Ryan, I'm simply pointing out the obvious which is that you're purposely closing your eyes on this matter, either out of ignorance or naivete. You keep saying that we have firearm waiting periods and checks but I'm telling you that you are mistaken, and the research bears this out, if you believe that those things keep guns out of the hands of criminals. Please do your research on this. I don't consider that an insult. I would expect that if you're going to argue your point you would have something to back it up.

As for the Brady website - you are correct in that they are a leading gun control group, but please read the sited references from which they are obtaining their stats: The Journal of Trauma, the Journal of the American Medical Association, and the Centers for Disease Control. None of these organizations have an anti-gun agenda.

[saxmaniac]

Do you have any proof of this?

Here's one article (http://www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel013101.shtml) (in favor of guns) that states it is 2.39:1 by realistic measures, 43:1 if you inflate it. It all depends on how you count it.

Putting aside the suicides, the Kellermann/Reay figures show 2.39 accidental or criminal deaths by firearm (in the home) for every justifiable fatal shooting. Now, 2 to 1 is a lot less dramatic than 43 to 1, but we still have more unjustifiable gun deaths than justifiable gun deaths in the home.

So, do suicides count? Maybe. Will all people who commit suicide by gun, still do it if there's no gun in the house? Nobody knows. I would bet that some, but not all, suicides can be prevented by not having a gun in the house.

That fact that's it's over 1:1 is good enough for me to conclude that I don't need one in my house. What you do in your house is your choice. We all don't have the same circumstances, so for me, there is very little benefit and a large downside to having one.

Humans notoriously assess risk poorly. We like to fear spectacular things, over things that are mundane but more dangerous. People are more likely to die from drowning in pools than guns. Worrying too much about guns is misdirected fear.

[frizzyrazzy]

Here's one article (http://www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel013101.shtml) (in favor of guns) that states it is 2.39:1 by realistic measures, 43:1 if you inflate it. It all depends on how you count it.Putting aside the suicides, the Kellermann/Reay figures show 2.39 accidental or criminal deaths by firearm (in the home) for every justifiable fatal shooting. Now, 2 to 1 is a lot less dramatic than 43 to 1, but we still have more unjustifiable gun deaths than justifiable gun deaths in the home.So, do suicides count? Maybe. Will all people who commit suicide by gun, still do it if there's no gun in the house? Nobody knows. I would bet that some, but not all, suicides can be prevented by not having a gun in the house.

That fact that's it's over 1:1 is good enough for me to conclude that I don't need one in my house. What you do in your house is your choice. We all don't have the same circumstances, so for me, there is very little benefit and a large downside to having one.
I found this on suicide:
American kids are 16 times more likely to be murdered with a gun, 11 times more likely to commit suicide with a gun, and nine times more likely to die from a firearm accident than children in 25 other industrialized countries combined. (Centers for Disease Control)
http://www.neahin.org/programs/schoolsafety/gunsafety/statistics.htm

many cases of suicide are impulse suicides and many are planned. I think a planned suicide that involved a gun might happen regardless of a gun in the home (ie if that is the way the person wanted to end their life then they would obtain a gun somehow) but a impulse suicide simply can't happen via gun if there is no gun in the home.

[diamondback688]

You keep saying that we have firearm waiting periods and checks but I'm telling you that you are mistaken, and the research bears this out.

I shall quote Florida's gun laws because that is the state I live in.

This came from the National Rifle Association Institute For Legislative Action. (See HERE (http://www.nraila.org/statelawpdfs/FLSL.pdf) for Florida's gun laws.)


Excluding weekends and legal holidays, there is a three-day waiting
period to purchase a handgun from a retail establishment. Exempt from the
waiting period are concealed weapons permit holders and those trading in
another handgun.

ETA: I am aware there is not a waiting period for rifles or shotguns in the state of Florida.

[Karenwith4]

another question - for our friends in Canada. It's my understanding that Canada has extremely tight gun control laws - is that correct? And canada also has much less incidence of violent crime involving guns, is that also correct? So to me that disproves the theory that if you take guns away from private citizens then you will only have criminals with guns. Anyone know anything about this?

Yes Canada has much tighter gun control laws.
Annual gun homocides rates are about 4 people per 100,000 in the US and about .7 per 100,000 people in Canada.
Most of our problems with guns come from the illegal gun trade run through the US and it is a huge crime and safety issue here for our larger cities. It is often a prevalent elections issue at all levels. There is significant political support for a total ban of handguns in Canada.

From Wikipedia Only one third of Canadian murders involve firearms. Most Canadian weapons are rifles or shotguns owned by rural property owners, hunters and target shooters, and are less likely to be used in crimes. Many types of weapons are banned or restricted in Canada. The two biggest provinces, Ontario and Quebec have had a long history of strict gun controls. Most of the users of these illegal firearms are youth in their teens and early 20s.

It is effectively illegal to carry concealed handguns in Canada. There is a permit that allows people to carry if they can prove they need to protect their lives but the permit is very rarely issued. Defensive use of firearms is uncommon in Canada.

Canada has more guns and fewer controls on them than most nations in Western Europe (exceptions being Finland, Norway and Switzerland which have comparatively fewer restrictions) or Japan. Gun ownership rate is about 27% of households with great regional variations, rural much higher urban, west higher than east.

All that being said, having lived in the States and Canada, there is an element of violence ingrained into the US culture and history that I think is unique to the Western world. I think that plays a significant role in the different approaches to crime and safety issues and violent crime rates.

Canadians for the most part don't have the deep distrust in our government or the mindset that we need to be armed to protect ourselves that Americans do. Our constitution is based on the ideal of "Peace Order and Good Government" versus your "right to bear arms."

hth
Karen

[frizzyrazzy]

I shall quote Florida's gun laws because that is the state I live in.

This came from the National Rifle Association Institute For Legislative Action. (See HERE (http://www.nraila.org/statelawpdfs/FLSL.pdf) for Florida's gun laws.)



ETA: I am aware there is not a waiting period for rifles or shotguns in the state of Florida.
again, yes, I understand that there are laws on the books and I understand that LAW ABIDING people follow these gun laws. If I were to go purchase a gun, from a reputable gun store I would be bound by gun laws.

I am saying, and the research backs this, that people who wish to use the gun in a criminal manner are NOT obtaining their guns through legal means - so the gun restrictions which you keep quoting do not do what they're intended to do, which is keep guns out of the hands of criminals, folks with restraining orders mentally deranged people, or terrorists.

[diamondback688]

I am saying, and the research backs this, that people who wish to use the gun in a criminal manner are NOT obtaining their guns through legal means - so the gun restrictions which you keep quoting do not do what they're intended to do, which is keep guns out of the hands of criminals, folks with restraining orders mentally deranged people, or terrorists.

I am aware of this. But, the fact of the matter is that if you ban firearms from the general public, then only the criminals will have firearms because they obtain the illegally.

I do think that criminals obtaining guns illegally needs to be stopped, But banning guns from law-abiding citizens is NOT the way to do it.

[frizzyrazzy]

Yes Canada has much tighter gun control laws.
Annual gun homocides rates are about 4 people per 100,000 in the US and about .7 per 100,000 people in Canada.
Most of our problems with guns come from the illegal gun trade run through the US and it is a huge crime and safety issue here for our larger cities. It is often a prevalent elections issue at all levels. There is significant political support for a total ban of handguns in Canada.

From Wikipedia Only one third of Canadian murders involve firearms. Most Canadian weapons are rifles or shotguns owned by rural property owners, hunters and target shooters, and are less likely to be used in crimes. Many types of weapons are banned or restricted in Canada. The two biggest provinces, Ontario and Quebec have had a long history of strict gun controls. Most of the users of these illegal firearms are youth in their teens and early 20s.

It is effectively illegal to carry concealed handguns in Canada. There is a permit that allows people to carry if they can prove they need to protect their lives but the permit is very rarely issued. Defensive use of firearms is uncommon in Canada.

Canada has more guns and fewer controls on them than most nations in Western Europe (exceptions being Finland, Norway and Switzerland which have comparatively fewer restrictions) or Japan. Gun ownership rate is about 27% of households with great regional variations, rural much higher urban, west higher than east.

All that being said, having lived in the States and Canada, there is an element of violence ingrained into the US culture and history that I think is unique to the Western world. I think that plays a significant role in the different approaches to crime and safety issues and violent crime rates.

Canadians for the most part don't have the deep distrust in our government or the mindset that we need to be armed to protect ourselves that Americans do. Our constitution is based on the ideal of "Peace Order and Good Government" versus your "right to bear arms."

hth
Karen
Thank you for that info.
Just one bit of clarification - only a certain segment of the US population has a gun culture. I do believe it does play a role, but not all Americans (and this thread will bare witness to that) believe in owning guns. I think I would actually vomit if I held a gun...lol.

[frizzyrazzy]

I am aware of this. But, the fact of the matter is that if you ban firearms from the general public, then only the criminals will have firearms because they obtain the illegally.

I do think that criminals obtaining guns illegally needs to be stopped, But banning guns from law-abiding citizens is NOT the way to do it.
don't you see the incongruity of that? Guns stolen in home invasions are one of the illegal ways that criminal obtain their guns - others are obtaining guns from family members who legally own the guns, please see my earlier statistics. Fewer guns in the hands of law abiding citizens would directly reduce the number of guns in the hands of criminals. This is why gun buyback programs are so effective in many cities; if a gun isn't in a home then the criminal cannot obtain it.

[Kaylee's Mommy]

I feel for this father. I also feel for the father of a teenage son who backs the family SUV out of the garage onto the driveway and in the process, runs over and kills their 3 year old adopted daughter. This happened this summer to Steven Curtis Chapman and his family. Do we restrict the purchase of SUVs because you can kill somebody with one?

<Looks in the matchbook. None left. Sigh. Must be time for bed.>

this is completely different.. it wasn't a 13 year old child that drove that car .. there is absolutely NO reason for a CHILD to have a gun (a Bebe gun is different) but an automatic weapon, no way should a child have had his hands on it.

its like comparing apples and oranges.

[diamondback688]

don't you see the incongruity of that? Guns stolen in home invasions are one of the illegal ways that criminal obtain their guns.

Which is the exact reason I keep my firearms locked up. If other people are stupid enough to leave their firearms out in the open or in an unsecured cabinet of some kind, that is their problem.

[BozziesMom]

So, do suicides count? Maybe. Will all people who commit suicide by gun, still do it if there's no gun in the house? Nobody knows. I would bet that some, but not all, suicides can be prevented by not having a gun in the house.

.

Ok, this is going to be unpleasant, but it's on topic. When my first dh killed himself, he first tried to cut his throat with a machete. Didn't work apparently because cause of death was ruled the self inflicted gunshot to the chest. Would he have died anyway? Maybe he'd have bled to death. I don't know. But maybe without the gun, he might have been saved. I don't know. He didn't leave us any explanation. We were 22. Wow. It's been 20 years.

I never liked guns. I still don't. I do believe still that people have the right to one. But I will never have one. And I think if there had been a better way to evaluate in advance before sale of the guns, he might not have been granted one.

[Karenwith4]

Thank you for that info.
Just one bit of clarification - only a certain segment of the US population has a gun culture. I do believe it does play a role, but not all Americans (and this thread will bare witness to that) believe in owning guns. I think I would actually vomit if I held a gun...lol.

Obviously not all Americans believe the same things with respect to guns. By culture I mean more the messages you get through politics, media, history etc that make your particular brand of gun culture okay. It's hard to put my finger on a salient example, but those messages are part of your culture whether you agree with it or not.
(And I completely respect those who disagree with it.) I never felt safe in the US.

[saxmaniac]

If other people are stupid enough to leave their firearms out in the open or in an unsecured cabinet of some kind, that is their problem.

Nobody lives in a vacuum. There are a lot of stupid people out there, and their problems have this distressing tendency to become everyone's problems.

[Karenwith4]

.

So, do suicides count? Maybe. Will all people who commit suicide by gun, still do it if there's no gun in the house? Nobody knows. I would bet that some, but not all, suicides can be prevented by not having a gun in the house.



Suicide rates are actually lower in Canada vs US which could completely be the result of other factors but I would guess there is some element of gun ownership that comes into play in that stat.

If I had time I would dig but I don't - lol
Karen

[MamaC]

There are background checks performed whenever you buy a firearm

Those are only good as far as they go. Background checks were performed on the Virginia Tech gunman but because of loopholes (which have since been closed), his unstable mental state was not reported, and he passed the checks for both of the handguns he used to kill 32 people and himself. I recognize that this was a glitch in the system of one state. Is it the last loophole to be closed?

Just sayin'.

[hawkeyegirl]

Which is the exact reason I keep my firearms locked up. If other people are stupid enough to leave their firearms out in the open or in an unsecured cabinet of some kind, that is their problem.

If you keep your guns locked up, how in the world would you get to one in time to defend yourself in case of an intruder?

Clearly you are not interested in debating this in a rational matter. You ask for statistics, and then when people give them to you, you say you don't believe them, or don't care. We get it. You like your guns. But it IS true that they are much more likely to be used against you or a member of your family than to protect you or your family. It IS true that you probably wouldn't be able to get to your gun in time to defend yourself from an intruder. And it IS true that many of the waiting times and background checks are completely insufficient to keep guns out of the wrong hands.

[Nancy in VA]

All the arguments in the world doesn't change the fact that it is a part of our CONSTITUTION that it is our right to have guns. Just this summer the Supreme Court struck down a DC law that tried to restrict which guns could be owned. So they have spoken and upheld the Constituion.

And incidently, during the time period that DC had their handgun restrictions they had an extremely high crime and murder rate.

[caspi]

I don't care for guns, won't own one. My opinion, my choice.

I don't question our Constitutional right to bear arms, as I interpret the intent of our forefathers (not a constitutional scholar).

Here comes the "BUT:"

"Arms" as we know them today have long since left the realm of reality addressed by the Second Amendment.

I totally agree!

[frizzyrazzy]

The thing is that there are many who think that the 2nd amendment was never meant to mean personal weapons. It doesn't say that. Anywhere. it says only:
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.
It doesn't say you have the personal right to own guns. But equal argument can be made on the other side too. It's controversial on both sides. I am not a constitutional scholar (nor I would guess is anyone here) . I respect that the amendment does exist. I really have no problem with people wanting a gun to go hunting if that's their thing, and I really have no problem if people lock and dissemble those hunting guns. But I completely disagree when people say that guns in their homes will protect them. The facts are the opposite. But that is for the supreme court to argue, right??

here's the full info on DC. DC is a bit different because it's not a state. The 2nd amendment doesn't in and of itself apply to state constitutions - and I forget how that all works, but it's something about a state has to agree to the amendment and incorporate it somehow into its own constitution. Maybe someone who hasn't been out of school as long as I will remember LOL.

Anyway, this is DC.

In 2007, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled in the case of Parker v District of Columbia. In the case, the court ruled that D.C. laws that essentially prohibit the private ownership of handguns within the District, were unconstitutional. Specifically, the appellants, residents of D.C., were denied their 2nd Amendment rights by laws that bar the registration of handguns by anyone except retired D.C. police officers; that bar the carrying of a pistol without a license, even within one's home; and that require that lawfully owned firearms be kept unloaded and disassembled unless used for "lawful recreational purposes."
The Court found that in spite of the first part of the 2nd Amendment — that which refers to the militia — "the Second Amendment's premise is that guns would be kept by citizens for self-protection (and hunting)." The court acknowledged the history the militia played in the creation of the 2nd Amendment, but did not allow the militia to be sole measure to be viewed when looking at these laws restricting gun ownership and reasonable use. Parker, the court ruled, should be allowed to keep handguns in his home.
The case, filed as District of Columbia v Heller, was granted certiorari by the United States Supreme Court, and was heard in March, 2008. At issue were two questions. The first, raised by the District, is whether the District is forbidden by the Second Amendment to ban the possession of handguns while allowing the possession of rifles and shotguns. The second, broader issue is raised by Heller (another of the original petitioners in the Parker case): whether the Second guarantees that guns, including handguns, can be kept in homes by law-abiding citizens. The Court decided that the issue it should hear is "Whether the [D.C. laws] violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes?"
The Supreme Court ruled on the Heller case at the end of its term in June, 2008. The Court, which found for Heller in a close 5-4 decision, wrote that the 2nd Amendment did, in fact, protect an individual right. While the court was careful to note that the case did not call into question any laws that regulate guns, it did state, unequivocally, that Heller and his fellow petitioners had a right to own guns in their home. The Court also ruled that while reasonable regulation may be permitted, the requirement that guns be locked and disassembled was not reasonable. The Court finally noted that its ruling affected only the District of Columbia, as a federal enclave. It is expected that the laws of other cities, like Chicago, will be challenged so that the Court can examine the applicability of the 2nd to the rest of the nation.

[Kalebsmom]

I think this could be talked to death.

I have been around them my whole life. I have also had hours of training.

We do have guns in our home and "if" I ever have to use it on someone I do not think of it as playing God.
It is doing what I need to do to protect me and my family.

No one ever breaks into someone's house at 3 in the morning for a good reason.

[Nancy in VA]

The rights of the US Constitution are protected. It doesn't matter if its in a state constitution or not. What the law says is that a STATE cannot write a law that is contradictory to the US Constitution.

The US Supreme Court, through their decision this summer, interpreted the Constitution to mean that the 2nd amendment does NOT just apply to militia, but to any individual citizen's right to own a gun.

That is the law of the land. It has now been interpreted and upheld by the US Supreme Court.

The thing is that there are many who think that the 2nd amendment was never meant to mean personal weapons. It doesn't say that. Anywhere. it says only:

It doesn't say you have the personal right to own guns. But equal argument can be made on the other side too. It's controversial on both sides. I am not a constitutional scholar (nor I would guess is anyone here) . I respect that the amendment does exist. I really have no problem with people wanting a gun to go hunting if that's their thing, and I really have no problem if people lock and dissemble those hunting guns. But I completely disagree when people say that guns in their homes will protect them. The facts are the opposite. But that is for the supreme court to argue, right??

here's the full info on DC. DC is a bit different because it's not a state. The 2nd amendment doesn't in and of itself apply to state constitutions - and I forget how that all works, but it's something about a state has to agree to the amendment and incorporate it somehow into its own constitution. Maybe someone who hasn't been out of school as long as I will remember LOL.

Anyway, this is DC.

In 2007, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled in the case of Parker v District of Columbia. In the case, the court ruled that D.C. laws that essentially prohibit the private ownership of handguns within the District, were unconstitutional. Specifically, the appellants, residents of D.C., were denied their 2nd Amendment rights by laws that bar the registration of handguns by anyone except retired D.C. police officers; that bar the carrying of a pistol without a license, even within one's home; and that require that lawfully owned firearms be kept unloaded and disassembled unless used for "lawful recreational purposes."
The Court found that in spite of the first part of the 2nd Amendment — that which refers to the militia — "the Second Amendment's premise is that guns would be kept by citizens for self-protection (and hunting)." The court acknowledged the history the militia played in the creation of the 2nd Amendment, but did not allow the militia to be sole measure to be viewed when looking at these laws restricting gun ownership and reasonable use. Parker, the court ruled, should be allowed to keep handguns in his home.
The case, filed as District of Columbia v Heller, was granted certiorari by the United States Supreme Court, and was heard in March, 2008. At issue were two questions. The first, raised by the District, is whether the District is forbidden by the Second Amendment to ban the possession of handguns while allowing the possession of rifles and shotguns. The second, broader issue is raised by Heller (another of the original petitioners in the Parker case): whether the Second guarantees that guns, including handguns, can be kept in homes by law-abiding citizens. The Court decided that the issue it should hear is "Whether the [D.C. laws] violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes?"
The Supreme Court ruled on the Heller case at the end of its term in June, 2008. The Court, which found for Heller in a close 5-4 decision, wrote that the 2nd Amendment did, in fact, protect an individual right. While the court was careful to note that the case did not call into question any laws that regulate guns, it did state, unequivocally, that Heller and his fellow petitioners had a right to own guns in their home. The Court also ruled that while reasonable regulation may be permitted, the requirement that guns be locked and disassembled was not reasonable. The Court finally noted that its ruling affected only the District of Columbia, as a federal enclave. It is expected that the laws of other cities, like Chicago, will be challenged so that the Court can examine the applicability of the 2nd to the rest of the nation.

[frizzyrazzy]

I just looked it up - it has to do with incorporation of the bill of rights
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_(Bill_of_Rights)
see the part under the 2nd amendment. Like I said, none of us here are constitutional scholars (and if you are, please speak up) but this is why there is some argument. I think there is a lot of room for it to be challenged. I don't know if that's good or bad.
here's more on it. It's really quite fascinating, isn't it?
http://michaeldorf.org/2007/03/second-amendment-and-incorporation.html

[diamondback688]

Clearly you are not interested in debating this in a rational matter. You ask for statistics, and then when people give them to you, you say you don't believe them, or don't care. We get it. You like your guns. But it IS true that they are much more likely to be used against you or a member of your family than to protect you or your family. It IS true that you probably wouldn't be able to get to your gun in time to defend yourself from an intruder. And it IS true that many of the waiting times and background checks are completely insufficient to keep guns out of the wrong hands.

I have stated my beliefs and views multiple times in this thread. I have no reason to state them again.

If other people would like to debate it, feel free to do so. I will keep reading the thread and chine in if something is of interest to me.

[Ellen]

This is a very sad news item about an 8 year old who got a hold of a rifle and shot his father and another man. I don't see how under the law we can possibly prosecute and convict and 8 year old, who does not have the capacity to truly understand the consequences of his actions, on charges of premeditated murder. I know this is rare, and many people are responsible gun owners - but had there not been a rifle and ammunition in this home, this event would not have happened.

"On Friday, a judge determined there was probable cause to show that the boy fatally shot his father, Vincent Romero, 29, and Timothy Romans, 39, of San Carlos, with a .22-caliber rifle. The boy faces two counts of premeditated murder. Under Arizona law, charges can be filed against anyone 8 or older." I hope this child will be represented by fine criminal defense attorneys.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/sns-ap-child-charged,0,5599704.story

[Connie(BC)Type 1]

Originally Posted by diamondback688
If other people are stupid enough to leave their firearms out in the open or in an unsecured cabinet of some kind, that is their problem.


My previous boss, had 14 different hunting rifles in a "secure, bolted, hidden, locked cabinet" (including a couple antiques),
when his house with an alarm, was vandalized, the cabinet was found and stolen....................................He now keeps his 2 new hunting rifles at his gun club and picks them up when he goes hunting. Smarter man, as he's learned.

[diamondback688]

This is a very sad news item about an 8 year old who got a hold of a rifle and shot his father and another man. I don't see how under the law we can possibly prosecute and convict and 8 year old, who does not have the capacity to truly understand the consequences of his actions, on charges of premeditated murder. I know this is rare, and many people are responsible gun owners - but had there not been a rifle and ammunition in this home, this event would not have happened.

"On Friday, a judge determined there was probable cause to show that the boy fatally shot his father, Vincent Romero, 29, and Timothy Romans, 39, of San Carlos, with a .22-caliber rifle. The boy faces two counts of premeditated murder. Under Arizona law, charges can be filed against anyone 8 or older." I hope this child will be represented by fine criminal defense attorneys.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/sns-ap-child-charged,0,5599704.story

Yes, I posted the article on the gun forum I am a member of. I am going to be following this case very closely to see what happens.

[Darryl]

Priest: Slain Arizona father had sought advice about letting boy, 8, handle firearms

By FELICIA FONSECA Associated Press Writer
ST. JOHNS, Ariz. November 8, 2008 (AP)
The Associated Press

A man who police believe was shot and killed by his 8-year-old son had consulted a Roman Catholic priest about whether the boy should handle guns and had taught him how to use a rifle, the clergyman said Saturday.

The father, Vincent Romero, 29, was from a family of avid hunters and wanted to make sure the boy wasn't afraid of guns, said the Very Rev. John Paul Sauter of St. Johns Catholic Church. The boy's stepmother had suggested he have a BB gun, the priest said.

Romero taught his son how to use a rifle to kill prairie dogs, Sauter said. Police say the boy used a .22-caliber rifle Wednesday to kill his father and another man, Timothy Romans, 39, of San Carlos.

Two things caught my eye about this:

1) Why did the boy's stepmother suggest that he have a BB gun? Why does a 8 year old boy need a gun at all?

2) His father "taught his son how to kill prarie dogs"? Why would he do that? Unless you are going to eat an animal, why would you kill the animal? For fun?

Just like with the 8 year old who killed himself at the gun show after the "trainer" put the submachine gun in his hands, this is another sad example of what happens when sometime trains an 8 year old to kill. Not just training in target practice mind you, but training to kill.

Sorry... I just don't get it.

[diamondback688]

For fun?


Some people do think hunting is fun, I personally, do not. But that is just me.

[Darryl]

Some people do think hunting is fun, I personally, do not. But that is just me.

I have no problem with hunting... killing an animal to eat it. We all hunt directly or indirectly when we eat animals. It's the 8 year old thing I don't get!

[Momof4gr8kids]

I have no problem with hunting... killing an animal to eat it. We all hunt directly or indirectly when we eat animals. It's the 8 year old thing I don't get!

I get the point of what you are saying... I don't agree with killing something without having it be food, but.....the definition of hunting does not have to include the "hunted" as food. Hunting is the action, food, or sport is the reason.

[Lisa P.]

Prairie dogs are rodents. I love to watch them, they are amazing animals, but if you have a ranch, for example, the holes can be a danger to horses and cattle. They also carry plague out here. Of course, some people are just mean, but there are reasonable reasons to shoot prairie dogs and not eat them.

[Ellen]

http://www.womensenews.org/article.cfm?aid=3818

[Nancy in VA]

Well, in general, I believe that when a person committs a crime, they are risking the forfeit of some of their constitutional civil rights, up to and including their right to life.

So, I do believe that there are situations where criminals, by virtue of their crime, can "forfeit" their right to own a gun, vote, and ultimately live

[diamondback688]

http://www.womensenews.org/article.cfm?aid=3818

And the point of posting that article was?:confused::confused:

(No, I didn't read the full article yet.)