Sad States of America

[Sheeniac]

I don’t know about the repairmen but my friends and relatives don’t carry guns either. And as for the nieghbors I can control them from getting in. If I have to err I will assume they are carrying one and simply not let them in. Why this sudden air of superiority about those who carry guns?

I have a question about that: why?

I had an anti-gun friend stay at my house from out of town. He asked if I had any guns, I said yes. He somewhat jokingly said that maybe he should have stayed at a hotel. I gave a somewhat snotty reply that I had spoken with my gun, and told it not to sneak out and kill him.

My gun will not “misfire” and “accidentally” kill someone. I think most ‘accidents’ occur when the basic rules of safe firearm handling aren’t being followed.

It’s almost like those against guns believe them to be a tool of Satan, and those who carry/own to be possessed by evil spirits.

I suppose what gets me upset on the thread, and others like it, is that people who know nothing about me take one thing about me and form negative opinions.

Here’s a real life thing that happened that really got me to thinking about making sure I could take care of myself…

My alarm system got messed up one night, and a stealth call was put into Brinks indicating that I had entered a code that meant I was being forced to turn off the alarm. The police called my next door neighbors, and asked them if they could check in on me.

The husband SAID NO.

If the tables were turned, I would have been over there in a heart beat. No - not like John Wayne, maybe more like a little rabbit hopping in the background seeing if I could help the situation.

Why would I use a rabbit instead of Rambo?

Another real life situation - my motion detector in the basement went off late one Sunday night. Repeatedly… and all cats were accounted for. I had my gun, called my stepdad to come over and check it out. It was the middle of winter, and I was sitting in my nightclothes in a winter coat, in my car with the keys in it, doors locked, and garage door open. My gun was loaded, sitting next to me. Had someone come through the door, I would have started the car and backed out at 60 mph.

In case something went wrong in my attempt to flee, I had my gun.

Once my stepdad got there, I was on the phone with Brinks (in case we needed the police). We both went downstairs, and no one was there. (The door had a lock on it, so I felt there was no immediate extreme danger.)

A gun does not change a person into a maniac. I am a cautious person who prefers to evaluate the situation first, and act second. But, if I need the gun, then I want to have it.

For closure’s sake - Brinks came out to examine the motion detector and alarm system. In a big basement, a spider had decided to build a web in front of it, which is why it was going off repeatedly, but randomly.

 

[Ilroy]

I just cannot understand the need for automatic guns or concealable pistols. It’s like people who own them want them for the purpose intended,TO kill. The Ten Commandments state-Thou Shalt not KILL-Anything.

Yet another example of the mainstream media getting the facts WRONG. the average citizen of the U.S. can’t own an automatic weapon without getting the proper permit through the federal gov.
The reason I carry a concealed handgun is simply for protection in case I’m attacked or someone else is attacked.
I’d like to see your bible because every bible I’ve ever seen, Catholic or Protestant, does not have the word Anything in the commandment…simply because we are allowed to protect ourselves even if it means killing the attacker.
So please, before you go on a rant, get your facts straight.

 

[goofyjim]

Sheeniac,

You stated earlier that the only thing to keep you safe is a gun. I’ve been told by many here that since I have been psychiatrically institutionalized, for a minor illness by the way, that I am not permitted to get one. Why not? Is that not already a form of gun control which then puts me at the mercy of someone commiting a gun crime against me?

 

[hosemonkey]

Sheeniac,

You stated earlier that the only thing to keep you safe is a gun. I’ve been told by many here that since I have been psychiatrically institutionalized, for a minor illness by the way, that I am not permitted to get one. Why not? Is that not already a form of gun control which then puts me at the mercy of someone commiting a gun crime against me?

You are beginning to sound whiney. Check your state laws, if they do not permit you to purchase or carry, then work to change the law, if it is so vital to you.

 

[goofyjim]

You are beginning to sound whiney. Check your state laws, if they do not permit you to purchase or carry, then work to change the law, if it is so vital to you.

Thank you. I think everyone else sounds whiney too so the feeling is mutual.

 

[melensdad]

Sheeniac,

You stated earlier that the only thing to keep you safe is a gun.

goofyjim, I don’t mean to speak for Sheeniac, but maybe she is not as physically strong as you, or maybe she is not capable of defending herself because of her size, or maybe she is physically disabled, or maybe she just is not capable of learning martial arts, or some other thing. In her estimation of her own capabilities, she needs a gun to keep her safe.

There is NO reason to believe that YOU must choose her self defense choice. There is no reason for you to limit your choice only to firearms.

For example, I have severe Rheumatoid Arthritis, I have been treated by a specialist since I got out of college. At that time I was unable to lift my arms high enough to dress myself. I am under constant treatment, regular checkups and advanced medications. Now with treatment I can lead a reasonably normal life, however, I am not physically able to throw a punch. For me, I find the most practical way to defend myself and my family is with a gun.

There are many reasons why many different people choose guns for defense.

The main problem many gun owners have with people who are anti-gun is that they presume to understand know the right things for everyone else.

 

[goofyjim]

goofyjim, I don’t mean to speak for Sheeniac, but maybe she is not as physically strong as you, or maybe she is not capable of defending herself because of her size, or maybe she is physically disabled, or maybe she just is not capable of learning martial arts, or some other thing. In her estimation of her own capabilities, she needs a gun to keep her safe.

There is NO reason to believe that YOU must choose her self defense choice. There is no reason for you to limit your choice only to firearms.

For example, I have severe Rheumatoid Arthritis, I have been treated by a specialist since I got out of college. At that time I was unable to lift my arms high enough to dress myself. I am under constant treatment, regular checkups and advanced medications. Now with treatment I can lead a reasonably normal life, however, I am not physically able to throw a punch. For me, I find the most practical way to defend myself and my family is with a gun.

There are many reasons why many different people choose guns for defense.

The main problem many gun owners have with people who are anti-gun is that they presume to understand know the right things for everyone else.

And I am not in the best shape myself so the best way to defend myself would be with a gun.

 

[melensdad]

And I am not in the best shape myself so the best way to defend myself would be with a gun.

goofyjim, you seem very confused. Now you want a gun, just a day or so ago you wrote this:

I don’t care what the law oermits as far as carrying concealed weapons. When you come to my home all weapons will be left behind or you will not be permitted in.

. . .

And if you choose not to be honest and disarm then I will assume you are armed and deny you permission into my home.

. . .

Just remember folks that no what the law permits when you’re driving as a passenger in my car or staying as a guest in my home there will be no guns. That is my prerogative.

. . .

You say I am not obligated to carry a weapon. I certainly hope not because no matter who tells me to I will refuse. I am unable to run very fast so if I am attacked I will have no means of defense. I am also not a very good fighter. In my situation I must simply accept that if someone attacks me or points a gun at me and shoots it is my time to go.

. . .

Christ did not use weapons and I believe neither should we.

and finally . . .

I have not and never will own a gun. I refuse.

Seems to me you are being a little inconsistent here

 

[goofyjim]

goofyjim, you seem very confused. Now you want a gun, just a day or so ago you wrote this:

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

and finally . . .

Seems to me you are being a little inconsistent here

Au contraire, I have seen the light. It’s just that now I’m seeing a form of gun control on the part of those who think that certain people are inferior.

 

[melensdad]

Au contraire, I have seen the light. It’s just that now I’m seeing a form of gun control on the part of those who think that certain people are inferior.

OK I was just looking for a clarification of the obvious confusion.

So who is it that is denying you the gun? Could it be the same politicians who are trying to infringe on my rights to own them?

 

[goofyjim]

OK I was just looking for a clarification of the obvious confusion.

So who is it that is denying you the gun? Could it be the same politicians who are trying to infringe on my rights to own them?

Could be. But some on these forums have expressed the same opinion even though they are in favor of gun rights. This is why I whine now. My medication keeps me out of shape but I am just as stable as the next guy. I am not likely to shoot anyone except in self defense.

 

[Charlie_Zeaiter]

… I don’t think everyone should be armed. In fact, it’s a big responsibility, and not everyone feels capable of handling it.

Hi Sheeniac,

I think we have something in common, because I agree with that statement.

As you can imagine, I think the only people to be armed are the Police and specialist Security Guards (eg: not bouncers at nightclubs).

And I think Mr & Mrs Cunningham next door shoudn’t be armed; But, I know, this is where we disagree.

Au contraire, I have seen the light. It’s just that now I’m seeing a form of gun control on the part of those who think that certain people are inferior.

Hi goofyjim,

I agree with that statement too.

If you start denying gun ownership to some people, then it is not a right. (And so I come to my conclusion that gun ownership should NOT be a right, because it should Not be available to all human beings.)

 

[drafdog]

Amusing story on guns used in crimes.

Man holds up store while armed with a pistol. Caught shortly thereafter with the gun still in posession.

Investigation shows gun is a hand-me-down. It has passed from criminal to criminal through the underground.

Further investigation shows the weapon is rare model worth 10 times what he stole from the store.

Whatever.

Matthew

 

[hosemonkey]

Hi Sheeniac,

I think we have something in common, because I agree with that statement.

As you can imagine, I think the only people to be armed are the Police and specialist Security Guards (eg: not bouncers at nightclubs).

And I think Mr & Mrs Cunningham next door shoudn’t be armed; But, I know, this is where we disagree.

Hi goofyjim,

I agree with that statement too.

If you start denying gun ownership to some people, then it is not a right. (And so I come to my conclusion that gun ownership should NOT be a right, because it should Not be available to all human beings.)

I don’t know about Australia, but certain rights can be removed or denied by virtue of various impediments. For example, felons are denied various civil rights by virtue of their conviction. These rights may or may not be restored. They may be denied the vote, holding publc office or firearms possession. This varies from state to state. Minors are denied various civil rights by virtue of their minority. People with mental problems can also be denied various rights, again, varying from state to state. Point is, otherwise unencumbered people cannot be denied their rights simply because those rights are not available to all. Gun ownership IS a right, but rights themselves may carry conditions.

 

[Greg27]

This is a delicate issue. In Australia, firearm laws were tightened a lot after the horrific Port Arthur Massacre in Tasmania (same state where my mother was born). I don’t see any really good argument for widespread gun ownership amoung private citizens, and in my view the rule of law should determine justice. In the situation of self-defence, we have violent robberies, murders and home invasions like anywhere else, but rather than individuals just arming themselves to the teeth stronger law enforcment and a stronger judiciary with appropriate legislation is a better option. As we see in lawless countries like Somalia or Afghanistan which are awash with people armed with AK-47’s, the widespread ownership of firearms does not necessarily ensure personal security or the proper foundations for building a functional society. The rule of law combined with healthy public institutions, which protect private rights, is better than everyone taking the law into their own hands.

 

[melensdad]

The rule of law combined with healthy public institutions, which protect private rights, is better than everyone taking the law into their own hands.

Greg, you and I will have to respectfully disagree. I honestly believe that Australians, while very similar to Americans in some ways, will never understand the gun culture we have here in the USA.

 

[hosemonkey]

This is a delicate issue. In Australia, firearm laws were tightened a lot after the horrific Port Arthur Massacre in Tasmania (same state where my mother was born). I don’t see any really good argument for widespread gun ownership amoung private citizens, and in my view the rule of law should determine justice. In the situation of self-defence, we have violent robberies, murders and home invasions like anywhere else, but rather than individuals just arming themselves to the teeth stronger law enforcment and a stronger judiciary with appropriate legislation is a better option. As we see in lawless countries like Somalia or Afghanistan which are awash with people armed with AK-47’s, the widespread ownership of firearms does not necessarily ensure personal security or the proper foundations for building a functional society. The rule of law combined with healthy public institutions, which protect private rights, is better than everyone taking the law into their own hands.

It is fallacious to cite countries like Somalia or Afganistan as examples of personal firearms ownership gone awry. These are intensely tribal societies with a long history of blood feud, vendetta and the absence of any kind of central government. In the US, we have a myriad of laws regarding firearms, every t(name removed by moderator)ot municipality has their own set of laws and regulations attempting to govern every aspect of conduct with firearms. The problem is not the absence of laws, but is instead the wise enforcement of those laws. Law-abiding citizens are NOT the problem, law breakers are the problem. Enforce the laws already in place. Hammer felons in possession of guns, deny gun ownership to those unfit to handle the responsibility. If you are looney-tunes, you don’t need a gun. More laws and more Cops are not the answer, more respect for the law and for one another is the answer. No one advocates taking the law into one’s own hands, but if one is faced with an immediate situation, the means to deal with that situation must be at hand. In my neck of the woods, law enforcement can be hours away. By the time they get here, it is over. They do not protect, they merely write the reports.

 

[Chancellare]

The arguments for the legal possession of fire arms is an accepted fact. So is the persistence of crime and illegal fire arms. We are all doomed to build ‘better mouse traps’ as it was in the beginning with Cain and ever shall be with the likes of Kim Il Sung, killing without end…

 

[Dan_Grelinger]

If you start denying gun ownership to some people, then it is not a right. (And so I come to my conclusion that gun ownership should NOT be a right, because it should Not be available to all human beings.)

Error in logic detected - Beep, beep, beep.

We deny physical liberty to some people (felons). Therefore physical liberty is not “a right because it should not be available to ALL human beings.”

Please recompile when the logic has been corrected.

Dan

 

[cmt]

In this forum, there have been a couple of threads regarding gun control laws. I have been reading them with so much interest. (Although I stopped responding to one of the threads, I did continue reading it.) This has been a really fascinating subject for me of late.

Being an Australian, I am for gun control. (Generally speaking, most Australians are.) And I always feel perfectly safe. (In fact, the thought of a gun scares me. I even get a little nervous when I see a police officer with a gun in his holster.)

But I am amazed and saddened at the level of fear that Americans have for their own safety that they are now so in love with their guns.

I hope Australia never reaches that sad state. But Australia surely follows America in many ways. (You’re like our big brother, so to speak…) But I need to ask a question…

What can/should Australia do to prevent it from becoming a place like America, where people feel they need guns to protect themselves?

(I hope nobody finds this thread offensive; But I think we need to learn something from America.)

Well, I don’t think every Tom, **** and Harry should have a gun. Especially City slickers who haven’t a clue. But the Lord help the nitwit who takes away my squirrel hunting gun…

I reserve my right to bear arms and kill squirrels anytime I want to.