Gun Control - Now Discussing Tucson Shooting

An armed man is a citizen. It is a DUTY how can people not undersatnd that? If your life (or your family) is in danger by scum, what are you gonna do hope theres a cop there? I don't know about y'all. I would rather be able to defend myself and my loved ones.

 

Do you then feel that having guns is something, then, that everyone MUST do? How do you feel about those that choose not to have guns in relation to still being citizens or not?

 

Not everyone should have a gun. However that makes then no less of a citizen. However, I think that almost, everyone should have one, and know how to use it. Safty with a firearm is very critical.

 

Personally, I feel that it is a responsibility of responsible citizens who are legally members of the unorganized militia to at least have a basic level of training and understanding of firearms. In the event that they are called up for service, they should be prepared to serve, and gaining the basic skills should be part of that.

That doesn't mean that everyone should own their own guns, or that the government should start issuing firearms to everyone in the unorganized militia. That simply means that they have a responsibility to become educated on a basic level about things like firearm safety and use. Most of that doesn't even require the presence of a gun.

Incidentally, on the subject of firearms, I had a bit of an experience today. I received my Virginia CWP (Concealed Weapons Permit) last month, and since then I have made it a habit to carry whenever I legally can, for several reasons. My primary reason is that I want to become accustomed to carrying so that when I need to do so, I feel completely at ease with the presence of the gun, and have adjusted my habits to deal with its presence.

As part of that, I have often been carrying while I am at home. (Right now, I am using my Walther P22 as my carry gun until Kimber can reduce the 8 month wait for back ordered Ultra Carry IIs. I carry with 40 grain hypervelocity hollow point bullets, a round in the chamber, the safety off, and the hammer down (which requires about a 12 pound trigger pull to fire it). When I take it off, the first thing I do is put on the safety, remove the magazine and clear the chamber.) Well, today I had my aunt over for dinner, and when I decided that I was going to take my gun off, she noticed it and had a rather strong reaction to it. That led to us having a bit of a discussion about the issue. After I explained several of my reasons for owning guns (including target practice, hunting, and building skills related to service in the unorganized militia), she seemed to soften a bit, although she still feels that no one needs to have a gun except for police or military officers.

Kimball Kinnison

 

That's why it would be great to have a national searchable database of everyone with a licence to carry a concealed weapon. As a parent, I could look this up before sending my kids over to someone's house for a playdate.

Wouldn't that be terrific if you knew that just by getting one of those permits you'd never be bothered ever again by those annoying girl scouts selling cookies door to door?

 

What? Girl Scout cookies are almost as good as bacon, why would you not want them to come by? Besides, if someone is worried about if their kid is going to a home that has wepons. A parent should ask, the other adults.

 

That's why it would be great to have a national searchable database of everyone with a licence to carry a concealed weapon. As a parent, I could look this up before sending my kids over to someone's house for a playdate.

Wouldn't that be terrific if you knew that just by getting one of those permits you'd never be bothered ever again by those annoying girl scouts selling cookies door to door?

I know you're being sarcastic, but you realize that pointing a handgun at a girlscout would almost certainly result in a disorderly conduct charge at minimum- most likely an assault arrest- and the revocation of the person's CCW? I would hope that as a parent, you would know the people you're sending your kids over to already-without resorting to searching a government database in general.

I think this is the greatest difference in attitude between people who are used to guns and people who aren't. Simply owing a firearm doesn't turn a person into a tin-foil psychopath who points pistols at girlscouts.

But I think a lot of one's perception in this regard is based on if firearms are still mysterious or not.

 

Dude, I spent my childhood summers ON A FARM. IN ALABAMA. One of the things we did in our spare time was shoot "chicken snakes" out of trees. My kids go hunting with their grandfather in Austria. We're all pretty comfortable around guns. For me that's a key difference between small town, rural life and "big city" livin' like I'm doing now.

I'm positive you don't have to actually point the handgun at a girlscout to get the desired effect. I doubt a parent would let their daughter knock on my door *at all* if for example, I was in a registered sex offender database or in a public database of people with permits to carry concealed weapons. I'm just saying, it would be an effective way to keep some of the neighbors from knocking on the door.

 

No, what I mean is the perception illustrated by your example.

So you look at someone who simply owns a gun at the same level as convicted sex offender? What about a family who owns a swimming pool, where about 2,000 kids die each year? Or let their kids ride around unsupervised on an ATV? I suppose the logical extension of what you posted would be to check voter registration lists so democratic party parents don't send their kids over to play with republicans and vice versa-too dangerous is the cross-exposure to ideas and all...

Firearms are inanimate, they don't contain any more potential harm on their own than any other tool. As you pointed out, you grew up hunting in Alabama, but based on your comparison, there should be people who shouldn't have visited you.

See what I mean? I'm not sure I follow the connection.

As I mentioned before in one of the handgun threads, the highschool that I graduated from-a suburb of Chicago mind you, far away from rural Alabama- has* a precision rifle team and skeet club, so shooting was more of a social exercise, on par with swim club or chess club. I suppose if any concerns should crop up relating to firearms, it would be with high school students, but that's what effective supervision is for, as it applies to any activity.

*=At least it did even into the new millenium.. I know there was also a student who went on to win the gold medal for precision shooting during the Sydney Olympic games, and I don't think she had any sex offender tendencies, at least none that were ever revealed...

 

family who owns a swimming pool, where about 2,000 kids die each year? Or let their kids ride around unsupervised on an ATV? I think those things are pretty stupid too. Anyone who has a pool and small children in the house is certifiably insane in my personal opinion. The amount of vigilance it takes around a home pool to keep little kids from drowning is staggering. I've seen it and know from personal experience and some very frightening near misses.

So you look at someone who simply owns a gun at the same level as convicted sex offender?

Yes. I would be as interested in knowing who carries concealed handguns on my block as I would about knowing who is a registered sex offender.

but based on your comparison, there should be people who shouldn't have visited you.

You're kidding me, right? My grandparents' farm was in the middle of ******* nowhere. Who would have ever visited us? My cousins and I could have been shooting each other out of trees and no one would have heard a thing. And we did a lot of things nearly that stupid. We're lucky to be alive.

 

Oh, wow. Now thats silly. I hope you are not serious. I think a parent had a kid, it is their job to raise it. Not the .gov and registries. Nothing I have is or EVER will be registerd.

 

Jabba, I understand your view, I just don't get the connection you're making. I think it's an illustration of political entrenchment.

Suppose we were discussing the same sex marriage issue, and someone suggested that they should be able to look up civil union registrations (or actual same sex marriage licenses in those states that have them) just like convicted sex offenders so they could find out the same sex households in order to prevent girl scouts from visiting those households.

For example, Jeffery Dahmer was a sex offender and serial killer who just happened to be gay. It was Dahmer's own mindset that drove him to this behavior, he certainly didn't represent the entire homosexual community. There may be other sex offenders out there who happen to be gay, but suggesting that all gay men should be monitored because they're like Dahmer makes about as much sense as suggesting that all gun owners are a threat simply because they own a firearm.

I think such an idea would be completely ripped apart in this forum because the two exist completely independent of each other, don't they? There are millions of responsible gun owners, just like there are millions of responsible pool owners, ATV operators, or marriage license holders.

What I think you should be more concerned with is the behavior of the specific person. People convicted of felony crimes have their ability to own firearms voided by the state. It's the same with domestic violence offenses all the way down and including the misdemeanor level. But these are results based restrictions.

People spend pages and pages in other threads pointing out how "fear of the majority" is perhaps the least rational reason used to craft policy. Isn't your illustration just another example of such a generic fear based concern?

 

I'm perfectly serious. The records for concealed carry permits should be public searchable online databases that people can use like registered sex offender databases so that they can get a better sense of who in their neighborhood they most need to avoid.

A lesbian couple with two children lives across the street from me. I can tell just by looking out the window that they are a lesbian couple. I could easily refuse to send my youngest over for play dates, although he would be devastated if I did that. This kind of stuff is very easy to find out.

 

That is insane. I mean if your that worried about people in your neghbor hood. You go door to door and meet them. I know thats odd to know your neghbors. But in the event of a diaster you might want to know them. Besides, it is always a good thing for a parent to know who/where their kids are.

 

This is good advice, and in no way incompatible with downloading a list of people in the area who carry concealed handguns.

 

If we are going to have a list for gun owners, then lets have a list for everything. How do you vote? Are you pro choice? Ford or Cevy? How about we start listing race. I mean you have a right to know what color the couple down the street are right? List this, list that. I have a very hard time with lists, and the people who want a nanny state.

 

A lesbian couple with two children lives across the street from me. I can tell just by looking out the window that they are a lesbian couple. I could easily refuse to send my youngest over for play dates, although he would be devastated if I did that. This kind of stuff is very easy to find out.

Yeah, that's the very point I made as well. But there's a HUGE difference. Because in your initial example, you're allowing your viewpoint to be officiated by government institutions.

With this, it matters less whether or not you personally want to send your child over to a lesbian household, or a household that owns a gun, etc.... That's your choice as a parent- whatever your belief is. But again, how would you feel if a government sponsored database was organized that allowed people to specifically search for gay or lesbian couples for no other reason that they might all be like Jeffery Dahmer?

Don't you realize the difference between making a personal decision and having that decision officiated by the government? If you suggest one, I don't see how you can justify away the differences.

 

While they are making up this registry I propose a MINISTRY OF FIREARM RESPONSIBILITY be built. It will create jobs for out of work citizens. Some of the benefits of employment could be- state run health care(if your healthy),a good used car(if you have NEVER had ANY violations),free housing(residence in a mass shelter for a minimum of two years required),free state approved clothing(grey and khaki only patches,belts,jackboots excluded),free eye and dental(if you are under 30 years of age)free college courses(state approved arts courses only).Participation in all state run town hall meetings,rallies and parades will be MANDATORY. This course of action has worked over and over for other goverments throughout the ages! So lets make this a new start to a safer more responsible community and country!!

 

Marriage licenses as far as I know ARE searchable records, that I could pay for, just like real estate records and drivers license records. There's an important difference here in that for the purposes of equal protection the government isn't going to be keeping tabs on someone's sexual orientation, nor does someone have to register with the state as "gay" or "straight," so it's kind of a moot point.

Guns are dangerous. If concealed carry requires a permit *for the express reason that guns are dangerous* those records should be publicly available. Comparing that with someone's sexual orientation is a bit silly. Homosexuality doesn't require a permit.

By the way, for reference:

Search public records for recipients of Tennessee handgun carry permits:

 

Be sure to tune in next time for "LESBIANS AND BIN LADEN,WHAT WILL YOU DO??"

 

But you're still glossing over the fact that you're basing your statement on your own perception and extrapolating it.

Guns aren't any less or more dangerous than swimming pools, automobiles, cigarettes or any other inanimate objects. But your focus isn't the instrument, but the generic behavior. So, at the basic level, the practice of firearm ownership isn't any more dangerous than any other behavior on its own.

You even pointed out that you grew up with various guns, and how many girl scouts did you hold up, or how many people did you kill, or how many times did you accidentally shoot yourself? I don't know the answers of course. You might have very well chased away every single girl scout you saw while waving a .44 magnum revolver. If that was the case, your own practice still wouldn't prove the rule, but at least it would represent personal experience. But I'd say a effective way to stop that behavior would be to address the chasing and the random waving.

Because at the basic level, your suggestion that all people who own guns are dangerous based on nothing but the practice itself is just as irrational as someone who thinks that all gay men are like Dahmer, or all people who have a driver's license are going to kill a family while driving drunk.

 

Yes I know in some ststes they do publish CCW holders. I think it is stupid. I mean one of the reasons behind the CCW purpose is fear. Plain and simple. Criminals don't know is and who is not armed. I mean if you were scum where would you break into a house you KNOW is armed or one that is not.

Also will someone tell me how to post pics from my computer to this site?


Thanks,

Chris

 

Not to get to deep into a position I'm not all that interested in, but wouldn't you want the criminal to know you were armed and choose not to break into your house?

 

I don't know where your from. However and I am in Texas, just so you know we PRAY for that!

 

You pray for an opportunity to shoot someone? That's fascinating.

44, The swimming pool analogy is instructive. It's not necessarily the swimming pool owner who is dangerous: it's his **** pool. I would want to know if my neighbor had one in the back yard before I sent a three-year-old over to play in the summer. But my neighbor couldn't hide that fact from me, even if he wanted to. In fact, he'd probably tell me to pack a swimsuit if I was sending the kids over. If it was a pool party, I'd offer to come over and help supervise although let me say in all honesty that my kids are awesome swimmers. Even the little one can swim multiple competitive pool lengths. The older one could stay afloat for days at a time.

A database of a public record about gun ownership would be a convenience to me in deciding whether to send my kid over to someone's house. It wouldn't necessarily be the deciding factor. If I already knew the neighbor well maybe I would already know whether he was the type to march around inside his house with a loaded handgun strapped to his hip. Or maybe not. It would be so much easier if my town could simply ban handguns. Oh, well.