Lawrence Hunter Explains the 2nd Amendment

[skunk]

Thanks for the ammunition.

[citizenzen]

Originally Posted by CalWizrd

... I simply find it easier leaving it where it is, and when I am going to bed it gets removed.

I do the same thing ... with my glasses.

[NickZac]

Originally Posted by MadeTheSwitch

I understand that, I just don't understand why you don't feel safe in those other areas, but do feel safe in your home. Isn't the gun the great equalizer here?

But that doesn't answer my question at all. I assume that a large part of the reason people own guns is the notion that they need to protect themselves at all times. Yet they are in fact NOT protected at all times unless, as you say, they have a gun in every room of the house. And every adult that is left in that house knows about and potentially can use the guns in your absence. I doubt most gun owners have really thought those issues through all the way.

I am probably not the best person to answer your question although I see what you are saying. There are a handful of reasons people own firearms. The main reason I own firearms is recreational shooting (I don't hunt). I also happen to keep one chambered in a vault for personal protection, but as I noted, recreational shooting of most firearm types (except black powder) is my attraction. So someone who owns a firearm primarily for defense is IMO better suited to answer this question. The reason I do have one for personal protection is that, while I feel the chance of an armed robbery is low, I'd rather be prepared and nothing happen than do nothing and not be prepared (somewhat in the fashion in which we keep a supply of distilled water...unlikely to be needed but if it is, it can be a life saver).

As far as a firearm as 'the great equalizer,' I would say not at all and it troubles me that some owners look at it this way. I feel this is a bad way to function. Taking other, less invasive, actions to play the 'equalizer' is something everyone should do. There are ways to deter crime that are fast, easy, inexpensive, and non-violent. A firearm IMO should be looked at as a last resort and a response to a SHTF situation, as you can't take back a bullet. Once the trigger is pulled, everything changes (for everyone involved). It is a very grave matter at the legal, personal, familial, philosophical, psychological, and ethical levels and not one that should ever be taken lightly.
(For example, http://home.howstuffworks.com/home-i...-break-ins.htm )

At least for me, I feel safe in my home because I control more of the variables. Unlike a retail store, I don't have to let everyone (or anyone) in. There aren't 50 people within a 100 foot radius around me. I can take precautionary actions that are deterrents to intruder invasions. And using leg power, I feel there is a good chance if I needed to get to the firearm that it would be possible, at least in most cases. I know my own living quarters and have taken action to make a home invasion unlikely (but unlikely doesn't mean impossible). I don't plan on it happening and sure hope it never comes to that, but I would rather be prepared. The above are my own assumptions and views of morality on the issue, so by no means is it fact. It is my personal opinion. And you are right that there are owners who don't think it through and this lack of training/education/understanding unfortunately equates to people dying as a result.

----------

Originally Posted by skunk

That was an attempt at wry humour on my part, actually...

I figured I'd give you a semi-serious response as I wasn't sure how to respond otherwise

----------

Originally Posted by CalWizrd

Since you have never carried concealed, I wouldn't expect you to understand. It is concealed, not on my hip. I have done it for many years, it's comfortable, and most of the time it is not even consciously felt. It is no different, in sensory perception, as wearing a watch or a pair of shoes... i.e. it's there but not ever present as conscious thought.

I'm sure all of those unfamiliar with this will have tons of sarcastic and/or humorous comments. I would expect nothing less.

I carried both concealed and open for years and I agree if the firearm selection and holster selection is correct, coupled with a thicker 'gun belt' it really isn't that uncomfortable at all. The use of plastics have lightened firearms significantly. In some areas, there are 'summer guns' such as the snubnose .38 SWs that are often carried in a pocket holster. They are made out of scandium and weigh less than a cellular phone.

And you are 100% right. That's not something that can be understood until you've done it/been around it IMO.

[skunk]

Originally Posted by NickZac

I am probably not the best person to answer your question although I see what you are saying. There are a handful of reasons people own firearms. The main reason I own firearms is recreational shooting (I don't hunt). I also happen to keep one chambered in a vault for personal protection, but as I noted, recreational shooting of most firearm types (except black powder) is my attraction. So someone who owns a firearm primarily for defense is IMO better suited to answer this question. The reason I do have one for personal protection is that, while I feel the chance of an armed robbery is low, I'd rather be prepared and nothing happen than do nothing and not be prepared (somewhat in the fashion in which we keep a supply of distilled water...unlikely to be needed but if it is, it can be a life saver).

As far as a firearm as 'the great equalizer,' I would say not at all and it troubles me that some owners look at it this way. I feel this is a bad way to function. Taking other, less invasive, actions to play the 'equalizer' is something everyone should do. There are ways to deter crime that are fast, easy, inexpensive, and non-violent. A firearm IMO should be looked at as a last resort and a response to a SHTF situation, as you can't take back a bullet. Once the trigger is pulled, everything changes (for everyone involved). It is a very grave matter at the legal, personal, familial, philosophical, psychological, and ethical levels and not one that should ever be taken lightly.
(For example, http://home.howstuffworks.com/home-i...-break-ins.htm )

At least for me, I feel safe in my home because I control more of the variables. Unlike a retail store, I don't have to let everyone (or anyone) in. There aren't 50 people within a 100 foot radius around me. I can take precautionary actions that are deterrents to intruder invasions. And using leg power, I feel there is a good chance if I needed to get to the firearm that it would be possible, at least in most cases. I know my own living quarters and have taken action to make a home invasion unlikely (but unlikely doesn't mean impossible). I don't plan on it happening and sure hope it never comes to that, but I would rather be prepared. The above are my own assumptions and views of morality on the issue, so by no means is it fact. It is my personal opinion. And you are right that there are owners who don't think it through and this lack of training/education/understanding unfortunately equates to people dying as a result.

If every gun owner was like you, there wouldn't be a problem at all. Unfortunately, there are obviously a great number of gun owners who aren't. Regulation can certainly mitigate that problem, while maintaining the right of those properly qualified to continue to possess the firearms God gave them.

[Eraserhead]

Originally Posted by skunk

If every gun owner was like you, there wouldn't be a problem at all.

I couldn't agree more.

[citizenzen]

Originally Posted by NickZac

And you are 100% right. That's not something that can be understood until you've done it/been around it IMO.

Which can be said of most things.

Gun owners seem to think we need to understand guns intimately before passing judgement on them.

I don't think that's true.

We just need to understand the death and carnage caused by firearms vs. the value they bring to society.

That is sufficient.

[CalWizrd]

Originally Posted by citizenzen

...Gun owners seem to think we need to understand guns intimately before passing judgement on them...

Not quite true, at least in my case.

I simply think that before people start to scream about banning some specific type of gun, that they should at least understand what that specific type of gun is... or isn't.

[bogatyr]

Originally Posted by Eraserhead

So you'd rather give up your car than your gun? Seriously?

Living where I do, yes. Having a gun keeps my family safe - my car doesn't. End of story.

When that changes, so will my mind.

*Note: I'm ok with more control, just no bans.

[Eraserhead]

Originally Posted by bogatyr

Living where I do, yes.

Wow, you need to move.

[Happybunny]

Originally Posted by bogatyr

Living where I do, yes. Having a gun keeps my family safe - my car doesn't. End of story.

When that changes, so will my mind.

*Note: I'm ok with more control, just no bans.

Where do you live Somalia?

[bogatyr]

Originally Posted by Happybunny

Where do you live Somalia?

Detroit

----------

Originally Posted by Eraserhead

Wow, you need to move.

Moving next year.

[citizenzen]

Originally Posted by bogatyr

Moving next year.

You'll probably need a car for that.

[zioxide]

Originally Posted by bogatyr

Living where I do, yes. Having a gun keeps my family safe - my car doesn't. End of story.

Let's be realistic. Having a gun doesn't "keep you safe".

Having a gun gives you the illusion of "being safe" and gives you the chance to defend yourself. But there's also the chance that you can end up being the one shot.

*Note: I'm ok with more control, just no bans.

This is what needs to happen.

[bogatyr]

Originally Posted by zioxide

Let's be realistic. Having a gun doesn't "keep you safe".

Having a gun gives you the illusion of "being safe" and gives you the chance to defend yourself. But there's also the chance that you can end up being the one shot.

You're quite right, which is why I also take training courses from ex-military and LEOs at a local facility for self defense and safe firearm handling. Something I think should be required to own a handgun as CPL courses teach more about covering your butt legally than safety and firearm handling.

Nothing is guaranteed safety but being prepared is a step in the right direction.

[webbuzz]

Originally Posted by zioxide

Let's be realistic. Having a gun doesn't "keep you safe".

Having a gun gives you the illusion of "being safe" and gives you the chance to defend yourself. But there's also the chance that you can end up being the one shot.



This is what needs to happen.

It most certainly kept this mother and her children safe.

http://www.wsbtv.com/news/news/local...ntruder/nTm7s/

[Eraserhead]

Originally Posted by webbuzz

It most certainly kept this mother and her children safe.

http://www.wsbtv.com/news/news/local...ntruder/nTm7s/

How many mothers and children die from gun accidents?

[citizenzen]

Originally Posted by Eraserhead

How many mothers and children die from gun accidents?

Don't know if there were mothers or children caught up in yet another shooting ...

Four dead in townhouse shooting in Aurora, Colorado

(Reuters) - A gunman who barricaded himself inside a townhouse after killing three people in the home was shot to death by police on Saturday in Aurora, Colorado, the same Denver suburb where 12 people were slain in a movie house massacre last July, police said.

The gunman and his three victims, as well as a woman who fled safely from the home at the outset of the violence and alerted authorities, were all believed to be related to one another, police spokeswoman Cassidee Carlson said.

But the motive for the killings was not immediately understood.

"We're trying to find out what set this guy off," she told Reuters.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...90408W20130105

Whatever it was that set him off, the gun helped turn that anger into another massacre.

Well played, America.

[Eraserhead]

Originally Posted by bogatyr

Detroit

So if Detroit is so dangerous surely travelling around on foot or by public transport puts you are far higher risk even with a gun than travelling by car?

And given how poor Detroit is I can't imagine the public transport is up to scratch.

[skunk]

Originally Posted by citizenzen

Whatever it was that set him off, the gun helped turn that anger into another massacre.

Well played, America.

Apparently, it's the price of freedom.

[NickZac]

Originally Posted by skunk

If every gun owner was like you, there wouldn't be a problem at all. Unfortunately, there are obviously a great number of gun owners who aren't. Regulation can certainly mitigate that problem, while maintaining the right of those properly qualified to continue to possess the firearms God gave them.

Originally Posted by Eraserhead

I couldn't agree more.

I appreciate the kind words. And I do believe with effort the situation can and will change without undermining ownership rights.

Originally Posted by citizenzen

Which can be said of most things.

Gun owners seem to think we need to understand guns intimately before passing judgement on them.

I don't think that's true.

We just need to understand the death and carnage caused by firearms vs. the value they bring to society.

That is sufficient.

See, I do think you do need to have a basic understanding before passing judgment, or at least before making practical decisions that at the end of the day will help the issue. I'm not saying I am right but that is how I feel. You've just shaped this in a good fashion tho IMO in that you are discussing weighing pros and cons. There are clearly both in regards to this issue. I think the more you know, the better you can make this comparison. Also, I think the more you know the more meaningful actions (often equating to policy) can be and that it becomes more obvious that the death and carnage can be decreased without changing the value brought to society. Again, that's just my opinion.

----------

Originally Posted by zioxide

Let's be realistic. Having a gun doesn't "keep you safe".

Having a gun gives you the illusion of "being safe" and gives you the chance to defend yourself. But there's also the chance that you can end up being the one shot.

I wouldn't call it an illusion. I would call it one more tool and a tool of last resort. It is a tool because it makes no claim of outcome, means that a tool can cause injury to the user, and implies that skill is needed to utilize the tool safely and correctly. For a 'skilled operator', it can be a very useful tool when utilized correctly. For people without any sort of training, I'd call it as making the situation far more dangerous for anyone and everyone within close proximity, including themselves...and this is a major issue.

[citizenzen]

Originally Posted by NickZac

See, I do think you do need to have a basic understanding before passing judgment ...

I agree.

One should have a basic understanding about any subject before passing judgement.

But I didn't use the term "basic understanding". I used the term "intimate understanding". I used that term because I saw post after post where gun advocates dismissed others because they didn't know precisely what constituted an assault weapon ... as if that made any real difference in their arguments.

[webbuzz]

Originally Posted by citizenzen

Don't know if there were mothers or children caught up in yet another shooting ...



Whatever it was that set him off, the gun helped turn that anger into another massacre.

Well played, America.

Sonny Archuleta. A police background check shows that Archuleta was arrested at least three times before for weapons charges.
Family members also said they believe the suspect may have had a drug problem.
“That’s what they said, the gentleman had been up four days straight on a methamphetamine binge,” said neighbor Jennifer Williams, repeating what Archuleta’s wife told police.

http://kdvr.com/2013/01/05/shots-fir...stages-inside/

[thewitt]

Originally Posted by citizenzen

Don't know if there were mothers or children caught up in yet another shooting ...



Whatever it was that set him off, the gun helped turn that anger into another massacre.

Well played, America.

The problem with this one, yet again, is the criminal was not punished severely enough for his prior crimes.

The liberal prison system lets criminals back on the street so they can commit additional crimes.

Lock up anyone who has used a gun in the commission of a crime for life. If they kill someone in the commission of a crime, then execute them.

Get these criminals off the street and crime rates drop.

Quit thinking of prison as rehab. It doesn't work. Recidivism rates of 60% prove that.

I blame the liberals for these deaths, just like the fireman who were shot.

Neither of these criminals should have been back in with the public.

[Moyank24]

Originally Posted by thewitt

The problem with this one, yet again, is the criminal was not punished severely enough for his prior crimes.

The liberal prison system lets criminals back on the street so they can commit additional crimes.

Lock up anyone who has used a gun in the commission of a crime for life. If they kill someone in the commission of a crime, then execute them.

Get these criminals off the street and crime rates drop.

Quit thinking of prison as rehab. It doesn't work. Recidivism rates of 60% prove that.

I blame the liberals for these deaths, just like the fireman who were shot.

Neither of these criminals should have been back in with the public.

I'm starting to think that a liberal beat you up and stole your lunch money in elementary school.

[NickZac]

Originally Posted by thewitt

The problem with this one, yet again, is the criminal was not punished severely enough for his prior crimes.

The liberal prison system lets criminals back on the street so they can commit additional crimes.

Lock up anyone who has used a gun in the commission of a crime for life. If they kill someone in the commission of a crime, then execute them.

Get these criminals off the street and crime rates drop.

Quit thinking of prison as rehab. It doesn't work. Recidivism rates of 60% prove that.

I blame the liberals for these deaths, just like the fireman who were shot.

Neither of these criminals should have been back in with the public.

I agree our justice system failed here. A murderer was let back on the streets. I'd argue low-level drug offenders and what not can be rehabilitated, but I'm with you on murder. There are certain patterns in crime we see and know. Someone who tortures animals, for example, is very, very likely to do the same to people. People who physically harm others rarely do it just once (for example, when a guy beats a girl, it's almost never a 1 time thing). There was no logical reason IMO for the assumption that this person was fit to return to unsupervised public life, and there has been loss of life because of it.

And stricter criminal code that punishes those who use a firearm in a non-lawful way makes more sense to me than punishing lawful owners. It may likely also work as a deterrent to convince criminals and would-be-criminals to not do so.