Originally Posted by cbwm

People are murdered in prison all the time. What gun do most use? Answer: None.

People rape each other in prison all the time, too. What these facts mean is our prisons are a horrific, third-world mess. They're not supposed to be country clubs, but we should be able to provide enough security - even in maximum security prisons - to prevent rapes and murders. If we're going to put a person in a cage as punishment, we've agreed as a society we owe that person food during their whole stay; we're obligated to provide other basic human rights, too. And that's easily in our power to do.

Originally Posted by ADAM Web Design

What James said. If you need to protect yourself from your own government, that suggests that the people in power aren't the people who should be. We're supposedly in a democratic society; there should be means in which to deal with governments who believe in rule by brute force.

The idea of the constitution is that the people in power are in power at the grace of the people, not the other way around. The minute you give up your guns, the government will not need our grace.

Originally Posted by ADAM Web Design

I have never accepted the Bush administration's explanation of events. It simply has way too many holes in it, some of which have been proven to be non-factual.

There's a really good movie called Loose Change that you should watch...while there's an obvious slant of its own to the movie (there has to be in order to deliver a contrarian stance), the movie applies a lot of scientific principles to demonstrate how the events as explained could not have possibly occurred. If you get the chance, watch it.

I definitely recommend that movie, and be sure to wear your tin foil hat while doing so. This is the same movie that beats the, "The IRS and Income taxes are illegal drum". I'm actually surprised that the makers of this movie haven't been sued by some of the people who try to follow its "Facts". Perhaps Wesley Snipes was one such person. The movie was well done, but there is nothing factual in it.

The idea of the constitution is that the people in power are in power at the grace of the people, not the other way around. The minute you give up your guns, the government will not need our grace.

... unless they do it first. Being government, that isn't likely to happen, though.

Name something other than killing, maiming or destroying - Okay...

Bonding. My husband and my father go target shooting together and have bonded greatly.

Improving hand-eye coordination. Try target practicing. If you don't have good hand-eye coordination when you start, practice and it will improve. By the time you are hitting the target every time your hand-eye coordination will have improved a great deal.

Learning Responsibility - my daughter received her first shotgun for her 9th birthday. It's a 210, not going to kill much from any distance other than maybe a piece of cardboard. What it did do is help teach her responsibility. She is responsible for breaking it down and cleaning it after each time it is used. She is responsible for securing it both in the vehicle and at home (granted Mom & Dad check to be sure she held up her responsibility).


As for hunting, I have a compound bow. The only thing my bow is good for is target practice and hunting. You can do a great deal of damage with a bow too, much more in fact than you can with many guns. Using the philosophy that no on should be allowed to own a gun because it maims and kills....should I be allowed to own my bow, or should Native Americans be allowed to own bows?

Besides, some people need killin.

Originally Posted by KML9870

Name something other than killing, maiming or destroying - Okay...

Bonding. My husband and my father go target shooting together and have bonded greatly.

Drugs are really good for helping people bond, too. If you've never seen a group of junkies giving each other heroin (free of charge) to get passed being dope sick, it's as remarkable as it is surprising.

What it isn't is a good reason to ignore the inherent danger of heroin. The Superbowl can be a bonding experience, too.

Originally Posted by cbwm

Besides, some people need killin.

True enough, and I knew sooner or later this would come up.

Question is, who gets to decide who "some people" are? Because 19 Saudi Arabians decided that "some people" means Americans trying to put food on their family who had jobs at the WTC.

Either we have the rule of law, or it's all fair game. Personally, I don't like Plan B very much.

Originally Posted by Learning Newbie

Drugs are really good for helping people bond, too. If you've never seen a group of junkies giving each other heroin (free of charge) to get passed being dope sick, it's as remarkable as it is surprising.

What it isn't is a good reason to ignore the inherent danger of heroin. The Superbowl can be a bonding experience, too.

Heroin is always dangerous and always detrimental to the human body.


When gun safety is practiced by responsible people the danger is minimal. Most people that participate in target shooting are very responsible with their guns.

I can't tell you how many guns we own - not because I don't want to, but because I've never counted them. We'll stick with more than 10. All of them are in a locked room and the ammunition is locked in a fire safe in another locked room. Only my husband and I have the keys to these and they are always either on us or in extremely close proximity (like the bedside table drawer). My children have been taught their entire lives to always treat a gun as if it is loaded, to always be sure of where the muzzle is pointed, to never point the muzzle even near a person, how to break down each gun and clean it (regular cleaning lessens the chance of malfunction) and that a gun is never a play thing.

I know that not all people who own guns take gun safety as seriously as we do, but just because there are people who are irresponsible or careless or criminal minded doesn't mean that no one should be allowed to own a firearm. I do believe that anyone that all firearms should be registered, and that training in gun safety should be a requirement to owning one.

Just because something has the potential to be dangerous does not automatically mean it should be illegal to own.

Originally Posted by Learning Newbie

Question is, who gets to decide who "some people" are? Because 19 Saudi Arabians decided that "some people" means Americans trying to put food on their family who had jobs at the WTC.

Either we have the rule of law, or it's all fair game. Personally, I don't like Plan B very much.

I think I agree with everything you just posted!
1) Some people need killin
2) We need rule of law
3) Putting food on your family should not be punishable by death

The rule of law exists in America and is pretty clear on who can and cant be killed. I just don't think it should be changed.

Originally Posted by KML9870

Heroin is always dangerous and always detrimental to the human body.

When gun safety is practiced by responsible people the danger is minimal. Most people that participate in target shooting are very responsible with their guns.

Guns are always dangerous, and when drug safety is practiced, the dangers of heroin can be minimized. Examples include when people use clean needles and don't get AIDS or Hep C, when junkies can take their junk to be tested for strength and purity (William Bennet's rat poison theory) and even when they use morphine at the hospital. When heroin is used responsibly, the danger is minimal. Furthermore, the danger is primarily to the user, and not the people within range of the user.

Originally Posted by cbwm

I think I agree with everything you just posted!

The rule of law exists in America and is pretty clear on who can and cant be killed. I just don't think it should be changed.

If you're talking about capitol punishment, that involved a minimum of 2 jury trials, and guns are pretty much never used any more.

If you're talking about self defense, the law really isn't clear at all, in the sense that a trial needs to happen after the fact to determine whether or not it was actually self defense. Which puts your killer in a dangerous and nerve wracking position.

Originally Posted by Learning Newbie

Guns are always dangerous, and when drug safety is practiced, the dangers of heroin can be minimized. Examples include when people use clean needles and don't get AIDS or Hep C, when junkies can take their junk to be tested for strength and purity (William Bennet's rat poison theory) and even when they use morphine at the hospital. When heroin is used responsibly, the danger is minimal. Furthermore, the danger is primarily to the user, and not the people within range of the user.

I have to disagree - when a gun is broken down into 5 pieces, locked in a room and the closest ammunition is 2 stories away locked in a firesafe, a gun is no more dangerous than a walking cane. Even if I have all the pieces and 1 shell in my hand, the chances of the gun powder in the shell exploding without some kind of human catalyst are infinitesimal. It becomes a danger when a person assembles it and loads it.

Drugs like heroin do damage to the user whenever they are used, no matter what level of responsibility is used. The danger of drug use is inherent to the drug, not the responsibility or actions of the user.

When a drug like heroin is locked up and set apart from its delivery mechanism (which I think is only a needle, but I don't have personal experience) it's no different than a broken down locked up firearm.

Truth is, there's very little difference between hard drugs and guns. Both need a human component to fulfill their inherent danger, but both are very dangerous, both can be used in responsible or irresponsible ways depending on the individual using them, both can be used to bond with one another. Ultimately, both make the same contribution to society.

Kandi, the problem with the way you and your husband and kids treat guns is that your viewpoint is, quite clearly, in the minority. The majority don't handle guns responsibly. Police don't, armies don't, private citizens don't. This is why guns need to be done away with. We can't be trusted with them.

As far as bonding is concerned, there are plenty of other ways to bond. Get a Scrabble board. No one gets hurt that way.

Originally Posted by Learning Newbie

If you're talking about capitol punishment, that involved a minimum of 2 jury trials, and guns are pretty much never used any more.

If you're talking about self defense, the law really isn't clear at all, in the sense that a trial needs to happen after the fact to determine whether or not it was actually self defense. Which puts your killer in a dangerous and nerve wracking position.

Well lets leave capitol punishment out, as its off topic and doesn't have much to do with guns. Regarding self defense, there is no trial, just a grand jury to determine whether there may be an offense(like the one that found Drew Peterson's third wife's death accidental). If I shoot someone, pretty much anyone outside of immediate family, on my own property, I probably wont be sweating too much. There are literally thousands of existing rulings and case law which would preclude me from being charged. This is what I am referring to when I say existing law supports use of firearms in self defense.

I'd like to see the day they ease up a bit on the issuance of concealed weapons permits in California. I heard an unofficial statistic that nearly 50% of California drivers carry loaded weapons in their vehicles. I think that makes for a more "Polite" driving population, don't you?

Originally Posted by ADAM Web Design

As far as bonding is concerned, there are plenty of other ways to bond. Get a Scrabble board. No one gets hurt that way.

What if her son spelled out "B****" or "W****" while giving her that uncomfortable stare, that would probably hurt deeply .

Originally Posted by Learning Newbie

Truth is, there's very little difference between hard drugs and guns. Both need a human component to fulfill their inherent danger, but both are very dangerous, both can be used in responsible or irresponsible ways depending on the individual using them, both can be used to bond with one another. Ultimately, both make the same contribution to society.

I don't think you could "accidentally" become high with heroin, unlike guns, which probably cause a lot more pain in firing accidents.

If I had a shotgun in one hand, and a heroin pipe in the other, I'd probably feel more comfortable holding the pipe, as I know it couldn't cause any immediate harm.

Originally Posted by cbwm

I'd like to see the day they ease up a bit on the issuance of concealed weapons permits in California. I heard an unofficial statistic that nearly 50% of California drivers carry loaded weapons in their vehicles. I think that makes for a more "Polite" driving population, don't you?

Having driven in Los Angeles, "polite" is the last word I would use to describe the experience.

Good point, though, and thanks for making it for me. Guns are inherently impolite - the message is "I'm doing X, and if you don't like it I'll shoot you." That might work out when X is in the public interest, but when X is, say, taking all the money from the bank, that isn't very polite. Guns force compliance and an arms race, but they don't force good behavior.

Guns up the ante and even the odds. If you are worried about a little old lady packing heat, she ceases to be the easy target she may previously have been. If you think being shot is one of the potential outcomes of bad behavior (including bank robbery), the number of people willing to perform said bad behavior obviously goes down.

Oh, and having driven in and around Boston, let me tell you. California drivers are polite.

Originally Posted by ADAM Web Design

Kandi, the problem with the way you and your husband and kids treat guns is that your viewpoint is, quite clearly, in the minority. The majority don't handle guns responsibly. Police don't, armies don't, private citizens don't. This is why guns need to be done away with. We can't be trusted with them.

As far as bonding is concerned, there are plenty of other ways to bond. Get a Scrabble board. No one gets hurt that way.

You never played scrabble with my Grandmother....much more dangerous than target shooting

I understand that the majority of people don't treat guns in the same manner that my family does - everyone I am personally associated does, but I know that society as a whole does not. But the people that use guns to commit crimes are just as dangerous with illegal explosives and hand made guns as they are with ones that are bought off the street.

I don't think that handguns have a place in society. They aren't good for much else than causing harm.

My bow is just as deadly, can be accidentally released, fired in pretty rapid succession and as accurately aimed, but it doesn't shoot as far as my 270 rifle.

All of the firearms in my house are shotguns/rifles. All are used either for hunting or target practice. Should people that help control the animal population and use the meat to feed their families be punished because there are people in society that would use it to harm each other?

The instruments have been introduced to society. Even if you outlaw manufacturing of all firearms it would take decades to get all the pre-fab firearms out of circulation. And just like moonshine, illegal drugs, illegal explosives, etc. people that want to do harm will find a way to obtain them.

Guns are not the problem - the people that use them are.

Originally Posted by KML9870

Should people that help control the animal population and use the meat to feed their families be punished because there are people in society that would use it to harm each other?

Like with PageRank, I don't know that it's appropriate to say it's punishment that a person can't have a gun, or PR 7, or their welfare check. Especially if either guns were removed across the board (back in that bottle, genie!) or if it was more like cars, and people earned the right to have firearms.

Originally Posted by KML9870

The instruments have been introduced to society. Even if you outlaw manufacturing of all firearms it would take decades to get all the pre-fab firearms out of circulation.

From my standpoint, decades is much better than never.

Originally Posted by KML9870

Guns are not the problem - the people that use them are.

Same is true for DVD decryption software and P2P networking, but all those torrents are still getting shut down. I personally think the risk of someone getting shot is even worse than the risk of me buying an album and making a copy for my friend.