Gun rights/control/ownership

[Fuzzbucket]

The idea of civilians needing AK-47's to "protect their homes" or for "hunting", reminds me of Monty Python:

 

Overkill much?? lol

Way to go Riverwillows. SO many lines in that actually "say it all" !

[Husky51]

I'm not here to argue it, but to give my point of view.

I was a Gunnersmate in the US Navy, which I joined at 18.  Prior to that, my only connection with guns was at the fairgrounds, shooting oversize BB's at paper targets or later at an amusement park firing .22cal shorts at clay targets or repeating, standup targets.  In High School, I joined the Jr. ROTC and, among other things, learned to field strip and put back together the 1911 .45cal pistol and the M1 Garand 30.06 rifle, blindfolded.  I never actually shot them, but I became familiar with them.  After joining the Navy, as a Gunnersmate, I learned about the big guns, 20mm; 40mm; 5"38cal, etc.  I shot and became familiar with the shooting aspect of the .45 and the M1, both of which I used in teach firearms familiarization to other men on the ship, Officers and Enlisted.  My assigned weapon while on board ship for 'repel boarders' or 'abandon ship' was the Thompson submachine gun.  I practiced with all of them periodically.  I even fired the M79 40mm grenade launcher and threw some hand grenades in a combat area to repel swimmers.  I'm not a hero, I just did what was required of me at the time.

 

When I got out of the Navy, I worked Security and carried a .38 Special revolver. During the 40-45 years in security, full and/or part time, I have been shot at 5 times and only had to fire once.  As the years went by, I've owned and shot a 30-30 rifle (more than one), different handguns and even  shot for four years in the Calif Combat Assoc Police Pistol Course as a Master.  One time I took 3rd place in an LAPD match as well as other trophies over the four years that I competed.  When I was married and had my three children, I taught that them from the time they were between 5-7 yrs of age, as I deemed that they were responsible enough to shoot my single shot .22 rifle, teaching them gun safety and how to properly hold and aim the rifle.  As they became more proficient, I let therm load the gun themselves, always practicing proper gun safety.  As they got older, they all were allowed to advance to shooting handguns.  They all became good shots by the time they were in their teens.  

 

There was a side benefit to all of this.  As they grew older, they KNEW what a gun was and WHAT it could do, so there was no CURIOUSITY about a gun.  They all knew just how dangerous a gun could be!!!  They were also taught one thing as well..  If they were at a playmate's house and someone brought out  a gun and said, "Hey, look what I got, my daddy's gun, wanna play with it?"  They were NOT to try and take it away, but to IMMEDIATELY leave the house and go find the nearest adult, a neighbor, whoever, and tell them what was happening!  They have all taught their children, starting with the same .22 rifle that they learned on, the same lessons that I had given them with the same rules.  

 

On top of all of this was another very special rule.  If they were at school, waiting for a ride, for example, and someone drove up and said, "Hey, Susie (not my daughter's name), Your Mom couldn't make it and asked me to pick you up today".  Before they got into the car or went with the person, they were to ask for the password.  And if that person didn't give them the password, they were to start screaming and running away as fast as they could.  If the person was in a car, they were to run away from the front of the car.  Even now, when they are in their 30's and 40's, I can ask for the password and they promptly give it, in this case "Pink Panther".  Each of the families has a different password and I don't even know what it is and I'm Granpa!  If I should need it, I will be told.

 

As for me and my guns, All are loaded and hidden around my house.  When the grandkids are coming over, I lock them up except for one, which I keep with me, hidden.  I live within a block of a major county jail and when the weather is hot, I leave the front door open and the screen locked and a gun nearby me as I am sitting, and, as I am slower now at my age, it is loaded with a round in the chamber.  All I have to do is pick it up and pull the hammer back and it is ready to go.  If it is late at night and someone knocks, I will pick up the gun and hold it in my lap and ask "who is it?"  If they do not give a reasonable answer, then I will pull the hammer back and advise them to leave as I am armed and calling the cops.  That should take care of the situation...  if not,,, then I am ready.

As for the military assault style rifles,, I have this to say.  If I want to own one and shoot it just for the fun of shooting it, then why the heck not?  I am a responsible adult and I think that it is fun to shoot these type of weapons.  I don't happen to own one, but know people that do.  I also get together with friends, male and female and we'll go off into the woods and set up a target range with a solid background.  We let people in the area and the Rangers know that we are there and what we are going to be doing.  We do NOT go into the mountains when the fire season is upon us.  

This has been rather long and if it offends someone, I do not apologize.  I am not here to argue with anyone about this hobby of mine.  I do it and I enjoy it and that is that.  As for tougher laws, the laws ARE tough, just not being fully enforced.  Like this shooting the day before yesterday at the news office.  The authorities knew about this man in the past, but did not consider him a threat.

 

My statements are not open for debate.  This is me and my family.  If you do not agree with us, then you are welcome to your opinion.  I've stated my position on this topic and that is enough.

[_Z_]

Everyone here has the right to free speech and your opinions. We, I also have the right to buy an own a perfectly legal weapon. I will consider giving up my rights if you want to give up yours. Reminder I said I would consider it. 

[Natayah]

You know, I always find it really interesting that no one gets upset when an animal viciously defends the life of itself, its young, its family, etc. No kind or civil person (in general), would we expect to kill or abuse a pet just because they spook a pet and it reacts by nipping or clawing in fear. (Usually we think, Oh I understand, or maybe I had that coming, need to be more careful or train it better). Even serious bites or attacks are understood if the someone was doing something to harm or incite the animal.

 

No one (where I am from at least), goes around burning and hacking and rallying mobs of people to "destroy" Honeysuckle Bush/Vines, or other various plants that are considered "invasive," especially to local fauna/flora. Which means it is killing off local fauna and flora. I mean humans do lots of things to try and mitigate and remove things to help balance nature in helpful ways (we aren't perfect but we do try).

 

When humans in past, or even some in current, history go around killing other humans because of a "survival of the fittest" issue, we no longer just assume that is "barbaric and requires us to conquer them and force them to learn the good and true way." Certainly we would like to educate options, and I'm not talking about crossing over into mass unnecessary slaughter. But earlier forms of humankind fought off animals and other humankind, including "less evolved" versions of humankind. Most people seem to embrace some form of Evolution and written the code of all living (and some non-living) things.

 

I just kinda get confused how when the social contract was created, the entire idea of "self protection" got erased. It is something that exists in the state of Nature and is part of the evolutionary track. Enough so people consider it a Human Right many places because the ideas of Freedom of Thought, Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Religion or Ideology or Opting Out, or Freedom of Possession (people cannot just randomly walk up to you and steal your stuff without a reason, including just claiming your home as their own and now you have to move out), unless there is some way to Enforce or Defend it. It is very nice to think that laws and society will protect you. I've just lived too long to watch the justice system take it away repeatedly and not care to offer me any assistance, or to make the entire theft and loss even worse without any chance of recovery or being made whole no matter how hard I try. In fact, if they are friends of the judge, they can outright steal from me and I am told by the Judge, upon asking them if I am even allowed to present a defense, to be told a "No", and when I try to protest, I am dragged away in disbelief by S/O so I'm not held in contempt of court as you cannot argue with a judge.

 

I'm really not about killing people. Despite how much a person is bad or stupid in that moment in their desire to harm me or fall within that range (and ZOMG do you really have to know your law and drill it in your head which most responsible gun owners do - and if you don't keep up on your responsibilities, you don't deserve much sympathy when you do time, although I get how difficult and forever changing it is), because I understand what it is to carry that guilt and how it changes you, and that isn't even from shooting. You are so limited in being able to shoot, and only in very specific circumstances that fall out in a specific way and means (and I'm actually in a state where it is really reasonable and ahead of the curve), that ... generally speaking it is not worth the jail time unless you are really certain that you are about to face a good chance of death or grave injury or loss of blood relative or such. You don't do it for any other reason. And you don't pull unless you are going to shoot, as "brandishing" is enough to get you in trouble. You don't pull as a warning. You pull to kill hoping that the moron is going to see that and in a split second turn and run so you don't have to do that. I'm not going to talk about anything specific here.

 

But how you are going to tell me that in the state of nature and evolution it is totally ok to protect and defend and even be the aggressor (which is NOT something allowed with firearms) in the State of Nature for Evolution and Survival of the Fittest to Work.... but with all our crazy laws that make it very very very very very specific on what you can and CANNOT do (most is a long list of CANNOTs that will end you up with tons of fines and jail time and I'm sorry but jail time just is NOT worth it) - I really am confused how I'm the crazy ones. Animals are ok to do whatever they need to do unless they are mass slaughtering things and need to be put down due to a disease but any other attack or defense is just "nature". How very narrow use of a defense and protection item, or something used at as a tool (since AR-15's are really built to take care of vermin, much like a standard 22 - Oh wait it is just a 22 with more of a kick to it), or if I want to build a personal museum and put an old battle tank there.... not really seeing the point there.

 

I have a rabbit. Yes I once had three, I am down to just one, and she has chosen me to be her BFF/Bonded Bunny and it really is a heartwarming honor as she is our last one. But rabbits/bunnies (European, not cottontail or hares - the "domestic" versions) do NOT understand negative reinforcement. Their brains do not know how to process it. So I cannot push her away, shoo her away, bonk her head gently, tap her nose, give her bum a tap, to teach her NOT to do something. I mean I can make her move and annoyed, but she doesn't correlate anything with it. There is no Carrot/Stick method. There is only the Carrot and that is it. Positive Reinforcement only. Anything else would be seen as random abuse and cause the bunny to get really defensive and hide and have nothing to do with you. But if a rabbit, who I can only communicate with via positive reinforcement, has the natural instinct, and "ability" to defend herself in Nature as humans do not generally walk around trying to break up fights and shackle all animals so they can never harm another, why am I not entitled to this allowance either? Bacteria have greater rights than I do when it comes to defense. They at least get to use that whole "evolution" thing without being told they are the reason little children get murdered or whatever other random emotional negative stigma one wishes to stick one like myself with. Not everyone does, but just food for thought.

 

I totally support your right that if you are not able to carry daily, keep it on you if not always then often, practice with it and be a responsible person who is always up on it - it is correct you probably should not be carrying simply because I don't want you to do something and, in those circumstances, have your own tool/weapon turned against you to cause more harm. Either you make the commitment or not. And it is totally cool not to. I forget the numbers, but I think it was like 70-90% of CCW applicants and taking training classes, within a year or less, will stop carrying regularly. If you aren't going to do it regularly, don't do it. You are only going to get yourself or someone else hurt. But you still have that right despite you technically not having to be responsible enough to not hurt your own self.

Edited July 4, 2018 by Natayah

[Whirlaway]

I’ll give up my rights when you do. So long as you are safe, responsible and intelligent with what a gun is, it is one’s right to have one. And I’m not giving up a Constitutional right which was put there for very specific reasons.

[Fuzzbucket]

Which were, as I recall,  primarily for a militia.

 

Quote

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.^[21]

 

 

[hazeh]

I don't mind if people have guns for self defense or whatever. It's certain kinds of guns that I don't agree civilians should have unfettered access to-- or if they absolutely MUST have some of those guns, I'd rather the restriction for them kept them solely at shooting ranges. A handgun is more than adequate for self defense, is it not? As for hunters, I don't really know. Maybe only certain weapons can be used for hunting. I just think it's getting a point that everyone having all these different kinds of firearms is getting to be more dangerous than beneficial. 

[Zeditha]

I speak as a UK citizen who would like data before speaking. But I don't have data right now and I feel the need to add something to this.

 

If people find it fun to shoot guns, a gun club is perfectly acceptable to me. Everyone in the gun club would be trained, and the guns would be kept under lock and key when not in use, the guns kept in good condition, etc. All good safety practices.

 

But for home defence? Well here's my line of thinking: it boils down to 'if gun control is enforced, then you won't need one.' There may be a transitional period during which guns are still commonplace among the more paranoid or crazy, but 'normal people' have given theirs up, and I can see how that could cause some paralysing fear for people. But why, I ask, should that be *more* scary than the thought of a toddler getting into their mum's handbag and shooting their entire family with the handgun? Because that happens. A lot. And you know what else happens a lot? SCHOOL SHOOTINGS AVERAGE ONE A DAY. And people really don't just buy a gun for the occasion - they already have one.

 

I live in the UK. We had one school shooting and heavily restricted guns. Do you know how many school shootings there have been since then? NONE.

 

Is giving up some gun freedom (not all! Just some!) really that high a price to pay to reduce school shootings from one EVERY SINGLE DAY to none? Really?

Is your fun more important than the lives of thousands of children?

[Fuzzbucket]

Gun clubs - yes, fine. (A bit SILLY, to my mind - but then, so are a lot of clubs for all sorts of things.)

 

But even given gun clubs there is NO REASON AT ALL for ordinary citizens to own semi-automatic and pump-action rifles, weapons that fire explosive ammunition, short shotguns with magazines or elevated pump-action/self-loading rifles. I would include ANY handgun, but Americans will get upset if I do !

 

We have not had another SCHOOL shooting, no, but I happen to live in the North and remember Derrek Bird - who did for 12 people - with a shotgun.

[Zeditha]

On 7/7/2018 at 11:36 AM, Fuzzbucket said:

We have not had another SCHOOL shooting, no, but I happen to live in the North and remember Derrek Bird - who did for 12 people - with a shotgun.

 

TBH even if entirely banning all guns would only halve the number of shootings in the US, I'd say it would be well worth it. And I think that even some more minor restrictions, like having to apply for a licence to own them which includes a psychological evaluation and some training or proof of training, would do far more than halve it.

 

The above suggestion is what I want to see happen. A country-wide law stating that all gun owners must have such a licence (a different licence type for each gun type, with proof of training for said gun type), with a grace period of perhaps a few years during which it's ok to have a gun without a licence but not to buy one without, and after said few years gun ownership without a licence would become illegal. (Presumably at first it would just result in 'go get a licence. *stern look*' but would soon be frowned on more.)