Skip to main content

View Diary: What would you do, Mom? (97 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Hunting... (19+ / 0-)

    You don't need a military style gun or magazine for hunting. All you need is a rifle or a shot gun.. or even a bow. I have no problem personally with people keeping guns for hunting or protection. But they don't need guns designed for war, nor magazines larger than say... six. There is no useful reason for anyone outside of police or military to have more bullets available without reload than six. There's no reason for civilians to have semi-automatics or assault rifles.

    "Madness! Total and complete madness! This never would've happened if the humans hadn't started fighting one another!" Londo Mollari

    by FloridaSNMOM on Sun Dec 16, 2012 at 05:45:59 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  I know. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      duufus, MixedContent

      That's where the freedom excuse comes in. The paranoid lunatics think arming themselves to the teeth prevents tyranny.

      But you can commit plenty of mayhem with a hunting rifle. Would our laws have been OK with you if only six children had been slaughtered?

      Hunting is a luxury the USA cannot afford. The only thing I'd personally find acceptable is if hunting rifles were stored at an armory and checked out to hunters for a hunting trip and then checked back in.

      •  No, it wouldn't have been ok... (6+ / 0-)

        but I also think such slaughter would be less likely. There wouldn't be as much of a military/war mind set without the guns and ammunition to support them. Also, it's easier to take out someone with a hunting rifle, as the Principle and the therapist of the school both tried to do. If they have to stop and manually reload, there's a greater chance of someone stopping them.

        If someone is intent on killing they'll find a way. The key is, at this point to make it harder. And make stopping them easier. Obviously there are more issues than just guns to deal with, but taking the guns out of the picture, or at least reducing them allows everyone some air to work out the rest. It's hard to find a rational solution when it's one crisis after another after another.

        I know there are some ranchers who carry hunting rifles for protection of the herd as well. Granted the big predators aren't as prevalent as they used to be, but a hunting knife doesn't do much against a panther, or even a rabid previously domesticated animal. But there should be safety courses required, and licensing maintained for those guns as well.

        "Madness! Total and complete madness! This never would've happened if the humans hadn't started fighting one another!" Londo Mollari

        by FloridaSNMOM on Sun Dec 16, 2012 at 06:26:47 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  The scale of the slaughter would have been... (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          tofumagoo, MixedContent

          ...smaller. That is my point.

          You can still kill plenty of people with a hunting rifle or a handgun.

          The few situations, like ranchers guarding herds, do not justify the general availability of firearms. But people who oppose regulating firearms use arguments like that all the time.

          •  I see it as a compromise. (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            blueoasis, bkamr, DamselleFly, zett

            People hunt. Some people hunt to put food on the table. I know many years when I was a kid my dad went hunting for that reason. He didn't when there was a lot of work, but he was in construction and when years were more lean, he hunted. Some people just enjoy hunting. Some people do a little of both. I see no reason we can't compromise. There is no way to prevent all killing. We can reduce it though and still allow personal protection and hunting.

            With my ex-husband, if my son did not have the condition he has, I would have a rifle or a hand gun in the house for personal protection. My ex, before he was a felon, had a gun collection, I used to go target shooting with him. He knows I can hit what I aim at. That hesitation would give time for my kids to get out of the house and to safety. Heck, I wouldn't even need a loaded gun for that.

            "Madness! Total and complete madness! This never would've happened if the humans hadn't started fighting one another!" Londo Mollari

            by FloridaSNMOM on Sun Dec 16, 2012 at 06:46:59 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  I have no issue with hunting rifles. I live in (4+ / 0-)

        a suburban/ rural area, and while I'd never own a gun or go hunting, I respect people who hunt to provide food for their family.

        A gun that shoots 6 bullets and must be reloaded IS a different situation.  The principal and counselor may have even had a chance to tackle the killer, or he may not have been able to blow a hole through the entry to even get inside.

        I might have a chance with my glassware and rocks from behind an upended lab table ...

        Yeah. Having obviously thought through "my plan," yeah, a gun that fires 6 normal bullets and requires a pause?  Hell, yes, I'd rather face that scenario than the mega clip, rapid fire, high power hail of bullets almost without end.

        And, once again, can you believe that I actually have to THINK about this at all, as a teacher?

        Plutocracy (noun) Greek ploutokratia, from ploutos wealth; 1) government by the wealthy; 2) 21st c. U.S.A.; 3) 22nd c. The World

        by bkamr on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 12:50:09 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  So where were they and their guns ... (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        goheelsgodems, home solar, bkamr
        The paranoid lunatics think arming themselves to the teeth prevents tyranny.
        ... when the Bush Administration did away with Habeas Corpus?  If I recall correctly, not a shot was fired.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site