Skip to main content

I know, right?  This is a survival group diary and most people associate guns with survivalism.  You'd think it was counter-intuitive to talk about not owning a gun in a survival diary.

Truth is, there are times when not having a gun is best for your survival and responsible gun owners already know this.  They just don't articulate it most of the time, so all the people who have a knee-jerk "guns are bad" reaction think that gun-owners want to force gun ownership on everyone else.

That's not true. Gun owners very definitely don't want everyone to own guns and there are some people they think should never have access to guns.

I am all for people utilizing their second amendment rights to the fullest if that's what they want to do. I don't, personally, own any guns because I don't want to own any guns. They take a lot of time and upkeep and I just don't want to spend my time on them.  However, since Oklahoma is a now an open carry state as well as a concealed carry state and gun ownership is legal, I am comforted by the possibility that many of my neighbors may have guns as a deterrent to criminals.  I think being able to protect yourself to whatever extent is needed is a natural right we all innately have. And e fact that some people just like having guns around is OK by me. My ex likes guns so much he became a gunsmith and an expert on the history of firearms. Very smart man when it comes to guns.  Not so smart in other areas of his life.  There are circumstances, however, when it makes a whole lot of sense to not have firearms in the home at all, not even locked up in a gun safe.

If there's domestic violence going on in the house, or there's a strong potential for it, then guns should be taken to a safe deposit box or somewhere difficult to get to and with strict rules for removing the item.  Banks and their safety deposit boxes seem the best bet to me what with their short hours and the rules for accessing the boxes.  It makes the impulsive  and passionate acquisition, aiming, and firing of a gun nearly impossible. By the time anyone got to the bank while it was open, waited for access to the boxes, followed the rules for opening the box, and got the gun, passions would have cooled and a more reasoning attitude would prevail.  And if not,   using a gun stored like this would be premeditated.

In cases of domestic violence, ready access to guns is a sure fire way to get someone shot.  Responsible gun owners would take that gun out of the house, out of the places where any of the involved parties could access it easily, and lock it up.

Once the domestic situation is resolved, the guns could probably return, but you'd have to be very sure violence won't erupt again.

Domestic violence isn't the only time guns should be removed from a house. If there's someone suicidal, keeping a gun where it can be accessed, even in a locked gun safe, increases the chances of the gun being used for the suicide.  Yes, I know suicidal people will find some way to off themselves if they don't get help first or if that help doesn't work fast enough.  If the person is deemed well enough to live unsupervised - or their suicidal tendencies haven't been noted (which I find very sad and disturbing) - and they are serious about suicide, they will find a way. I just don't think it should be with a gun.  I've had a couple of friends suicide or try to suicide by gun and it is not something I ever want to have to see or clean up after again. Most other methods of suicide are kinder to the people left behind.  Gun shots to the head, done wrong, don't kill.  They make a huge, nasty mess and then leave the suicidal person alive but often not ever well again. One of my friends is a vegetable - not on life support, but not really alive. Half his face and half his brain are gone and he can't talk, see, hear, feed himself, toilet himself, but he keeps breathing and his heart keeps beating and his other organs keep functioning, except his brain isn't all there and neither is he.

If you suspect suicidal tendencies in someone and there's a gun where they live, do your best to get that gun out of that house and locked up somewhere distant and safe until the person has been successfully treated.

Of course, right along with that is out of control alcohol or drug use.  They might not be suicidal, but combining abusive alcohol or drug use with guns leads to stupid actions.  Those stupid actions can lead to serious injuries or death.  Alcoholics and drug addicts with guns is bad, bad news. Do your best to convince an alcoholic or drug addict to lock their guns away in a remote location.  Once they are clean and responsible again, maybe they can have their guns back.

We can't talk about dysfunctional adults with guns without also talking about dysfunctional families with kids.  The reason I say "dysfunctional families with kids" and not "all families with kids" is because in a functional family (and despite all the media noise about it - most families are pretty functional), guns would be handled responsibly, kids would be educated on their use as a tool, and it would be kept in a gun safe when not in use.  Many functional families enjoy gun games such as target shooting or that like to hunt.  I shot my first duck when I was 8 and my first deer when I was 16. Guns in a functional, responsible family are as safe as butcher knives, lawn mowers, fireplace pokers, or tire irons. In families with irresponsible adults, the children aren't taught gun safety and the guns are left in accessible places.  Trust me, the kids will find guns kept in the bedside table drawer or under the pillow.  Those are never responsible places to keep guns when small or young children are around.  
Like narcotic prescription drugs and toxic household cleaners, guns need to be kept out of the reach children too young to be responsible with guns.

And if there are troubled teens, it doesn't matter how responsible you think they are, guns have no business in a house with them.  It's not just gang banger teens, there's the braggadocio teens, the show offs, and the rebellious, out-of-control teens.  They, too, can be alcoholic or drug addicts. And the kids and teens who are bullied and taunted, we've seen how tragic the outcomes are of families who kept accessible guns around them - either suicides or massacres happen. If you suspect a teen is troubled in some way and their parents own guns, do your best to convince them to lock the guns up in a distant location until the troubles resolve. And if it's your kid that's troubled, why do you still have that gun in your home? Get it out now.  Today.  You're not giving up your right to own the gun, you're acting responsibly with it.

Those aren't the only reasons to not have a gun. If you bought the gun years ago "for protection" and you've stuffed it in the back of a closet in case you ever need it, why do you still have it?  if you've never cleaned it, fired it, taken it out for target practice and sighting in, what's the point of you keeping it? Not only are you a reluctant gun owner, you're an irresponsible one. In your closet, really?  You think those old moth eaten sweaters will rise up and protect you with a gun that's probably rusted, or at least crudded up? No, take it to a gunshop and sell it right now.  You obviously don't want, you've never used it, and you don't need it.  Make some money off it and let someone who'll take care of it get it.

If you have the gun because you think you might someday need it to scare away a burglar, you might want to rethink that gun. You have to be willing to do more than try to scare a burglar away if you own a gun for protection. If you think just the sound of chambering a round is sufficient, ditch the gun and get a good recording of a gun being readied and play that.  It will be just as effective and much safer - the burglar won't take the recording away from you and shoot you with it. Of course, if you are a responsible gun owner and have kept he gun clean and maintained and you fire it regularly so you're familiar with it and you have no qualms firing it at someone and potentially killing them, having a gun for protection might be a good idea.  But if you have any doubts about your ability to maintain control over the gun and to shoot someone else, get the recording.

There are also philosophical reason to not have a gun.  If you're a pacifist or just adamantly against gun ownership, don't have one.  Nobody's forcing you to own a gun, so exercise your freedom of choice and don't own one.  Don't have one in your house. Just because you can have a gun doesn't mean you have to have one.

If it's against your religion to own a gun or weapons of violence then I'd be surprised of you had a gun in your home. You need to do what is right for you, whether it's religiously motivated or philosophical.

If you live with someone who has a philosophical, personal, or religious aversion to gun ownership, I would hope you are responsible enough to store the guns you own off the property and out of the home. Personally, I don't see any reason why you can't own guns if your housemate is opposed to them as long as you keep them out of the house.  A gun club could store them for you, and you could still participate in the shoots and matches and all. It wouldn't really be much different from living with someone who has allergies to your favorite foods - you just don't eat those foods or keep them at home, but you can still indulge in them away from home. and there's always the possibility that you are won over to their viewpoint, at which time, you'd probably sell your guns. There's also the possibility that your love of gun and your housemate's opposition to them come into conflict. You'd have to decide then whether you love guns enough to give up your housemate, or if you love your housemate enough to give up the guns.  Choice, yanno?

There are two other reasons to not have a gun.  If gun ownership is illegal in your area, obviously you wouldn't have one there.  You might have it stashed away at a gun club or a safe deposit box in a bank where gun ownership is legal, but you wouldn't have it in your home. Deciding whether or not to  break the law by keeping a gun in a district where gun ownership is illegal is a personal decision. Some people feel their Federal Constitutional right to bear arms overrides a city council's decision. If you're willing to face the consequences and pay the legal expenses, I'm not going to argue with you. Me, I'd follow the law and not have a gun. But I'd probably also fight to change the law so gun ownership is legal - even if I then never ever own a gun.

The other legal reason to not have a gun is if there is a convicted felon living in the home. It could be your Uncle Bernie was just released and he hasn't had his rights restored yet (or maybe never) and he's living with you for now.  Get your guns out of the house and into a safe deposit box or a gun safe at your local gun club or somewhere where your Uncle Bernie isn't at risk of being jailed again.

Owning a gun is a huge responsibility and part of that responsibility is knowing when not to have one.

If any of the above situations apply to you or a loved one, consider at least temporarily storing your gun(s) elsewhere.  You can store them at a friend's house, at a family member's house, at your gun club, or in a bank's vaults. In place of the gun, consider alternative methods of protection like pepper spray or even a taser.  Make sure you and your housemates (spouse, kids, roommate...) know how to keep safe in your home.

There are some situations where you just flat shouldn't have guns. As a responsible gun owner/lover, you'll respect those situations.

Originally posted to Practical Survivalism and Sustainable Living on Wed Jun 06, 2012 at 11:00 AM PDT.

Also republished by Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Open carry is not in force yet (7+ / 0-)

    in Oklahoma. It takes effect November 1, 2012.

    •  Open Carry Is Crazy. (9+ / 0-)

      I happen to have a good reason to own rifles. I live in the country and we have destructive varmints. Peccary's who tear up my dogs, raccoons who eat our chickens, rattlers who occasionally invade our living space, and non destructive game, such as dove which grace our tables every hunting season.

      Did I mention self protection? That old side-by-side double-barreled 12 gauge shotgun in my locked bedroom gun closet gives me great comfort, when my family and I live out in the boonies way beyond the swift response of 911.

      Guns, hand-guns that is, are, however, out of the question, in my book. They were designed for, and serve no useful purpose other than, killing people -- and that's not what I'm looking for. Shoot, hand guns did not exist back when the Second Amendment was hatched. Owning hand guns should be highly restricted. Openly carrying them in public is crazy.

      "Force is as pitiless to the man who possesses it, or thinks he does, as it is to its victims; the second it crushes, the first it intoxicates.” Simone Weil

      by chuco35 on Wed Jun 06, 2012 at 12:20:46 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  ...handguns did exist back then. (15+ / 0-)

        The lethal force of a handgun is exactly what makes them useful (coupled with their conceal-ability).

        Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

        by KVoimakas on Wed Jun 06, 2012 at 12:22:56 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  That's My Point. (3+ / 0-)

          No hand gun is more lethal than my old 30-30 brush rifle. A hand gun can't begin to compare with it in putting down a target -- both in accuracy and power. Yet the hand gun can be concealed, which is why it is designed and used to kill people. I don't need to hide my shotgun when I'm hunting dove, but I do if I'm hunting a man with stealth.

          "Force is as pitiless to the man who possesses it, or thinks he does, as it is to its victims; the second it crushes, the first it intoxicates.” Simone Weil

          by chuco35 on Wed Jun 06, 2012 at 02:57:53 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Carrying around a 30-30 isn't socially acceptable (9+ / 0-)

            or convenient. Carrying my 1911 (concealed) is both.

            Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

            by KVoimakas on Wed Jun 06, 2012 at 03:12:39 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Sorry Bud. (0+ / 0-)

              But with my crowd hunting white-tail deer with an open sight 30-30 is absolutely socially acceptable. Walking around carrying heat that might blow me (or you) away if I pat you too hard in greeting -- not so much. Same if we're driving home after drinks and get stopped by a cop as he discovers that you are hot, or if my party companion is carrying and gets carried away in the heat of an unexpected moment, or just turns out to be an obnoxious asshole.

              Just too many things that can go wrong when carrying as a matter of course, to where I can accept legally carrying hand guns as good public policy. Besides, I've never thought it a good idea to let the state know that I own a gun, let alone that I carry, and then let it take a picture of me to better identify me as a gun owner. That's not socially acceptable to a lot of gun-owning, blood-sport, independent Texans I hang with either. If I'm going to carry, which I hardly ever do, I certainly won't let the state know. That's who I need to conceal my guns from -- not from the public.

              "Force is as pitiless to the man who possesses it, or thinks he does, as it is to its victims; the second it crushes, the first it intoxicates.” Simone Weil

              by chuco35 on Thu Jun 07, 2012 at 12:21:53 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  The thing is, what you're stating above, hasn't (9+ / 0-)

                happened. Some form of civilian concealed carry is available in 49 states. The blood in the streets that some have prophesied didn't come to pass.

                I'd also like to point out that just because the state knows you own one gun (if you have a permit) doesn't mean they know about all of your firearms.

                Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

                by KVoimakas on Thu Jun 07, 2012 at 05:47:17 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Not So Fast. (0+ / 0-)

                  Registering yourself as a gun carrier gives the state a heads up that you are loaded, and it will likely assume that you have an arsenal, for example, if the feds or local yokels are executing a warrant on your housemate. Don't expect much tolerance if that happens. Besides, the state compiles a shitload of information on you as part of the registering, safety, and renewal process in many open carry laws. This goes way beyond what I consider my constitutional right to OWN guns, whether I have a legitimate reason to carry a concealed weapon or not. If I transport money from my store to the bank every afternoon, or if I'm on my way to target practice, I will carry for sure, but that doesn't mean that I have to subject myself to state registration in order to do so -- as I read the Constitution.

                  While I think hand guns should be outlawed in many cases, I don't believe the state should own a data base on gun owners. The state should not force you to register your guns, in my opinion -- why would I voluntarily register myself as a gun owner, whether I own one gun or many?

                  "Force is as pitiless to the man who possesses it, or thinks he does, as it is to its victims; the second it crushes, the first it intoxicates.” Simone Weil

                  by chuco35 on Thu Jun 07, 2012 at 11:53:00 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  So you're a proponent of VT's style of carry? nt (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    rockhound, theatre goon

                    Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

                    by KVoimakas on Thu Jun 07, 2012 at 11:55:08 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  If I Have A Legitimate Right To Carry I Will. (0+ / 0-)

                      But I certainly don't believe I should be forced to register with the state to do so. That's the 2d as I see it.

                      The state can outlaw my carrying for a non-legitimate reason, however, such as simply because it's socially acceptable, or because I believe I am defenseless unless I pack heat. The state can also prohibit my owning a hand gun, IMHO, unless I have a legitimate reason for owning one, as it can prevent me from owning an automatic military weapon simply because I like how it looks.

                      If I'm stopped on my way to the bank with heat, then that would be a defense to illegal carry, not because my gun or I am registered with the state, or because I have the right to carry as I damn well wish, but because I can prove that I have a legitimate reason for carrying. If I'm walking to the ballpark, or to class, packing heat, then I can be stopped for violating the law consistent with the 2d.

                      So, I don't believe in open carry by whim, and especially open carry that requires registering yourself with the state.

                      My 2 pennies. Interesting discussion.

                      "Force is as pitiless to the man who possesses it, or thinks he does, as it is to its victims; the second it crushes, the first it intoxicates.” Simone Weil

                      by chuco35 on Thu Jun 07, 2012 at 12:24:57 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Hmm. (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        rockhound, theatre goon

                        I don't think rights are based on need. "Because I can" is a legit reason.

                        You can own fully automatic firearms by the way.

                        Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

                        by KVoimakas on Thu Jun 07, 2012 at 12:34:51 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  So How Do You Square That With... (0+ / 0-)

                          ...being ok with prohibiting bazookas and battlefield carbines? The state is making a determination that you as a civilian do not have a legitimate "need" to own such weapons, and that the dangers to society are too grave in allowing civilians to do so simply because they want to. These are both "guns" under the 2d, certainly as much as hand guns.

                          So yeah, rights are certainly limited by necessity, when those rights would otherwise cause grave harm to society. We can argue over whether widespread hand gun ownership is indeed such a danger to society as to call for restricting their ownership, but making a determination in favor of restriction is certainly not unconstitutional.

                          "Force is as pitiless to the man who possesses it, or thinks he does, as it is to its victims; the second it crushes, the first it intoxicates.” Simone Weil

                          by chuco35 on Thu Jun 07, 2012 at 12:51:47 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Bazookas and full auto are legal to own. (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            rockhound, theatre goon, fuzzyguy

                            I also think that the NFA (which is the piece of legislation that limits that) is unConstitutional.

                            Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

                            by KVoimakas on Thu Jun 07, 2012 at 12:59:38 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Is There Any Type Of Firearm That... (0+ / 0-)

                            ...is illegal to own or possess? Should we have no restrictions whatsoever on what firearms civilians may own or carry?

                            "Force is as pitiless to the man who possesses it, or thinks he does, as it is to its victims; the second it crushes, the first it intoxicates.” Simone Weil

                            by chuco35 on Thu Jun 07, 2012 at 01:28:11 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Firearm? (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            rockhound, theatre goon, fuzzyguy

                            I guess it would depend on how you define firearm. 16" guns on a battleship (like the Iowa or Missouri) I would not consider firearms (or protected by the "arms" in the second amendment since they are ordnance.)

                            Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

                            by KVoimakas on Thu Jun 07, 2012 at 01:31:45 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Let's Say Any Firearm That Can Be Carried... (0+ / 0-)

                            ...by one man, as opposed, for example, to a cannon, or non firearm ordnance such as dynamite or landmines.

                            "Force is as pitiless to the man who possesses it, or thinks he does, as it is to its victims; the second it crushes, the first it intoxicates.” Simone Weil

                            by chuco35 on Thu Jun 07, 2012 at 01:36:14 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I don't think we should have restrictions (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            rockhound, theatre goon, fuzzyguy

                            on the TYPE of firearm civilians are allowed to own (within what you said above).

                            Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

                            by KVoimakas on Thu Jun 07, 2012 at 01:38:53 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I don't think we should. (4+ / 0-)

                            Most people won't want the over-the-top guns because they are expensive - expensive to buy, expensive to maintain and repair, expensive to play with. Owning them will be a self-limiting thing because of cost.

                            Most people will choose not to have guns of any sort - and that is their right.

                            Some people will choose to own an arsenal, and that's their right, too.  I own a bazillion knives.  Should the ownership of knives be restricted?  If you say "no", then by corollary, neither should gun ownership be restricted.

                          •  Well That's Not The Point. (0+ / 0-)

                            The state can regulate, restrict, and even prohibit inherently dangerous materials, such as explosives. Knives are not inherently dangerous, and thus should not be subject to such restrictions. Guns, however, have the 2d behind them, despite being inherently dangerous. So we are having a discussion on whether and how the government can regulate guns under the 2d given their danger, and not knives, which are not any more dangerous than a baseball bat, or TNT, which is dangerous but not protected by the 2d.

                            So yeah, I can by corollary let you have your beautiful knife collection, while restricting your neighbor from having an arsenal of bazookas, M1's and AK's.

                            "Force is as pitiless to the man who possesses it, or thinks he does, as it is to its victims; the second it crushes, the first it intoxicates.” Simone Weil

                            by chuco35 on Thu Jun 07, 2012 at 01:52:50 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  You haven't seen my knives. (4+ / 0-)

                            They most definitely are inherently dangerous. Some were designed for one purpose only - and it's not food prep.

                          •  Remind me sometime... (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Noddy, rockhound, KVoimakas

                            ...to pass along a pic or two of my sword and knife collection to you.

                            :-)

                            Yes, I often dress as a pirate. Your point?

                            by theatre goon on Thu Jun 07, 2012 at 01:59:48 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  You Haven't Seen My Bat Collection. (0+ / 0-)

                            Big ones in my closets and under my bed. Small ones in my car and pick-up. I carry them around for only one purpose, and it isn't to hit a ball. Pretty f'in dangerous. More dangerous than your fancy knifes if I put my mind to it. Still not as dangerous as my dad's old WWII .45 though.

                            I'll take my bats to a knife fight, but never my knives to a gun fight.

                            "Force is as pitiless to the man who possesses it, or thinks he does, as it is to its victims; the second it crushes, the first it intoxicates.” Simone Weil

                            by chuco35 on Thu Jun 07, 2012 at 02:09:29 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  well BATFE frowns on unregistered full auto (4+ / 0-)

                            and since they closed the registry iin 86, any full auto made since is completely illegal....something I think is stupid.  Registered full auto has been used once in a crime iirc and that was a cop.

                            Taking the Miller decision to its logical conclusion, anything with military utility should be completely legal as it was based on the idea that a sawed off double had no military utility and as such could be registered and taxed.....The 34 NFA didn't really make the covered weapons illegal, it just added registration and a serious for the time tax of 200 dollars.

                            Now the closing of the registry has done what the tax used to, priced the weapons out of the average man's reach.....an AK that might have cost 700 to a grand before, now sells for 15k+

                            Vaya con Dios Don Alejo
                            I want to die a slave to principles. Not to men.
                            Emiliano Zapata

                            by buddabelly on Thu Jun 07, 2012 at 01:38:53 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                        •  By The Way... (0+ / 0-)

                          ...are you ok with allowing civilian ownership of military fully automatic rifles? If so, why, and for what use?

                          "Force is as pitiless to the man who possesses it, or thinks he does, as it is to its victims; the second it crushes, the first it intoxicates.” Simone Weil

                          by chuco35 on Thu Jun 07, 2012 at 12:54:31 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Yes. (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            rockhound, theatre goon, fuzzyguy

                            Civilians are allowed to own fully automatic firearms right now.

                            I'm a big fan of abolishing the standing army and going back to the citizen's militia, with some caveats.

                            Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

                            by KVoimakas on Thu Jun 07, 2012 at 12:58:51 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  No Standing Army -- You Prove A "Need". (0+ / 0-)

                            If there is no standing army then there would be a "need" for civilians to be armed to the teeth with military weapons. But given the existence of a standing army, does it make sense? I don't think so. I certainly feel safe in relying on the Marines when it comes to military operations, and am fine with giving them exclusive use of military-grade guns.

                            "Force is as pitiless to the man who possesses it, or thinks he does, as it is to its victims; the second it crushes, the first it intoxicates.” Simone Weil

                            by chuco35 on Thu Jun 07, 2012 at 01:33:50 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  You don't need a "need" to exercise a right. (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            rockhound, theatre goon, fuzzyguy

                            I don't know if you're familiar with Angry Mouse (now know as Kaili Joy Gray, front pager extraordinaire), but here's a good reason why.

                            Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

                            by KVoimakas on Thu Jun 07, 2012 at 01:40:44 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I Agree, But Only Once You Establish A Right. (0+ / 0-)

                            I don't believe we have an unfettered right to own any gun we choose under the 2d. Of course, if you believe that gun ownership, like the right to express oneself, should be totally unrestricted, then having to prove a need to own a gun would be wrong. I believe that the 2d allows for reasonable restrictions on gun ownership. It is only in the context of fleshing out what I consider a reasonable restriction under the 2d that I speak of "needs".

                            "Force is as pitiless to the man who possesses it, or thinks he does, as it is to its victims; the second it crushes, the first it intoxicates.” Simone Weil

                            by chuco35 on Thu Jun 07, 2012 at 02:03:30 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                •  You're Assuming People Weren't Carrying... (0+ / 0-)

                  ...before the state made it illegal to do so without registering. People have been carrying in Texas forever. That's the real attack on the 2d, as I see it. The bad guys certainly won't register, but the good guys are being forced to in Perry's Texas. Restricting hand guns is not anti-2d. Forcing the registration of gun ownership (even if indirectly by forcing the registration of gun owners if they need to carry), is indeed anti-2d.

                  As for the bloodshed from hand-guns? Pretty evident it seems to me, both before and after the gun owner registration laws.

                  "Force is as pitiless to the man who possesses it, or thinks he does, as it is to its victims; the second it crushes, the first it intoxicates.” Simone Weil

                  by chuco35 on Thu Jun 07, 2012 at 12:42:30 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

          •  actually, a 500 S&W is putting out 30-06 power (9+ / 0-)

            levels any more and leaves a 30-30 in the dust.

            As to open carry, it's more comfortable than concealing some ,pistols, esp something like a 500 Smith, and is legal and quite acceptable where I live, then again y'all Texans always were a bit behind us Zonies when it comes to gun laws....

            And carrying is somehow "hunting man"?   did reading all the bs from whatshisnut rub off on you?

            I carry daily everywhere and luckily have never needed it for more than a paperweight.....however tomorrow might be different.....

            Also just an fyi, lots of handgun hunters out there.....

            Vaya con Dios Don Alejo
            I want to die a slave to principles. Not to men.
            Emiliano Zapata

            by buddabelly on Thu Jun 07, 2012 at 05:43:31 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  What hand guns existed in 1776? (0+ / 0-)

          And were they of any practical use for hunting or for fighting the Brits?

          "Force is as pitiless to the man who possesses it, or thinks he does, as it is to its victims; the second it crushes, the first it intoxicates.” Simone Weil

          by chuco35 on Wed Jun 06, 2012 at 03:06:35 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  If you want to be pedantic, it's worth noting that (14+ / 0-)

        all firearms were designed to kill.  There is no difference between hand guns and long guns in this regard.  Hand guns are actually less effective at killing people than long guns.

        The only advantage to handguns is their small size.  They are easier to transport, store and carry than long guns.  Outside of applications where those attributes are valued they are rarely utilized; the military doesn't even issue them these days to the vast majority of personnel.  Carbines are almost as easy to carry and much more powerful.  Some troops still find a use for handguns but they are the exception and not the rule.

        Regardless, nobody is forcing you to own one.  I'm willing to engage you in a reasoned discussion over the merits or lack thereof of open carry (personally I would never open carry) what I don't understand is this:

        Owning hand guns should be highly restricted.
        Why?  And in what manner would you restrict them?  Is my decision to keep a .45 pistol for home defense any less valid than your decision to keep a 12 gauge?  I find the pistol easier to discreetly store near my bed (small lockbox bolted to the floor > long gun safe in the closet) and more affordable to practice with.

        There are four boxes to be used in the defense of liberty: soap box, ballot box, jury box and ammo box. Use in that order.

        by Crookshanks on Wed Jun 06, 2012 at 12:44:25 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Handguns were used (10+ / 0-)

        in Italy in 1397. From there it's been refined and refined.  The matchlock hand gun appeared in 1425. The arquebus, forerunner of the flintlock, came along in 1475. Leonardo da Vinci designed the earliest wheelock guns in 1509. Beretta firearms wwas established in 1526.  Rifling came along in 1540, along with the hair trigger.  Dueling pistols came along in 1750.

        So, yes, hand guns existed when the US was founded.

      •  OMG, teh hansgunz iz baaaaaad!1!!1! (7+ / 0-)

        Did I get that right?

        Handguns are quite excellently suited for defense, several varieties are popular for hunting, there are a number of highly competitive shooting sports for handguns....

        And they've existed for several hundred years.

        "A brace of pistols" is the historical phrase...

        Study hard, you have a make-up quiz scheduled.

      •  P.S. If you think OC of handguns is "Crazy"... (6+ / 0-)

        you should see people freak when anyone carries a carbine as a defensive sidearm.

        Oh, wait.... some of those who "freaked" are members of this very website....

      •  chuco35: the handheld pistol predates (6+ / 0-)

        the American Revolution, not just the Constitution.

        A little research please.

        LBJ & Lady Bird, Sully Sullenberger, Molly Ivins, Barbara Jordan, Ann Richards, Drew Brees: Texas is No Bush League! -7.50,-5.59

        by BlackSheep1 on Wed Jun 06, 2012 at 08:44:33 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Thank you for this, Noddy (15+ / 0-)

    This is an ongoing angst discussion in our household, whether to buy a gun (or two) or not, to supplement our comprehensive earthquake-preparedness supplies.   You've addressed some major issues here about gun ownership.  (We don't have suicide or domestic abuse or mental illness here, but the issue of using a gun to protect against theft is the prime one.)

    Thanks for this thoughtful discussion of these issues.   Saved for further consideration.

    "I'm glad I don't know how it feels to vote to withhold basic human rights from someone else." DavidW-DKos

    by sockpuppet on Wed Jun 06, 2012 at 11:06:31 AM PDT

    •  is it a gun against theft (7+ / 0-)

      or a gun against violence that may accompany a break in.

      Other than my animals being threatened, I can think of nothing in the way of my property that is worth killing a human being for.  Protecting the members of the family, lives, is a whole different story.

      In some post apocalyptic world protecting the family's food may be a life threatening scenario that requires deadly force, but we aren't there, yet.

      •  Unless it's The Big One out here in the Bay Area (5+ / 0-)

        If it's the San Andreas Fault or the Hayward Fault, it's gonna be hell-on-earth here.   Besides massive loss of life and injury, there will be fires with no one and no resources to stop 'em.   Possibly a huge tidal wave. (In which case, I can just duck and cover and kiss my ass goodbye, living right on the Bay.   We had a 1ft. wave from the Japanese tsunami come through the Golden Gate and lap at our neighborhood shoreline.  We watched it on the news. A big local tidal wave will wash us out.)

        There will be many panicked, frightened people, those who didn't prepare (and that's most of the Bay Area population, according to my informal polling, and news-source surveys).   And some who will take advantage of the chaos to move in and loot.  I'd call this a somewhat "post apocalyptic" scenario.  

        So it seems foolish of me not to have at least a shotgun on-hand to protect my household and family.  We have extensive disaster-preparedness ready:  food, water, portable toilets, solar shower,  first-aid, even a stretcher, should it be necessary. (And I bought extra of everything to help take care of my neighbors.)  Will someone just come in and take all this from us in one fell swoop?  I ponder this often.

        And yet I just can't bring myself to do it, purchase any gun/s.    I keep dithering over this issue.   I've owned a gun in the past.  Stolen in a burglary.  

        How much longer do I have to make a decision?  Maybe the next 5 minutes.  No one knows...

        So I appreciate any and all discussion on this issue Noddy has raised.   Thanks, Noddy.  :)

        "I'm glad I don't know how it feels to vote to withhold basic human rights from someone else." DavidW-DKos

        by sockpuppet on Wed Jun 06, 2012 at 01:06:00 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  my gut reaction (6+ / 0-)

          they'll kill you for the gun and ammo moreso than the food.  Guns make people think and feel differently.  But just my opinion.

          •  Interesting perspective. Thanks. (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Noddy, jfromga, carolanne, Unit Zero

            "I'm glad I don't know how it feels to vote to withhold basic human rights from someone else." DavidW-DKos

            by sockpuppet on Wed Jun 06, 2012 at 01:15:01 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  There's also animals. (5+ / 0-)

              The local theater is a four mile walk, each way. I don't mind walking it because then I feel like I've worked off the soda and popcorn.

              Twice on walks home from there I've come face to face with a dog that has no fear of angering a human. One of those I thought it just might attack because I was too close to it and the small animal it was eating. I think it used to be a groundhog, might have been a raccoon.

              So, what were domesticated animals do turn feral when left to fend for themselves. And those will be better at the return to primitive living than the people who suddenly find they can't get their double tall espresso with a mocha whip.

          •  At least they'd have something to defend with then (7+ / 0-)

            instead of being defenseless.

            Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

            by KVoimakas on Wed Jun 06, 2012 at 01:16:39 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  if I had left the city before the disaster (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              sockpuppet, KVoimakas, Unit Zero

              and I had a place in the country that was not easily accessible, I'd feel pretty good about a gun for protection, as it increases the odds I am approached by individuals or a small group.

              In the city, a mob is a much more likely scenario, the knowledge of your stockpiles will communicate like wildfire and you would face a large unreasoning group that would take the arsenal of at least a national guard troop to discourage.  They are panicked, and in their minds, going to die anyway.

              Still just my opinion,  but for the scenario sockpuppet is portraying a huge city where you plan to hunker down amongst hundreds of thousands with too little, or to fight your way out, sounds great in the movies, not so much in real life.

              •  I live in a rural area. (4+ / 0-)

                It's too metro for me @ ~12k population wise.

                Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

                by KVoimakas on Wed Jun 06, 2012 at 02:11:00 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  again (4+ / 0-)

                  that scenario makes sense.My town started out with about 15,000 people,  I could handle that.  Now,  I think of moving further out when I retire.

                  Rod Serling had a great episode on the only family in the neighborhood with a fall out shelter, The Shelter.

                  Everything I have learned about crowds, mobs, violence since I saw that as a young person only reinforces my belief that we are safe in crowds only when everything is normal.   After that, crowds are death.  And a couple guns won't stop a mob.

              •  To clarify: in my situation (4+ / 0-)

                I live north of the City, across the Golden Gate Bridge.   So if the Bridge goes down (heaven help us), or more likely, is immediately blocked off by, say, National Guard troops, we're inaccessible from the City multitudes.   Same with the bridge to the East Bay/Oakland area (which was definitely shut down during the Loma Prieta quake in '89).

                I expect small roving bands of lawlessness, not huge panicked hordes.  This is also a very wealthy area, so I'm not terribly worried about the looting situation, either.

                But the question really is:  how long before FEMA forces could get here to help?   Based on what I saw in Katrina, I'm not optimistic, especially if a Rethug administration is in power.  (They'll be more than happy to let us Californians twist in the wind, more so than New Orleans, I'd say.)   Who will there be to enforce order?  (I used to be one of those forces, on call the instant there was a disaster situation, but not now.)

                So...to have a gun or not?  That is the question.   I've asked a family member who is prominent on the Internet as a gun aficionado and dealer.   (One of those guys with a Cheney-sized man-safe in his garage.)   He says we need a 12-guage.  He says he'll be happy to help us with purchase, and going to the rifle range.  

                So you'd think this would be a no-brainer decision for us in my household.   I'm still on the fence, dammit...

                But as I said, I do appreciate this discussion.  I've needed it.  :)

                "I'm glad I don't know how it feels to vote to withhold basic human rights from someone else." DavidW-DKos

                by sockpuppet on Wed Jun 06, 2012 at 03:33:14 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  in your situation and area, I agree with your (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  KVoimakas, rockhound, theatre goon

                  family member who suggested a shotgun.......I'd go one further and get a wooden stocked version...Walnut and blued steel is,  imo, just inherently less threatening than a "tactical" all black polymer with a rail and a light and such...

                  I could be wrong but in many cases perception becomes reality and for the most part you want to appear as non-threatening as possible.

                  My TEOTWAWKI rifle is a .44 magnum lever gun with a wooden stocked Mini 14 as a backup..... The lever is about as non threatening as a rifle can be, unless looking down that large bore....the mini is basically because there will always be .223/5.56 ammunition around as it's the standard for the military and police. The Marlin is light, easy to handle and control and devastating within 150 meters, people just don't think evil when they see a lever instead of say an AR or an AK......., they get flashbacks to the Rifleman and see you as good or neutral instead of "scary dude with the Evil Black Rifle"

                  Also, should you choose to go ahead and purchase a shotgun, get to the range and put as many rounds downrange as you can, become intimately familiar with the controls so there's no wonder if the safety is still on or whatever else you might forget that could be a major problem..... Practice till it becomes second nature to point and shoot and hit your target at all angles and positions........ Practice and muscle memory are what wins fights that we hope to never be near let alone in.....

                  Vaya con Dios Don Alejo
                  I want to die a slave to principles. Not to men.
                  Emiliano Zapata

                  by buddabelly on Thu Jun 07, 2012 at 03:08:24 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

  •  Pepper spray is useless. (16+ / 0-)

    I know from experience.

    Tasers aren't legal in many states (for civilian ownership).

    Tipped!

    I especially like this:

    Owning a gun is a huge responsibility and part of that responsibility is knowing when not to have one.

    Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

    by KVoimakas on Wed Jun 06, 2012 at 11:14:29 AM PDT

  •  Great diary, NoddyO. (14+ / 0-)

    As a responsible gun owner, I applaud this diary. Not everyone should own or have access to a gun.

    And you've reminded me that I need range time soon. It's been too long since I put holes in paper.

    Organ donors save lives! A donor's kidney gave me my life back on 02/18/11; he lives on in me. Please talk with your family about your wish to donate.

    Why are war casualty counts "American troops" and "others" but never "human beings"?

    by Kitsap River on Wed Jun 06, 2012 at 11:26:50 AM PDT

  •  Thank you for a thoughtful diary. (5+ / 0-)

    The comments about domestic violence really resonate for me. I used to be part of a organization that helped victims. Leaving your abuser is incredibly dangerous in many cases, and often the time that women get killed. I will never forget the woman who fled one coast all the way to the other with her tiny children to escape her terrifying cop husband.  

    If I were Queen, anyone subject to a DV restraining order would not be allowed to have guns until the entire matter was resolved and suitable cooling-off period passed, like a couple of years.

    •  actually even misdemeanor DV makes you a (7+ / 0-)

      prohibited possessor.......Federal Law btw...

      Vaya con Dios Don Alejo
      I want to die a slave to principles. Not to men.
      Emiliano Zapata

      by buddabelly on Wed Jun 06, 2012 at 02:54:49 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  That is after conviction. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        buddabelly, theatre goon

        A restraining order can be entered prior to any trial. A temporary restraining order can be entered without a hearing. IIRC the NRA is opposed to depriving anyone of weapons just because they have a restraining order mandating that the person stay away from another person he has been beating the crap out of.

        •  Well, from their point of view, (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          2laneIA, buddabelly, theatre goon

          it's also to stop people from being deprived of their RKBA via a PPO that doesn't actually have grounds for issuance.

          Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

          by KVoimakas on Thu Jun 07, 2012 at 10:56:31 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  This was the point of my earlier criticism. (0+ / 0-)

            From their point of view, human life is never too high a price to pay for any gun, any time, even a temporary deprivation pending trial on whether the one restrained did, in fact, attempt to kill or injure the person he lives with, her children, her dog. They seem to think that the Second Amendment is the only amendment.

            I have a different point of view.  When I became involved with a DV shelter I started noticing how many killings reported in the news boiled down to domestic violence when you got to paragraph four.  Taking away weapons after the fact really doesn't help anyone.  The one he wanted dead is dead, and he is no danger to anyone else until he gets into his next abusive relationship.  He is no longer armed.  So what?

            In order to get any kind of court order you have to show probable cause that harm will occur in the absence of an order.  Police reports, bruises, witnesses, prior incidents, testimony of the victim that the court finds credible - these are all evidence that can support such an order prior to conviction, so a restraining order is not the taking of life or property without due process.  If a TRO is entered, it is usually 1 to 3 days at most and must be followed up with evidence showing probable cause at a proper hearing.  

            Even after entry of a restraining order, there are numerous incidents involving violations every day in this country. Thousands of women have been murdered or injured by a man who was subject to a restraining order. It is not a big concern to the NRA and the Republican Party, as is evident from the treatment of the Violence Against Women Act.

            •  A couple corrections (5+ / 0-)

              Any gun, any time is false. There are various restrictions covering both time and type.

              I don't like suspending civil rights without due process. It's not just the second amendment, it's the first, fifth, etc.

              Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

              by KVoimakas on Thu Jun 07, 2012 at 12:04:24 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Neither do I like suspending civil rights w/out (0+ / 0-)

                due process.  See paragraph 2 of my comment.  I only said, in response to the prior comment, that if you have to wait for a misdeaneanor conviction in order to get a restraining order, in many cases the woman will be dead.  A hearing on a restraining order is just like a trial, except there is no jury option, so it is due process.  The order is entered in an underlying case, which could be anything from a civil divorce to criminal assault, so it is not some random deprivation out of the blue.

                My first comment was about the NRA, not whether there are any such restrictions that exist in law.  I see their mailings.  They are liars, as was evident in Wisconsin, and indifferent to the consequences of the extreme policies they advocate. No respect.

        •  it's pretty easy to get all weapons pulled in (5+ / 0-)

          a DV situation....well as easy as anything in a DV is but I also have seen crap TRO's issued for no reason or based on lies....

          My ex got into a car accident after we were legally separated, the person tried to sue me as at the time I had cash and the ex didn't....... Then,  the person had a TRO issued against me, based on a set of complete lies,  then buried the suit in the TRO paperwork to get around actually serving me on the suit........

            It was thrown out as soon as I went to court but if the law worked your way, they would have came and confiscated my guns which I would then have had to screw around to get back.

          In a case of domestic violence, I would have no problem with weapons being pulled before trial if it was by court order after a Judge heard from both sides and then issued an Order of Protection.....This should happen fast as humanly possible, 24-48 hours max, no month down the road for the initial appearance....here this goes down at a lightning pace as we do have lenient gun laws, because of that we have extremely strict laws on the misuse of a weapon and esp if there's DV involved.

          It becomes too easy a tool to use against someone otherwise as the initial TRO will be issued for just about any reason, as I found out the hard way..........

          Vaya con Dios Don Alejo
          I want to die a slave to principles. Not to men.
          Emiliano Zapata

          by buddabelly on Thu Jun 07, 2012 at 11:41:26 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Unless you were beating your ex up (0+ / 0-)

            and she wanted a restraining order, your comment is irrelevant to the point I was making.  Someone your ex got into a car accident with is not going to be asking a court to take away your guns unless you have taken to standing on his front porch and threatening him, which I doubt.

            Maybe I don't understand your point.

            •  my point is they'll issue a TRO for anything (4+ / 0-)

              on anyones word.

              That is not a valid reason to pull someones guns.

              Now as I said, after a hearing where both get to testify and a Judge issues an actual order of protection then I'm fine with pulling the guns before conviction.

              It sounded like you wanted gun rights pulled on issue of the TRO, if I misread that then there's our miscommunication.

              Vaya con Dios Don Alejo
              I want to die a slave to principles. Not to men.
              Emiliano Zapata

              by buddabelly on Thu Jun 07, 2012 at 08:12:02 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I am OK with that, which I know you will not like. (0+ / 0-)

                Here's the thing.  Most TROs are 1 to 3 days.  If you have been beating the crap out of your ex and she goes into court and says give me a restraining order, and it's an emergency so I need a TRO, the court could (although highly unlikely) deprive you of your second amendment rights for a few days pending a real hearing. If yiou actually had your guns removed, you would be deprived of the opportunity to shoot her for a few days.  Unless there was a handy gun show, or some other private purchase, but never mind.

                In the real world, however, that scenario is mostly theoretical.  She might get a TRO telling you to stay away from her.  Without that, a lot of police departments won't lift a finger to protect her, in the real world. Police officers are notorious for making up a large part of the abuser population, and they aren't always sympathetic.  Domestic violence incidents are notorious for getting officers killed, and they don't like those calls.  

                If you are a victim of domestic violence, pretty much all your choices suck, and the best advice I could give is to take your prescriptions, your checkbook, and your kids and get the hell out to a shelter during one of those usually rare moments when he isn't policing your every move.

                •  I really enjoyed how you phrase it as if I was (4+ / 0-)

                  a wife beater....nice....makes me really want to understand your side and maybe even change my mind.....and sorry but it was not nesc to get your point across, it simply is there, imo, to paint the idea of due process in a bad light.

                  Any action beyond simple separation/keep away order before a judge gets to hear both sides is flat out wrong.  A TRO with one side's input should do nothing more.  And as I stated, this is something that should be expedited with all possible speed, here it's usually 48 hours, sometimes 72 sometimes even less than 48 as we have a magistrate that deals with nothing but dv tro's and actual Orders of Protection

                  I have no problem as I stated with a judge pulling gun rights during trial after all sides are heard at the hearing to issue the OoP, and there's an actual danger,  but to unilaterally pull a constitutionally protected right on one persons say so with no due process?  I'd fight it with everything I could.  And imo, I'd win.  

                  I've seen way too many tweakers and freakers (both male and female) flat make shit up to get back at their SO for whatever perceived fault might be floating in their drug addled brain at the moment.

                  I also know a good woman who did time because she had the misfortune of having to shoot her scumbag husband before battered women's syndrome was an accepted defense

                  You seem to think that it's a minor inconvenience to have your house ripped apart just because someone makes an unsubstantiated claim of abuse or that once the system has power over you that they'll relinquish it easily and without a fight no matter the circumstances....No way in hell should any right be constrained without due process and that's exactly what you outline....

                  Just for the record, my ex was the abuser and I saved her stupid drunken tweaker ass from jail when the police witnessed her throwing shit at me and trying to  hit me, something that happened regularly......They came running from across the street ready to slap the cuffs on her....I should have let them, love creates idiocy at times.

                  Vaya con Dios Don Alejo
                  I want to die a slave to principles. Not to men.
                  Emiliano Zapata

                  by buddabelly on Fri Jun 08, 2012 at 05:50:43 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

        •  and honestly as to the NRA's position on this (5+ / 0-)

          I don't know what it is and could not care less....well that's actually how I feel about the NRA's position on just about anything....at least the NRA-ILA.....

           The NRA itself still does good training and safety programs
          but their political end jumped the shark about the same time Fonzie did........

          It would be nice to see a liberal version of the nra appear and who knows, if they keep following the primrose path to crazytown, maybe something will .....

          Vaya con Dios Don Alejo
          I want to die a slave to principles. Not to men.
          Emiliano Zapata

          by buddabelly on Thu Jun 07, 2012 at 11:59:18 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  There is no scientific evidence whatsoever (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kayak58

    that guns are a deterrent to crime.

    There is plenty of evidence that people are related to other animals.  If you watch nature shows most males in most species fight each other.  So with this genetic makeup it ain't too smart to allow men to own guns.

  •  My preference would be that guns (7+ / 0-)

    never existed. Since that isn't the case,I can only choose to not have one.Others make different choices and when coupled with responsible safeguards as outlined in this thoughtful diary,I accept that.

    "George RR Martin is not your bitch" ~~ Neil Gaiman

    by tardis10 on Wed Jun 06, 2012 at 12:36:16 PM PDT

    •  Had guns never existed... (5+ / 0-)

      most of us would be serfs to the guys with armor, swords, and the free time to train with them several hours a day.

      No, thank you.

      •  No. Were you correct then the vast (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        PsychoSavannah

        forward sweep of the US labor movement or Gandhi's Indian Nationalist movement would not have occurred. (just two of many examples)

        A gun is a gun. Another weapon that will become obsolete & replaced. That is all it can be. Which certainly is quite powerful but not powerful enough to ascribe to it powers it does not possess.

        "George RR Martin is not your bitch" ~~ Neil Gaiman

        by tardis10 on Wed Jun 06, 2012 at 10:27:04 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Guns created a lot of equality... (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          theatre goon, KVoimakas, fuzzyguy

          well before the events you list.

          They gave equal power of threat to those without physical prowess or numbers.

          This let people talk out their issues more often.

          You might want to review your history a bit more.

        •  Gandhi's movement had armed backing. (6+ / 0-)

          It was called "unrest in the military":

          In his reply Atlee cited several reasons, the principal among them being the erosion of loyalty to the British Crown among the Indian army and navy personnel as a result of the military activities of Netaji [Bose].
          Toward the end of our discussion I asked Atlee what was the extent of Gandhi’s influence upon the British decision to quit India. Hearing this question, Atlee’s lips became twisted in a sarcastic smile as he slowly chewed out the word, “m-i-n-i-m-a-l!” ” Subhas Chandra Bose, the Indian National Army, and the War of India’s Liberation – Ranjan Borra, Journal of Historical Review, no. 3, 4 (Winter 1982)
          Kind of like wanting to deal with MLK Jr instead of Malcolm X. Who's the scarier black man? The peacefully coexist pacifist or the one staring out the window holding an M1 carbine? (Though I would like to point out that MLK Jr owned a shit-ton of firearms.)

          Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

          by KVoimakas on Thu Jun 07, 2012 at 05:51:49 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  You do realize that Ghandi's movement was backed (4+ / 0-)

          by the increasingly independence-minded Indian Army, which did have guns.

          Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita amittit. -Declaration of Arbroath

          by Robobagpiper on Thu Jun 07, 2012 at 07:34:42 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  There were some very bloody battles (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Noddy, KVoimakas, theatre goon

          in the US labor movement that had to occur first in order for later peaceful approaches to be successful. There have been some amazing diaries on Kos that go over that history. The prominence of the Indian National Army had nothing to do with that movement either I'm sure.

          There was a reason feudal Japan feared fire arms. Easy to train, maintain, and use weapons would allow the serfs to rise up against the lords who have the luxury to learn combative arts and have weapons and armour forged.

          •  My family was intimately involved (0+ / 0-)

            with the labor battles of the 20th C in the USA. From the coal miner's side. Did blood get them what they wanted? Well, certainly their shed blood moved the debate. But  arms-wise? No,the state and the mining companies were always far better armed. And yes I do know about the role of the Indian Army in that independence movement.

            Your point about feudal Japan was one I'd considered,too. (guess our minds work similarly) Yet,because genies don't return to their bottles (as Japan came to know),and because weapons tech moves ever forward,I'll stand with my original observations:

            A gun is a gun. Another weapon that will become obsolete & replaced. That is all it can be. Which certainly is quite powerful but not powerful enough to ascribe to it powers it does not possess.

            "George RR Martin is not your bitch" ~~ Neil Gaiman

            by tardis10 on Fri Jun 08, 2012 at 01:53:38 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Indeed, you are correct.... (0+ / 0-)

              when something more effective than a gun is developed, it will be embraced with all the enthusiasim the gun was.

              But until then, a gun and a kind word will get you farther than merely one or the other.

  •  I grew up with a gun in the house... (10+ / 0-)

    two of them really, a rifle and a shotgun.  By the time I was 12 and babysitting my younger sisters I knew how to load and fire both, and though ammunition and guns were stored separately I knew how to access them. I never abused that. I also never needed to use them (other than target practice and keeping the rabbits out of the garden) as we lived out in the middle of the country.

    I would not have a gun in my house today due to my son. He has severe impulse control issues and anger control issues (though those are better than when he was younger) to the point that we put the sharp knives up when he was younger just in case. When he's calm and thinking straight I don't think he'd mess with it, but when he's in a melt down it's a completely different story. I have an ex-husband stalker who used to target shoot with me, I'd probably feel safer if I had a .22 in the house, but it's just not safe at the moment.

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

    by FloridaSNMOM on Wed Jun 06, 2012 at 12:44:55 PM PDT

  •  Almost entirely agree. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    tardis10, gzodik, PavePusher

    But I will continue to be pedantic about this one point:

    in a functional family (and despite all the media noise about it - most families are pretty functional), guns would be handled responsibly, kids would be educated on their use as a tool, and it would be kept in a gun safe when not in use.
    I hate when people call firearms "tools." They aren't. They're weapons. Very deadly, effective weapons. They should be treated and respected as such.

    Every other word of that passage I agree with. And I think this diary is pretty damn rec-worthy.

    (Just a reminder: if home defense and security is an issue, your local Humane Society has the perfect solution.)

    "Speaking for myself only" - Armando

    by JR on Wed Jun 06, 2012 at 12:55:11 PM PDT

  •  Wow, Noddy! (6+ / 0-)

    I knew from the second I read the title of your post that you'd opened a can of...interesting discussions :)

  •  Interesting discussion. (0+ / 0-)

    He/She really had the gun loving folks digging deep to come up with credible answers this time. Bravo alioop!Bravo!

    I'd become a Lesbian for Rachel Maddow, I would.

    by ichibon on Wed Jun 06, 2012 at 04:17:58 PM PDT

  •  Rocket Launchers...and Predator Drones (5+ / 0-)

    Bruce Cockburn, the Canadian guitarist singer songwriter of the highest caliber (not gun caliber, but he is a shooter) is as great a humanitarian as the world knows. Known for being a musician, even among the Christian Rock music circles, he had a big hit in 1984: If I Had A Rocket Launcher.

    He's been awarded a half dozen honorary doctorates, Order of Canada, and other honors--mostly for his humanitarian activism around the globe. He shoots, has guns, and supports gun ownership. Read the lyrics, or buy the song or better yet, the whole album with If I Had A Rocket Launcher, Stealing Fire. He wrote it after seeing the helicopters (US funded) come over the border to strafe and kill villagers in Central America, while on an OxFam trip to Guatemala (more on Wikipedia). This was Reagan's reign of terror--a rain of bullets for the unarmed poor. Private gun ownership would have made it a more equitable field of play for the victims.

    Ted Turner got in trouble for saying that the opposition to the US supported Israeli repression of everyone around them does justify suicide bombing, as the oppressed don't have US helicopter gunships. Hence, suicide bombing are the result.

    Point is, violence isn't about the gun, bomb, predator drone or other mechanics of violence. It's about predatory or oppressive or criminal intent and abuse of power. If more Syrians had guns, they could steer events more in the direction of the Libyan outcome, rather than another wave of government sanctioned murders, as are being reported today.

    Gun owners seem to get all this, as do most people who don't live in some TV-driven "call 911 and it's all gonna be OK" world. Have you really abdicated the responsibility for your personal protection to a cellphone 911 call? Some of us still live in areas without cell service, or 911 response times that allow for a nap till the sirens get close.
    ---------

    Stemming all the needless child killings in the US resulting from irresponsible gunplay is not much different from making ignorant parents use child safety  seats in cars, or use seat belts or requiring drivers ed. Same with motorcycle helmet laws, etc. Prosecute the offense of uncontrolled access to guns for minors--it's law in every state.

    If we don't prosecute stupid gun owners amongst us for not controlling children's access to their weapons, we'll have these tragedies.It's a big boost for crime rates to go to the mattress, bedside table, closet, etc and fetch an unlocked gun when committing a burglary. Safes are under $100 and less than $30 for cars, like the Nanovault. Locks and cables re even cheaper.

    If we don't get a grip on our government raining death down on others from predator drones--with no trial, no respect for the due process, or respect for innocent 'collateral' kills, we can chalk this whole discussion up as flip and not relevant.

    -----------
    How can we debate "gun culture" while we have allowed predator drones and nameless faceless killings of humans spied on by satellites targeted by unnamed paid 'informants' and shot with Hellfire missiles from anonymous assailants we pay for? Seems that should be a more worthy question to debate that whether their is some 'gun culture'. For me, they are just another tool, and a necessary one.

  •  Tipped and Rec'd (8+ / 0-)

    I live in a quiet urban neighborhood and don't need a gun, but I believe that gun ownership is a personal decision, and I respect those who chose to own guns. I especially applaud you for pointing out the considerations to make when considering gun ownership.

    Male, 21, -4.75/-6.92, born and raised TN-05, now WI-02, remorseless supporter of Walker's recall. Pocan for Congress and Baldwin for Senate!

    by fearlessfred14 on Wed Jun 06, 2012 at 07:36:12 PM PDT

  •  Relevant to discussion: I''ve just moved (0+ / 0-)

    from a peaceful urban city (NYC) to a violent Southern town, and every other person here is packing a weapon and looking for any reason to use it.  Frequently they do.

    I looked up some information about buying a weapon, and actually decided I will not own one, since I won't aim one at anybody. Ever.

    I grew up with shotguns and rifles, and I still have those somewhere at my parents' home.

    I don't want to advertise it, but I'm just not going to shoot anybody, so there's no point in a gun.

    Pareto Principle: 20% of the people do 80% of the work.

    by jeff in nyc on Wed Jun 06, 2012 at 09:02:24 PM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site