# Gun Control



## Annoia (Nov 16, 2003)

I'm not for or against gun control. I think in certain situations people need guns. I lived in Alaska for a while, and understood the real need the subsistance hunters had for their guns. However, I now live in Texas where everyone has a gun (or so it seems!) but I don't see a particular need.

So I'm just curiouse as to what people think of the following:

"Another fear is that armed criminal types will terrorize unarmed citizens. The response to this fear is that good citizens will be safe if armed with thier own weapons. But when nonoutlaws buy guns, rather than increasing their chances of protecting themselves against the bad guys, they instead dramatically increase their own chance of being killed or having a family member killed (Kellerman, et al., 1993)"

from Social Psychology by Kenrick, Neuberg, and Cialdini

According to Berkowitz (1993a), law enforcement officers strongly favor gun control.

Also, according to FBI crime reports, 7 times out of 10, people are killed by guns (of the 250, 000 murders in the US in the last 10 years, 180,000 were with guns).

TIA!


----------



## Deirdre (Dec 1, 2001)

UmmIlyas-

As far as I am concerned, the gun control issue isn't really isn't about guns at all. It is about FEAR. An unrelenting, deep fear of the other. This fear is both manufactured and reinforced through the media.. For a good read on the subject, may I suggest The Culture of Fear: Why Americans are Afraid of the Wrong Things by Barry Glassner.

Deirdre


----------



## lotusdebi (Aug 29, 2002)

You should know that Kellerman was effectively disproven and outed at a fraud.

Check out Gary Kleck and John Lott for more accurate gun control studies.

I'll try to come back later with urls and more info. Right now it's naptime.


----------



## comet (Aug 22, 2002)

I think that's b.s.

We're already being terrorized by armed gunmen. The more guns out there, the more guns out there, period.


----------



## Annoia (Nov 16, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lotusdebi*
You should know that Kellerman was effectively disproven and outed at a fraud.

Check out Gary Kleck and John Lott for more accurate gun control studies.

I'll try to come back later with urls and more info. Right now it's naptime.


Really? I'd love to hear more about that!

Comet:
I don't really understand what you wrote. Could you clarify a bit? I'm not sure what you're considering bs. Thanks!


----------



## Annoia (Nov 16, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Deirdre*
UmmIlyas-

As far as I am concerned, the gun control issue isn't really isn't about guns at all. It is about FEAR. An unrelenting, deep fear of the other. This fear is both manufactured and reinforced through the media.. For a good read on the subject, may I suggest The Culture of Fear: Why Americans are Afraid of the Wrong Things by Barry Glassner.

Deirdre


Thanks Deirdre! I'll look into that book.


----------



## lotusdebi (Aug 29, 2002)

http://www.fact-index.com/a/ar/arthur_kellermann.html - for an unbiased look at the Kellermann issue

http://www.justfacts.com/gun_control.htm - another "just the facts" site, this one is about the gun control debate. Lott is mentioned in a couple of places, but I recommend reading the whole thing.

Here's another page that site has about Lott: http://www.justfacts.com/jlott.htm

Here's an article by Kleck: http://www.largo.org/klecksum.html

This is Kleck: http://www.criminology.fsu.edu/kleck.htm

That's all I have for you tonight! Hope it helps.


----------



## alaskan mom (Aug 19, 2004)

I have had guns in my house all my life. I was taught to respect and never handle a gun without parent supervision, when I was a child. I never did, the consequenses would of been terrible. I always took a gun with me when I hiked in alaska, with the firm orders that it was not to be touched or handled, unless I needed to use it. I never once had to take it out. Responsible parenting is what needs to happen. CC


----------



## Calm (Sep 17, 2004)

I live in Australia, and guns are illegal. We have little crime, little fear and great freedom. If we ever go outback, where someone may have a rifle, that is the only time I have to think about a gun. I have never seen a gun, never want to see a gun.

I can see the catch 22 that was created because now there are guns, so the only way to protect yourself from them is to shoot back. So where to from here? Beats me. Just glad I don't have to think about it.

To many other countries the problem is quite obvious:
You have a 'gun problem' because you have guns. Period.


----------



## Annoia (Nov 16, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lotusdebi*
http://www.fact-index.com/a/ar/arthur_kellermann.html - for an unbiased look at the Kellermann issue

That's all I have for you tonight! Hope it helps.










LOL - Don't you love it when people misrepresent? A good example of why one should always check out the primary source!

Thanks, Lotus. This was exactly the kind of info I was looking for!


----------



## merpk (Dec 19, 2001)

Calm ... I agree with you.

Not sure how big weapons manufacturers play into this whole debate, but am sure that it's overlooked. Nice for them to have their lobby, too (the NRA, among others). Not nice for the rest of us. And how many of the studies are funded by them? I know, it's only acceptable to ask that question when it relates to medical issues and pharmaceutical companies.

:sigh

The number of people who've saved themselves or their families from crime with the help of their guns is miniscule. But if the gun companies weren't so busy manufacturing more and more guns for them, there wouldn't be so many guns for the criminals to use to commit crimes, would there be.

We don't all live in Alaska. And most folks in the US don't have to hunt for food.










Rambling. Bed time. G'night.


----------



## bayviewbill33 (Sep 15, 2004)

I am pro gun. Though I do not own any. The only gun problem we have in America is with criminals. Criminals will break the law to get there guns. Drugs come from outside the U.S. So what makes anyone think that guns won't come from outside the U.S. if guns are made illegal?

When a law abiding citizen uses a gun for a crime, they are no longer law abiding. They have become a criminal.

I saw an interview with 5 inmates. You know what scared them the most? Laws that allow law abiding citizens to carry a concealed gun. Small sample but should be asked to more criminals. These criminals snickered when asked if more gun laws would help decrease crime. They said they are criminals and will get there guns illegally anyways despite how many laws are made.

Bush did not let the assault weapon ban expire either. Congress has not given him anything to sign. So before anyone comments on Bush letting it expire they are flat out wrong and do not know how our govermant works. He will sign it when turtle moving Congress gets around to giving it to him to sign.

The forefathers of our country were smart to include the 2nd Amendment. People collect & hunt with guns. They also go target shooting (which is quite fun). They also use them for protection which can be effective. Also effective is a loud dog and an alarm system. When all that fails, a gun would be ideal to have. Or an open window to get outside!

I read a post on here about Columbine and how awful guns are. The facts: A female who was 18 bought those guns for the underage boys. I am not sure what happened to the female but I am pretty sure that is illegal. Also, Columbine was a lack of parenting. Those boys had pipe bombs in there house!!! Columbine is a tragedy and a rally cry for the anti gun folks. There was another school shooting where the kid(s) stole the guns from his granparents house. Those were legal guns in a locked case which he/they broke open. Then brought them to school and shot innocent people. My point: the kids decided to break the law and no gun law stopped them. Let's say we ban all or most guns. What happens when a kid goes on a stabbing spree with a chef's knife from Henkles? Will chef knives be banned too? Will Henkles be brought into court and have to put silly locks on there knives? How will I dice tomatoes for my chili if knives are banned?


----------



## Calm (Sep 17, 2004)

Guns caused wars to be able to be fought hectares apart. Atomic bombs caused wars to be able to be fought from the other side of the world. Hooray for progress!

Please explain why America has the most shootings per head of population in the world. Please explain why in countries where guns are illegal, shootings are almost unheard of.

I have spoken to criminals myself. When asked about weaponry they said that if they have to go to too much trouble to get a hold of a gun, they will use something else.

Research should be done on countries where crime is low and studies done on why, instead of speculating with a country that has such high crime and has never tried life without guns.

If someone accosts you in the street, would you be able to defend yourself from 20 feet against a gun - or a knife? I can just as easily bash someone over the head with a baseball bat and crush their skull - should baseball therefore be illegal? How does any of this compute? How can one liken a baseball bat or a knife to a gun?

If someone breaks into your home, would you prefer they wielded a knife - or a gun?


----------



## burritomama (Aug 26, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *bayviewbill32*
The only gun problem we have in America is with criminals.

Then, of course, there's the young kids who discover someone's stash and shoot themselves and/or someone else....- but I suppose that makes the kids and/or the adult with the gun stash the criminal, right?

Then, of course, there's the mentally ill (sometimes also kids) or those folks who take medications that have unforseen side effects and who discover someone's gun stash or actually qualify for one of their own and shoot themelves and/or someone else -- but, I suppose that makes them criminals and/or the adult with the gun stash a criminal, right?

It's a black and white world, right? Us against them?

I think that a wee bit tooooooooo easy, too reductive.


----------



## lotusdebi (Aug 29, 2002)

I understand that guns are a topic that bring up a lot of emotions. I just don't think that emotional arguments are very productive.
I've read the research on cosleeping, breastfeeding, and attachment parenting. That research strongly contributed to my decisions to practice those things.
I've also read the research on gun control. That's why I support the 2nd amendment right to keep and bear arms.
Before I read the research on any of those things, I had emotional reactions to them. I was opposed to a lot of the AP things because they didn't fit with my life experiences, and I thought I would be spoiling my child if I practiced them. I was anti-gun for a number of years because I lost two friends to gun violence.
Minds change. I now make informed decisions based on facts. Not on emotions, not on speculations, not on conspiracy theories... but on facts.
I ask that you read the research. Don't read the biased websites, whether it's the NRA or the Brady Campaign/ Center. Read the actual research. Then go from there.


----------



## bayviewbill33 (Sep 15, 2004)

I believe I heard the amount of accidental shootings by kids is under 100. Unfortunate, but not even close to being an epidemic. As for all the other violence: most of it is criminals vs. criminals. Banning guns will probably not put much of dent in these figures. Let's say it does. The criminals will use knives on each other. Then knives will be banned. Then they will use baseball bats. Then baseball bats will be banned. If guns are banned, then books teaching you how to properly use your gun and how to teach children gun safety will be banned. So everything dangerous let's just outlaw them. Hitler did banned quite a bit of stuff as well. Look what happened to Germany. Russia banned religion, look how that effected their society.

These kids are clearly not criminils. We live in a "free" society. This is a consequence of freedom. Why don't the parents have those guns securly locked up? Or if they are locked up, how did the kids gain access? When you have a gun in the home, you are taking on a HUGE responsibility. Of course having a gun in the house is a risk but a small one considering how many guns are kept in law abiding homes across America and the amount of accidents that happen. If you are well trained, and take precautions accidents are greatly decreased. Knowledge is power. People can focus on the negative of guns in the home of law abiding citizens. Many kids grow up around guns and have a respect for them and understand they are not toys. So if you own a gun, (gasp!) you have to teach your children about them. As much as we want to protect our children from the evil world, we MUST teach them the evils that are out there. Especially now with terror threats. It is guerilla warfare now. Totally different than the U.S.A. vs. the U.S.S.R. We must prepare our children for the possibility of an attack by terrorists.

As for atomic bombs - we used them in WWII. They saved more lives than they took. Period. If the U.S. wasn't such pacifists when Hitler invaded Poland, or if we did a preemtive strike on Germany, WWII would not have happened. The Holocaust would never have happened. War brings peace. Does anyone honestly think diplomacy works with terrorists? It did not work with Saddam either. So we should have just ignored him and pretended nothing was happening? We pretended or did not take much notice of the terrorists. Bam! 9/11! If the CIA was allowed to keep informants on the payroll, we might have avoided 9/11. Oh, most informants are criminals and it is why the CIA was ordered to take them off the payroll. How stupid was that? I believe the Toricelli Principle was the reason the informants were removed from the payroll.

Law abiding citizens are not shooting cops either. Criminals are. Criminals will have guns regardless of what laws are passed.


----------



## burritomama (Aug 26, 2002)




----------



## mom2lyndsey (Jun 10, 2004)

I work in a hospital. We see way more injuries/deaths with knifes then with gun. However, number one cause of death is car accidents. Somewhat as an aside or maybe the main issue, I fear my government way more then any of my neighbors.


----------



## nuttinhny (Jun 7, 2004)

Quote:

The number of people who've saved themselves or their families from crime with the help of their guns is miniscule.
Actually not as rare as the Brady Campaign and our media would like you to believe.

http://www.loompanics.com/cgi-local/...html?E+scstore

Quote:

The national media refuses to report gun self-defense stories, stating that they're not newsworthy.
http://www.stamey.nu/GunRights/MarginalRelevance.htm

Quote:

The research of Drs. Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz, published in 1995, showed that self-defense with a gun is not a rare occurrence: ordinary, law-abiding Americans use guns defensively 2.5 million times, or more, each year. About 75% of these instances involve handguns. Furthermore, firearms provide the safest and most effective means of resisting violent criminal attack.


----------



## Calm (Sep 17, 2004)

I don't understand, is no one hearing me? Did my last post go unnoticed? I asked a few very valid questions, and i would like them answered. Particularly this one, which I shall post again - if someone breaks into your home, would you prefer they had a knife, or a gun?

And another one, which is always pushed aside, but is THE MOST VALID QUESTION IN THE GUN DEBATE - why, in countries where guns are illegal, are shootings almost UNHEARD OF? I am an American resident (American hubby), but I am from Australia. Guns are illegal there, we have the statistics you are looking for! WE HAVE THEM! And the fact is, Australia rarely has shootings! Please explain that. Is any of this making sense now? Please think about that fact - as it is very important.
America can only speculate about guns and what life will be without them, because they have always had them. Australia and many other countries where guns are not in homes, not with criminals, not ANYWHERE, how can that be LESS SAFE?

Well, the FACTS are - it isn't. It is more safe. Bottom line. Pit me against a knife anytime, or anything other than a gun, I could fight THAT. Pit me against a gun, and you have me on my knees from 20 feet away. I don't need statistics (although, I have read them). I have LIVED both sides, and I have seen what works, have you?


----------



## IslandMamma (Jun 12, 2003)

Burritomama, I'd love to, but I have learned here to pick my battles.









My flame-retardant suit is currently in the repair shop, so I'm steering clear of this.


----------



## nuttinhny (Jun 7, 2004)

Quote:

Guns are illegal there, we have the statistics you are looking for! WE HAVE THEM! And the fact is, Australia rarely has shootings!
I think you have answered your own question on this one. If guns are illegal, how are there any shootings? Guns are illegal, there shouldn't be any guns for there to be any shootings, correct? There will always be guns, illegal or not because the criminals don't care.
I researched, and yes shootings are down, but I am finding alot of different research that shows crime rates are up. Same as when I researched England after their total ban. So give up your guns, make the criminals feel safer in commiting their crimes, because they know YOU don't have a gun to defend or protect yourself. But that's ok, guns are illegal so I FEEL safer.

http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/f...gures_2002.pdf

http://www.chronwatch.com/content/co...y.asp?aid=8073

Gun or a knife? well without means to protect myself, if the person breaking in is intent on doing harm, it isn't going to matter. A knife is just as deadly.


----------



## Calm (Sep 17, 2004)

"Pit me against a gun, and you have me on my knees from 20 feet away."
My own quote. There is a difference between a gun and a knife. I can learn to protect myself against a knife, and have learned. The only way to protect one'self from a gun is to shoot back.

And statistics are very telling. One can almost not even compare almost 10000 shootings a year with 29 shootings. Regardless of population differences. America does not have 10000 times more people than Australia. They have less than 15 times the population. Therefore, it isn't just a feeling Australians have that they are safer, it is truth. If the theory were true that it is "all the same" with or without guns, that would mean that America should have about 450 shootings a year. This would be statistically and logically correct. But this isn't the case.

Americans live in fear. I know I also do when I live there. Australians don't. I do understand the catch 22, as I have mentioned previously. I understand and sympathise with the fact that because guns are used by many criminals, regular citizens would need a gun simply to defend on equal footing. I appreciate that, and in all honesty, don't have a solution for it. I also think that there would be too many guns stashed away now for it to work (a ban on guns). And only the good people would hand in their guns.

I see this as a problem and I see the logic of holding the gun laws. I just think it is so sad that it has come to this for us as American's and for others watching America from afar - Australia. Australians ache for you. They really wish it wasn't so terrifying. They care, I care as an Aussie/American. How to end the problem? I don't know. It is a tough one now. But one thing remains the same - in countries who don't have guns, who have not had guns for a very long time, you are sooooooo much less likely to be shot, or even see a gun in your whole lifetime, that to compare them as similar is not logical.


----------



## burritomama (Aug 26, 2002)

Thanks anyway Islandmama --and thanks for Emma's wise words too - she knew how to pick her battles as well. She was grand, wasn't she? Still is.


----------



## Tata (Jun 2, 2004)

from Calm...
"I also think that there would be too many guns stashed away now for it to work (a ban on guns). And only the good people would hand in their guns."

So true. The question of gun control needs to be seen from its different angles, all of them in the context of the USA. It would be great if the good fairy came down and made all the guns disapear, even the police and military ones. But, sadly, that is not going to happen. There are more guns now in the US than any one can accurately count. Not just new ones, but old ones. They work very well at their purpose, they are just a bit less slick than their new counterparts.

The US has many different cultural areas to compare, like Alaska vs life in Chicago. It's not the same. You may need a gun in Alaska to subsist, but in Chicago you go to a store. However, there are neighborhoods and communities in Chicago that pretty much require a firearm for protection. But, along the lines of banning guns, you don't NEED a gun in Chicago. Just like you don't NEED as SUV. But, people have them anyway. Living out in the country where you could actually use an SUV or a gun for what they were intended, then it's a different story. If you ban guns, are the hunting rifles and shotguns going to be banned? I never met anyone who hunts with a Glock or Tech-9. But, you can hunt small game with a .357 or .44 magnum. Would those then qualify as hunting guns? They are handguns.
If you banned guns, how would they ALL get collected? Only the registered ones are known. The problem in the US is the unregistered, illegal and criminal held guns (handguns and rapid fire guns). Not the hunting rifles in Alaska.
I have lived in many different parts of this country. The most telling was Oakland CA in the early '90s. At that time Oakland had the second highest murder rate per capita in the US next to Washington DC. In one year they had over 420 murders for a population just over 200,000. That's more than a murder a day. The police would prioritise their 911 calls based weather a gun was used or not. We had to wait a half hour for squad car to drive by a car jacking in our neighborhood. Let's just say life was interesting.

At the time there was a huge influx of drugs (cocain / heroin) comming into the city. (especially in the '80s and into the early '90's) There was also a huge influx of military style weapons comming in. (Can we say community destruction?) These were being sold through 'dealers' who had legal gun dealer status. In many cases out of their homes. I knew a former ER surgeon. Hyland Hospital was located in one of the poorest areas, but had one of the best trauma units in the Bay area. Their survival rate was in the 90 percentile. Outstanding for a trauma unit in an empoverished hospital. The reason for this was the amount of gunshot wounds inflicted by the military weapons. The staff was just extremely experienced. The army would send it's surgeons and medics there to train. It didn't matter if you were rich or poor. If you had a bad car wreck you were going to Hyland. My purpose in relating this story is to show the dirrect effect that guns in the environment play. Life in Oakland at the time was tense to say the leaste.
No one is going to ban knives. But, people used to kill and wound each other in gang fights with them befor guns became more easily available.

Other countries have no guns and the police don't carry them. Japan and England. Although in England, as I understand, some units now have them or carry them in their trunks depending on the level of crime they are dealing with. Again, the good fairy is not going to come.

You can look at this issue from broad views, but where it all really boils down is the individual and where they live, and how they live. A flat gun ban is not at all feasable and unenforceable. In the southern states where my partners family is from, guns are truly part of the culture and a way of life. Hunting is not going to go away, and the guns aren't either. You can hunt with a bow, but if you're hunting for food a gun makes it much easier. In that view, guns are a technological advancement, but they have been horribly abused.

That said, I'll go ahead and stick my head on the block. I can't let this kind of thing go.

bayviewbill32 says...

"As for atomic bombs - we used them in WWII. They saved more lives than they took. Period. If the U.S. wasn't such pacifists when Hitler invaded Poland, or if we did a preemtive strike on Germany, WWII would not have happened. The Holocaust would never have happened. War brings peace."

A good amount of doublespeak. Read "1984" by George Orwell. Watch "Barefoot Jen" and learn what happened when the bombs were dropped. The USA should be reviled for what it did. Not something to be proud of, "Hey, we were the first to drop the atomic bomb. And on civilian targets, no less." Wars have been started for the mere inferance of such things. Especially acts of mass destruction and terror. Japan was ready to surrender. There would not have been an invasion, only an occupying force. Read history and learn that this country has NEVER been pacifist. War brings peace is the oddest bit of propaganda that I have ever seen anyone belive. Any benefits from war have never been lasting and always benefitted the wealthy. Usually, the stage is set for more war. I guess a big enough one hasn't happened yet to bring about true peace and quiet.


----------



## Calm (Sep 17, 2004)

Tata, that is the most logical, two sided argument I have EVER read about guns here - THANK YOU! There is absolutely nothing anyone I have read here can say against what you wrote, it is all too true.

When I first posted, a page or two ago, I said America has a gun problem because they have guns. It was pulled apart with the belief that I was saying there should or could be a gun ban. My next posts were similar, in that I was comparing gun controlled countries with America saying that it is a fact it is safer. Pulled apart again with the belief I was for a gun ban. The repliers did not even ask me - interesting. I too believe it is too far gone now.

I don't think a gun ban would work at this stage, it may in the future (hey, good fairies may come!), but not yet. HOWEVER, it is a fact that in countries who saw ahead, countries who didn't make that mistake to begin with - they are in no way the same boat as the States in areas such as safety, fear, illegal gun aquiring, accidental/intentional shootings, all of it. I just wish all had such a logical point of view as you, and that people asked others what their positions were before knocking down their views with the same old antiquated arguments. We can all learn something from each other if we put the defenses down and just LISTEN.


----------



## Annoia (Nov 16, 2003)

I'm listening, and even learning a bit!


----------



## bayviewbill33 (Sep 15, 2004)

bayviewbill32 says...

"As for atomic bombs - we used them in WWII. They saved more lives than they took. Period. If the U.S. wasn't such pacifists when Hitler invaded Poland, or if we did a preemtive strike on Germany, WWII would not have happened. The Holocaust would never have happened. War brings peace."

"A good amount of doublespeak. Read "1984" by George Orwell. Watch "Barefoot Jen" and learn what happened when the bombs were dropped." 1984 is a book of FICTION not fact. I never heard of Barefoot Jen so no comment.

"The USA should be reviled for what it did. Not something to be proud of, "Hey, we were the first to drop the atomic bomb. And on civilian targets, no less." I never said I was proud of the USA dropping the atomic bomb. But I am sure not going to apologise to the Japanese anytime in my lifetime. Reviled? We did the correct thing using the Atomic bomb and history has proven it.

"Wars have been started for the mere inferance of such things. Especially acts of mass destruction and terror. Japan was ready to surrender." Japan was NOT ready to surrender. The U.S. threatened to drop a 3rd bomb if they did not surrender. Thankfully they did not call our bluff (we did not have a 3rd bomb to drop!)

"There would not have been an invasion, only an occupying force." An occupying force in Japan to make them surrender? I am understanding you correctly? We dropped the bombs because we new if we invaded Japan we would have a lot of casulities. We bombed them into submission. Great stratagy plus many of our men & woman in the service did not have to invade main land Japan.

"Read history and learn that this country has NEVER been pacifist." Apparently you never read your history or misunderstood what you read. Quite a bit of people did not want to fight the Revolutionary war. They figured England was far enough away. Darn pacifists almost cost us our country from the beginning. Would you believe that France helped us defeat the Brits in the Revolutionary War? There help came almost to late but that is a different post. As for WWII. We were pacifists in the sense we did NOTHING when Germany invaded Poland in 1938 (I think it was 38). Many Americans felt it was Europes problem not ours. It became ours because we ignored it for so long. If we had intervened when he invaded Poland, WWII more than likely would not have happened. This sounds familiar - the first Gulf War. We intervened immediately BEFORE Saddam tried to invade any other country (though I am not sure if it was his intention to invade anyone else). We intervened so he couldn't.

"War brings peace is the oddest bit of propaganda that I have ever seen anyone belive." This is not propaganda. WWII brought peace - we are not speaking German are we??

"Any benefits from war have never been lasting and always benefitted the wealthy. Usually, the stage is set for more war. I guess a big enough one hasn't happened yet to bring about true peace and quiet." I am not wealthy but would have to say I am benefitting from past wars - my freedom as an American. All Americans benefitted from most of our wars. Poor and rich, we are all still free. Whatever propaganda you adhere too is factually off base - no offense intended.







Please do not make this class warfare. Of course business owners benefit from war. That is capitalism not classism. Regardless, as long as the military action of the USA has good intentions, we should use our military.


----------



## Calm (Sep 17, 2004)

Hi. I knew none of that was about anything I posted, but I did want to stick my nose in for a little moment.

The term "war brings peace" is a double edged sword, in that it is like saying "night brings day". Things cycle, and eventually change. A war will eventually end, history has shown this to be true so far. But just as the only cure for hate is love, the only way to be at peace is to live in peace.

For every war, there are 10 wars avoided by intelligent action and communication. Heads of state world wide meet and discuss and avert physical challenge all the time. Wars are when it has gone wrong. Just as bombing Iraq was the absolute WORST thing we could have done to find Saddam, find Osama and find terrorists. Many people EXCEPT these people were killed.

As we grow as a "people" we are learning more enlightening ways to do things. I am not Christian, however, I would never call Jesus a pacifist just because he had better ways of solving issues than fighting someone.

Military, to my knowlege, is kept as a defense, not attack unit. To defend our country when needed. When 9/11 happened, they outsmarted us by killing themselves in their attack. This is a very successful method, as you have no one to defend yourself against. So, instead of finding a brilliant way of leaching out the organisations and infiltrating their strategy, we attacked. We attacked the wrong country too - Iraqi's had nothing to do with 9/11. They were Saudis, just like Bin Laden is a Saudi.

We have all benefited from the defense of our nations, especially from the wars that were AVOIDED with defensive verbal action and defensive intelligence. The only people being harmed right now are Iraqis and American soldiers - terrorists are having a field day globally, and we don't seem to be intelligent enough to combat them so far. Not only that, due to the fact that all our defense is busy in Iraq, we have no real defense left in our country, and we have been left vulnerable to attack right here in the country. Like all wars this war is quite a joke, because all we have shown is we can't out-smart, but we may out-fight.


----------



## cumulus (Jul 17, 2002)

"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, represents, in the final analysis, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children."

~ Dwight D. Eisenhower. US general & Republican politician (1890 - 1969)


----------



## Tata (Jun 2, 2004)

Hey all, I haven't checked in in a bit. Wow. Quite a few words have been written.

Thank you, Calm, for your compliments and interjections on my behalf.

Thank you Cumulus for the wonderful quote. I am a big fan of Ike's speeches. I get the feeling he knew more than he could tell.

I do want to keep the thread on track. But a quick response to bayviewbill32 on the topic of fiction. Fiction is just that. Fiction has a message and George Orwell had one. A very good one. But that discussion is for the Books and Media forum.
I don't want to get too far into a response as the topic is GUN CONTROL. So, I'll do it with pictures to keep it simple.











































































































Back to Gun Control. I wanted to add that a gun ban to me is not the same as gun control. I am definately for some form of gun control. Things like background checks, waiting periods and controling ammunition sales are a good idea.

There are states (Texas) where small caliber handguns like .22 and .25, are sold in drug stores, (or at leaste they used to be in the 1980's - I had a friend who lived there for five years). He said you could walk in and buy one just like anything else. It was shoking to hear that.

People with violent backgrounds, things like domestic abuse, should not be allowed to buy guns of any kind. Too many women wind up dead because there was a gun handy.

However, I think women should learn how to use and own guns. I think peace activists and pacifists should learn how guns work and learn how they are used by the people who they may be thinking of demonstrating against. It may save their lives one day.

Guns are in our environment and like any other eco system, we have to adapt and learn to cope. Gun control is a form of adaption.


----------



## bayviewbill33 (Sep 15, 2004)

Calm wrote: "Just as bombing Iraq was the absolute WORST thing we could have done to find Saddam, find Osama and find terrorists. Many people EXCEPT these people were killed." The deaths of the bad guys outnumber the deaths of the good guys! Go Marines! Go Army! Go Navy! Go Air Force! President George H.W. and President Clinton both failed. They should have removed Saddam when they had the chance. Instead of bombing Saddam and Osama, we should have called a summit. "Cookies and milk anyone?" 

Now for some sarcasm... The U.N. resolutions were working so well with Saddam. He cooperated and listened too. What a great diplomat! It should be stated that Saddam is a very fair man. Touchy topic, but he did support the death penalty - 300,000 put to death! President George W. (when govenor of Texas) and his brother Govenor Jeb Bush sure have a long way to go to accomplish that. Iraq must have had a high homicide rate for the death penalty to be enforced so often. I'm glad I live here in the U.S. Our crime is nothing like Iraq's. I am thankful that the U.N. enforces its resolutions, too. Saddam cooperated well with the inspectors. On a lighter note, it's a toss up who is nicer - Saddam's sons or Bush's daughters?? Tough call.

As for Osama, we should have called a truce with him so no one else gets hurt or killed. In addition we would hate to lose anymore airplanes - they sure are expensive. Plus Navy ships are very expensive to replace - especially since the explosion broke the ships keel. Osama has an above level of reasoning. He too is a great man to be able to inspire so many. Bush should have requested a meeting with Osama so they could try to resolve the differences of idealogy. Or at least come to an understanding & acceptance of there different idealogy. Osama sure would have loved to have visited the ranch in Crawford, Texas. Of course, Mr. Bush would not have mind having a meeting in Osama's candle lit cave. Oh, the ambiance of a cave. uke

*Tata* - did you only read the first paragraph of my response? I am not debating the book 1984 with you. Perhaps this is why the facts of history escape you. You read the first paragraph and for whatever reason, you do not read past that.







Why is that? Or did you not have time to respond? Afterall, I did write a lonnnnnng response.








Plus you are a mom (I assume) so you might not have much time.


----------



## Tata (Jun 2, 2004)

bayviewbill32, No, I did read your response in it's entirety. That is why I used pictures so as to not get involved in a debate over things that are totaly off topic.

I know the history of this country and its many peace-bringing, pacifist military interventions and wars very well, and I stand by what I wrote.

We can agree to disagree so this thread continues to address the issues of gun control. If you want to discuss the other topics outlined in your posts







T , you can start appropriate threads in War and Politics. Please do so so the rest of us can focuss on GUN CONTROL. Anyone who wants to discuss the other topics can do so in an appropriate thread. Thank you.

PS I'm a dad.


----------



## Calm (Sep 17, 2004)

Holy moly! A dad?! Sorry, I thought you were a mom too! Now, that makes more sense actually.....hmmmmm
Thanks Tata.


----------



## Tata (Jun 2, 2004)

Yeah, well. There ya go.








Tata is Polish for daddy or dad, depends on the translator. I guess I should ID myself more. I am a dad to a 2 1/2 year old DD








Thanks again for being Calm.


----------



## JessicaS (Nov 18, 2001)

Oh, I didn't realize you were a dad as well! :LOL

oops..







:

Ya know, we have a lot of dads in activism but I am wondering why they don't hardly utilize their dads board? papabliss rocks! y'all should go say hello.


----------



## nuttinhny (Jun 7, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Tata*
Back to Gun Control. I wanted to add that a gun ban to me is not the same as gun control. I am definately for some form of gun control. Things like background checks, waiting periods and controling ammunition sales are a good idea.

There are states (Texas) where small caliber handguns like .22 and .25, are sold in drug stores, (or at leaste they used to be in the 1980's - I had a friend who lived there for five years). He said you could walk in and buy one just like anything else. It was shoking to hear that.

People with violent backgrounds, things like domestic abuse, should not be allowed to buy guns of any kind. Too many women wind up dead because there was a gun handy.

However, I think women should learn how to use and own guns. I think peace activists and pacifists should learn how guns work and learn how they are used by the people who they may be thinking of demonstrating against. It may save their lives one day.

Guns are in our environment and like any other eco system, we have to adapt and learn to cope. Gun control is a form of adaption.


Below I have added 2 links, to show the controls that you wish to see are already in place.
the first one background checks and waiting periods.. "Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (Brady Law)"
The only restricions that I know of on ammunition sales are age limit sales. There may be more, I just am unaware of them.

http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/r...yprev&menu=gvr

the second, selling guns in drug stores... if the store has an FFL license, they can sell them, but they still have to follow the laws in place, NICS checks etc.

the third, people with violent backgrounds, mental instability etc. The 1968 Gun Control Act & The Domestic Violence Offender Gun Ban of 1996. These enforce no sales to convicted felons, fugitives, drug addicts, minors, mentally ill people, anyone dishonorably discharged from the military, undocumented immigrants, people who have renounced their U.S. citizenship and anyone convicted of a misdemeanor domestic violence offense.

http://www.bradycampaign.org/legisla...?page=6fedlaws

I honestly don't know if or how hard the NRA and progun lobbies fought to keep these off the books, I can say for myself though as a gun owner, I am glad these are on the books. They are a protection for me and my family as well as the country.

Thank you too Tata for saying women should learn to use guns also. I own and practice at least weekly with mine. It (they) is kept in a safe manner in my home and my children DO NOT have access to it (them). Gun ownership is a right and a responsibility, of all the people I have talked to who fight for the continued right to own firearms, responsibility is also very high on their priority list. We grieve also when we hear of the violence caused by guns, but we know the laws in place have to be enforced and guns kept out of the hands of known criminals. If focus could be put forth on existing laws, instead of trying to put more into place, things could be changed.


----------



## Tata (Jun 2, 2004)

Hey abimommy, I've been posting on Dads. It was the first place I went. I agree. Papabliss does rock!








And, I do wonder why more dads don't post on Dads. It can get lonely there.


----------



## Calm (Sep 17, 2004)

What impresses me so far on this thread is that no one has gone for the ol' - "my rights in the constitution" argument. That one immediately gets my back up, and I almost stop listening. I think it is singly the lamest reason people should continue to hold guns. There are many good reasons to keep them legal, but that is not one of them. That part of the constitution does not fit anymore, we are not part of an "organized militia" in suburban homes, we don't fight for our freedom against invaders of the country. But the reasons put forth (mostly!) on this thread so far are acceptable and logical.

I am reading with much interest.


----------



## fayking (Jun 28, 2004)

i am with calm on this one..i am from the UK where we have strict gun controls..yeah we do get shootings here (mainly drug crime related) but not anywhere on the level of the US. our police do not carry guns generally. (only specialist armed response officers)
to me its pretty clear cut...more guns = more shootings
most people here are terrified of guns and personally when i go abroad and see police with guns i feel very uncomfortable.


----------



## Calm (Sep 17, 2004)

I realise this is Off Topic, again, but just in case others are reading this, I think something brought up is important to address.

It was mentioned that reasoning doesn't work, with whatever sarcasm was dripping with it. Learning the history of Israel and Iraq and Saudi Arabia and terror organisations would help put this into perspective. For years and years these people have been trying to speak with others. They have tried holding meetings, they have tried shooting, they have tried everything to get their points across (some of which includes ridding their countries of foreign invasion and the destruction of their faith).

For information purposes, they did try to reason with "us". And we failed to listen. They even warned us "we will bomb you and terrorise you if you fail to acknowlege our requests", and what did the government do? Ignored them. What did they do? Followed through on their threats.

The US government was well warned, the fault lay with them for not acting until people in their own country were harmed.

So, for those of you who hold the idea that they are beyond reason, you are sorely mistaken. What they have done and continue to do is not "reasonable", however, they are two different sides of the same coin. Check out the facts of their history before passing judgement upon just the acts themselves and saying they are beyond reason and that it is a joke to consider using intelligence to keep order in the world.

Sorry, now, continue on topic....


----------



## Tata (Jun 2, 2004)

Good point on the constitution. We aren't part of a well regulated militia. But, being a born here raised here native, I do truly have the sense that the fact that a significant portion of the population is armed has kept the powers that be at bay to some degree. Not that even the best weapons one could get their hands on could do anything against the raw force of the military. Where I'm going with this is ...

I don't think monkeying with the constitution on the issue of guns is a good idea from a yank perspective. Here's why. There are quite a few marginalised groups in this country who historically have benefited from the ability to have guns at their disposal. I'll use the example of the Black Panthers. They strated out with the premise of protecting their neighborhoods from rampant police brutality and abuse. They used California's existing gun laws at the time to their advantage. They were legally able to carry shotguns, without a case, loaded in public as long as they were in plain view. When police would brulalise a suspect and the Black Panthers appeared on the scene with their shotguns and a crowd of onlookers (witnesses) the police would back down instead of arresting them. This had a marked reaction from the legislature. Much stricter gun laws were passed. As well as the systematic arrest and killing of Panther leaders. But, that's another story. My point is that they used the law to their advantage and changed their communities environment for the better whyle they were active as an organization. It was possible because the abuse was so bad that the police knew that they ran a very real risk of being shot for their behavior. They backed off.

I have to say that when I'm in a cafe and a police officer walks in, I get a different mood on. The gun in the room definately changes the environment for me. I did my share of shootin' when I lived in Southern Illinois when I went to school. Strip mining quarries full of junk. I learned a lot about the real capabilities of handguns and rifles. I learned a lot about balistics. I learned what guns could and couldn't do. I will forever have a much greater respect for them. It literally takes a half blink of an eye and a human being could be dead. I would urge people to learn about guns and handle them to get a sense of the power there. It may answer many questions as to, 'why?' . I don't own any guns now. Nor have I fired one for many years. Can't say I won't in the future. But, I also don't miss them in my life. It was fun shooting at garbage, though.


----------



## bayviewbill33 (Sep 15, 2004)

Calm - the U.S. does not negotiate with terrorists. Perhaps France does but WE do not. Except with Palestine. We have tried with them. Please clarify: so are you saying 9/11 is our fault? We got what we deserved for not listening to terrorists?


----------



## Calm (Sep 17, 2004)

Quote:

the U.S. does not negotiate with terrorists.
Terrorists were not the only ones trying to be heard. What about them? They still have the same grievances the terrorists took action for. And yes, negotiating with terrorists is not a good course of action. As mentioned, a better course of action would have been to talk with them _before_ they terrorized - _before_ they became terrorists.

Quote:

so are you saying 9/11 is our fault?
It depends what you mean by "our". If you are George Bush, yes, there is some blame to be laid with you. If you work for the government and had the same knowledge certain members had and knew about the threats - yes, there is some blame to be laid with you. If you are a regular citizen, who was blindsided by the terrible event, with no prior knowledge that it was about to happen - then no, you cannot be blamed. How could a regular citizen be blamed for that?

Quote:

We got what we deserved for not listening to terrorists?
Why are you so angry with me? What kind of question is that? I am a quiet person with quiet desires. I like to look at every angle and work out reasons why so as to prevent things happening in the future if at all possible. We can learn from this, and avert the danger from recurring.

If you are looking to avenge it, looking for someone to vent your anger on, that is very understandable - it was a shocking and horrible event that is very hard to process. I can be that person if you so desire, but perhaps it is better aimed at those responsible, and not a caring mother posting her thoughts on a mothering forum.

And perhaps this knowlege will help - I was a flight attendant for United Airlines when those planes went into the tower. I used to fly boston to los Angeles often. The only reason I wasn't on that flight is because I was on maternity leave - pregnant with my lifesaving daughter. I lost co-workers on that flight. If you think I in any way blame them, or you, or anyone other than the government for what happened to them, and to me emotionally, you are sorely mistaken. This piece of history is very close to my heart - tread carefully.


----------



## applejuice (Oct 8, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Calm*
I live in Australia, and guns are illegal. We have little crime, little fear and great freedom. If we ever go outback, where someone may have a rifle, that is the only time I have to think about a gun. I have never seen a gun, never want to see a gun.

I can see the catch 22 that was created because now there are guns, so the only way to protect yourself from them is to shoot back. So where to from here? Beats me. Just glad I don't have to think about it.

To many other countries the problem is quite obvious:
You have a 'gun problem' because you have guns. Period.

Actually, your murder and violent crime rate has increased dramatically since guns became illegal there. That is from international statistics.

I own guns, respect guns and know how to use them.

I live in L.A. where the response time is forty minutes or more. Can't wait for them to defend me.


----------



## Calm (Sep 17, 2004)

Here is a first link to a graph that shows the decline during the ten year period 1991 to 2001 -

http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/cfi/cfi066.html

This link is titled "Sharp drop in gun crime follows tough Australian firearm laws", 2000.

http://www.converge.org.nz/pma/gunaus.htm

This link is from the Australian Government itself, from the Aust Institute of Criminology - a media release:

http://www.aic.gov.au/media/990211.html

And this link is a comparison between northern America and Australia. Australia had 59 shootings in the same year span that the US had 8259 of them.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-B/...&id=OCE&id=NAM

As I said, I wouldn't change the gun laws now, it is too late, criminals would not hand them in, but it doesn't change the statistics, does it?

Quote:

Actually, your murder and violent crime rate has increased dramatically since guns became illegal there.
Gun ownership in Australia has been progressively restricted since 1915. Any increase in crime rate in general would occur in a 90 year span, wouldn't you think?


----------



## nuttinhny (Jun 7, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Calm*
Here is a first link to a graph that shows the decline during the ten year period 1991 to 2001 -

http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/cfi/cfi066.html

This link is titled "Sharp drop in gun crime follows tough Australian firearm laws", 2000.

http://www.converge.org.nz/pma/gunaus.htm

This link is from the Australian Government itself, from the Aust Institute of Criminology - a media release:

http://www.aic.gov.au/media/990211.html

And this link is a comparison between northern America and Australia. Australia had 59 shootings in the same year span that the US had 8259 of them.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-B/...&id=OCE&id=NAM

As I said, I wouldn't change the gun laws now, it is too late, criminals would not hand them in, but it doesn't change the statistics, does it?

Gun ownership in Australia has been progressively restricted since 1915. Any increase in crime rate in general would occur in a 90 year span, wouldn't you think?


First, It was stated crime and murder rate period.. nothing about gun crime.. I have statistics that show crime and murder rate have increased since the total ban in 1997.

Quote:

Twelve months after the law was implemented in 1997, there has been a 44 percent increase in armed robberies, an 8.6 percent increase in aggravated assaults, and a 3.2 percent increase in homicides. That same year in the state of Victoria, there was a 300 percent increase in homicides committed with firearms. The following year, robberies increased almost 60 percent in South Australia. By 1999, assaults had increased in New South Wales by almost 20 percent.

Two years after the ban, there have been further increases in crime: armed robberies by 73 percent; unarmed robberies by 28 percent; kidnappings by 38 percent; assaults by 17 percent; manslaughter by 29 percent, according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics.
from this link
Australian Gun Ban

Quote:

# Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2%
# Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6%
# Australia-wide, armed-robberies are up 44% (yes, FORTY-FOUR PERCENT)
# In the state of Victoria, homicides-with-firearms are up 300%
# Figures over the previous 25 years show a steady decrease in homicides-with-firearms (changed dramatically in the past 12 months)
# Figures over the previous 25 years show a steady decrease in armed-robbery-with-firearms (changed dramatically in the past 12 months)
From this link.
The results are in


----------



## cumulus (Jul 17, 2002)

This nation underwent some 50 years of debate over cigarettes and cancer with studies and statistics on both sides. In those years billions were spent and many, many people died of lung cancer. Plain common sense would indicate that lots of smoke is not good without resorting to statistics. Plain common sense indicates gun control.

Also, many cancer patients agree to try experimental programs and untried therapies to save their lives. When lives are at stake, is it not time for extraordinary efforts? Perhaps the NRA itself might push for gun control as a possible way to save lives whether they feel it will work or not in an attempt just to save lives.


----------



## Calm (Sep 17, 2004)

Nuttinhny, firstly, hi! Thank you for the interesting discussion and links. I think what will go on endlessly here is a to-ing and fro-ing of information that differs from one another. That is why I specifically chose government links and very reputable statistical data, including graphs from the bureu of criminology, not opinion pages. Also I apologize for assuming you meant gun crime as that is the topic, so those are the statistics I gathered.

Although crime rates go up and down (take a look at 1995/96, Australia's crime rates shot right up for a while), the overall picture is one of less fear and less shootings - even when we consider the difference in population- it just doesn't compare very favorably for your side. The States crime rate, especially shootings is up there with the highest in the world.

The important thing is that I agree that a gun ban would probably not work - Australia started the prohibition in 1915, which was a time when a change like that would work, and did work. In this day, with so many American citizens and criminals owning guns, I think it would cause more chaos than already exists. However, as Cumulus pointed out, extraordinary measures often prove extraordinary results. I am in both camps, ready to take on any new info that comes my way.

But, I'm still listening (reading), and learning as I go.


----------



## lotusdebi (Aug 29, 2002)

Common sense, as well as much research (see links I posted in the beginning of this thread) tells me that taking guns away from LAW-ABIDING CITIZENS actually INCREASES the death rate. Law-abiding gun-owners STOP CRIME. They SAVE lives. It's those who illegally obtain and use firearms who are the problem. There are already MANY, MANY LAWS against what they are doing. Law Enforcement Officers are the ones who need to ENFORCE those LAWS. Taking guns away from the people who are using them in a legal manner results in MORE CRIME, not less. MORE.
Prohibition didn't work with alcohol. It's not working with drugs. It won't work with guns.
Tell the police to work harder to get illegal guns off the street, encourage the state to prosecute people who sell guns to criminals, and to prosecute those who use guns in crimes. The police currently spend a lot of time, money, and effort targetting non-violent drug users. Ask them to instead target violent criminals. Leave law-abiding gun owners alone! Let me reiterate: LAW-ABIDING GUN OWNERS PREVENT CRIME! SAVE LIVES! STOP CRIMINALS IN THEIR TRACKS!


----------



## nuttinhny (Jun 7, 2004)

Hi calm.. Sorry I usually try to post government links myself, this morning was a bit hectic for me though. I could hear the lil one rustling as I was searching.

lotusdebi made some very valid points. There are websites somewhere that are strictly stories of "how my gun saved my life". I'm sorry I don't have time now to look for them, lil one is sitting on my lap trying to help me type.

I am very pleased to see though that you are still open to the progun side of things. I will try to do some research in the morning on different things I have learned since researching this topic so heavily in the past month.

Also, it was applejuice that brought up the increase in violent crimes and such in Australia, no link was provided so that could have been where you misread that.


----------



## Calm (Sep 17, 2004)

Bit rushed myself, so I understand. The gathering of links is a pain in the gluteus, to say the least. My first experience with pro-guns was my husband's brother, who is a bit of a nutcase, and used to shoot at the cute chipmonks in our backyard, screaming out racist, pro-gun, pro-life cussing that sort of put me off the whole deal. But I do see logic on both sides now. Gotta go feed my small person....


----------



## bayviewbill33 (Sep 15, 2004)

Calm I am not angry with you. I clearly stated in my post to please clarify then asked 2 questions. Clear communication without hostlity. I like a good debate and discussion.









Terrorists can not be dealt with. They are irrational.

I am glad your daughter saved your life. I am honestly sorry you lost friends on those flights.







It was a very sad day in America.


----------



## nuttinhny (Jun 7, 2004)

You were absolutely right when you said a gun ban won't work, In Australia they paid out 500 million dollars on their gun buy back. (Money the US just could not come up with seeing the shape our economy is in). Law abiding citizens turned in their guns, criminals did not. I hate to say it, I fear that if the US did something like that, even a lot of law abiding citizens wouldn't turn theirs in either. I have heard many say "when you pry it from my cold dead hands". To them they really mean it. They won't give up without a fight.

While researching this morning, I came across this qoute

Quote:

If you drop ALL gun homicides (whether justified homicide or not) the US STILL has a higher murder rate than most other nations. It's not a gun problem. It's a people problem.
Actually really made me open my eyes. It says it perfectly, it really is a people problem.

I found a few sites I want to list here. There is a lot of information on them so I won't try to tell everything it says.

this link gives a number of graphs etc. I am a bit disappointed that the dates on some of them are so old though.
gun legislation Australia

This clearly shows an increase in 1997. I know the extreme ban was passed in Oct. 1996. I can't find this morning when it took effect.
crime statistics 1996 & 1997

Victims of murder 1993-2000
Murder rates.

Victims of attempted murder 1993-2000
attempted murder

I'm throwing these last two in just because it shows statistically that gun deaths are low compared to other accidental deaths.
motor vehicle deaths
drowing deaths

The following are the links to "A Gun Saved My Life" stories. I am only adding a few.
http://www.backwoodshome.com/articles2/ayoob68.html
http://www.gunowners.org/wv06.htm
http://www.gunowners.org/sk0401.htm
http://www.ofcc.net/article1880.html
http://www.geoffmetcalf.com/reborn_20001012.html

The argument is brought up alot, "let the police handle it, that is what they are there for."
I am going to tell my own story, Last Friday night my husband and I went out for some much needed time alone. We left our 14 y/o daughter and 19 mth old son home alone. We were planning on being in early, so we weren't concerned. We were gone for about an hour when my husbands cell phone rang, it was our daughter, she wanted to know if we were home. I told her no, we were at the concert we were attending. She burst into tears at this point, telling me someone was in the house. She was in the basement (her bedroom is down there) and heard noises upstairs. I instructed her to follow the plan if something like this happened and to call the police. She proceeded with the plan, grabbing her .22 pistol out of the safe, collecting her brother and locking herself in her room. She dialed 911 and relayed to them what was going on. She was told officers are on the way and they stayed on the line with her until they arrived. When the officers arrived, dispatch called me back on my cell phone to let me know they were there. It was FIVE MINUTES AFTER the call was placed. It turned out if there was someone in the house, they were gone when police arrived, but I still shudder to think what could have happened in those five minutes if someone was there to do her harm and she had no means of protecting herself. She is well trained in firearm usage, she actually shoots better then her father who was a firearm instructor in the Marine corp. The point of this story is, we can't depend on the police to protect us. They can't be in every house at every second. We need to be able to protect ourselfs. That five minutes could have been my worst nightmare. It was only 8pm, a time when most people think they are pretty safe.


----------



## Tata (Jun 2, 2004)

Hello all. I'm learning a lot about this issue in other countries. It's very interesting how things are handled. I guess you could say if a pro-active controle happened in the USA and continued steadily, in 90 years (as in Australia) we may actually be able to make a dent in the amount of guns in the country. But, There would be areas where it just wouldn't be practicle unless other social issues were addressed with equal tenacity. Poverty, concentration of poverty, racism and domestic violence come to mind.
Nuttinhny's story is a great example and a good opinion on the issue of a legal gun in the house. Now transpose that to Applejuice's LA with a fourty minute respose time or my Oakland half hour response time and a very different ending could have been there. In those cases you really are on your own. It really depends on where you live and what neighborhood. People have to live day to day worrying about weather or not they will have to use their guns. It's a sad situation. It exists in the US because of the poverty and the concentration of poverty. It exists because of the pervasive racism in this country that allows the kind of 'ghettoization' of commuities we have here.

In another town we lived in I worked in a bar and they called 911 for bar fights. The police were there in 1 minute. That was standard. I was floored. "For a bar fight?" I said. I couldn't believe it. So, it is a matter of context.

There is a temptation in the media in this country to simplify an issue until it is VERY simple. Good or bad - no inbetween. The problem is that most things have a BIG middle and require multiple solutions, long discusions and angles of approach. This is a big country and has many demographic areas. A fit-all solution that can be voted in as a singularity really isn't going to work in the issue of gun controle here. Any true, lasting and realistic solution has to be a multitude of solutions tailor fit to the areas they are applied.

I'm not a big supporter of the NRA. I think they are a bit loopy - just my opinion. I'm not saying everyone is loopy who is in the NRA. Just that the organisation seems to take stances at the wrong time and place that really shouldn't have been taken. And It's the Charelton Heston thing. I don't know about him.







(I liked his suffering in the Planet of the Apes, though).


----------



## Calm (Sep 17, 2004)

I was wondering...where do you keep a gun in the house? If it is loaded, it has to be put away fairly securely (with children around), which would make it inaccessible when confronted with an intruder. If you keep it unloaded, then you have to put it together when confronted with an intruder. All these things take time, which is something you don't have in those situations.

How do you know for sure you are shooting at an evil being? I wouldn't, as my home has people wandering in all the time. I couldn't teach my 2 and a half year old to shoot a gun, what age do you teach this, and until that age, how do you deal with a gun in the house? What is its point if you are outsmarted or out-timed by someone you deem worth shooting?

BTW, as a Buddhist, I have a non-violence principle. I am taught how to disarm, and how to use a sword in a non-killing fashion, which is also against very traditional Buddhism. Traditionalists (the Buddha himself, Jesus Christ, and other enlightened beings and those that follow it) would stand and forgive as they allowed themself to be tortured. As a mother, I find that a hard principle to follow - sure, I can forgive, but I don't know if I would cop a bullet or a stab if my daughter were at risk. That is why I have learned how to disarm, whereever possible.


----------



## nuttinhny (Jun 7, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Calm*
I was wondering...where do you keep a gun in the house? If it is loaded, it has to be put away fairly securely (with children around), which would make it inaccessible when confronted with an intruder. If you keep it unloaded, then you have to put it together when confronted with an intruder. All these things take time, which is something you don't have in those situations.

How do you know for sure you are shooting at an evil being? I wouldn't, as my home has people wandering in all the time. I couldn't teach my 2 and a half year old to shoot a gun, what age do you teach this, and until that age, how do you deal with a gun in the house? What is its point if you are outsmarted or out-timed by someone you deem worth shooting?

BTW, as a Buddhist, I have a non-violence principle. I am taught how to disarm, and how to use a sword in a non-killing fashion, which is also against very traditional Buddhism. Traditionalists (the Buddha himself, Jesus Christ, and other enlightened beings and those that follow it) would stand and forgive as they allowed themself to be tortured. As a mother, I find that a hard principle to follow - sure, I can forgive, but I don't know if I would cop a bullet or a stab if my daughter were at risk. That is why I have learned how to disarm, whereever possible.


I'll try to answer the questions one at a time as they are in my home. For other homes I can't say what they do, but this is what works for us.

We keep most of our guns locked in the safe in the basement. There are a couple of handguns upstairs either on a high shelf or in a drawer our son cannot open yet. We do not keep a round (bullet) in the chamber, but keep a fully loaded magazine in them. If our son happened to get one (highly unlikely) he would not be able to fire it since you need a round in the chamber, and the handguns we own have all have a grip safety, manual safety and a hammer safety. He would have to understand how to operate all to be able to fire them, after chambering a round. To chamber a round it takes a decent amount of hand and arm strength to cycle most handguns. He at this point and time does not have that ability. Once he is able, we will keep them well out of his reach and he will be taught the safety of firearms. With proper safety all should be well. If confronted by a stranger it would take just a matter of seconds for us to enable the handguns.

One of the rules of firearm safety is to ALWAYS be aware of your target. This means if you can't see who it is, you don't shoot. My husband, older children and I all know to yell out when we enter the home after dark, we also have surefire flash lights mounted to our handguns to help indentify and blind any intruder. We don't have alot of folks wandering in and out. I actually keep the house alarmed much of the day when it is just my son and I.

When teaching children to shoot, it isn't an age issue, it is a maturity issue. When children are able to display the maturity and proper attitude then I would start introducing them to firearm safety, not necessarily firearms. It wouldn't be until he learns what he needs to about safety before I would let him handle the weapons themselfs. And at this point and time it would be pretty much unloaded weapons. You are right though, a 2 1/2 year old would NOT be mature enough for that. On average I would say between 5 & 7. Although that may vary with different children.

Training is essential. There are a myriad of different courses a person could take from firearms safety all the way to advanced techniques in personal defense. If you are the head of the household and you decide that your safety and the safety of your family requires you to become an armed citizen, it is your responsibilty to learn the proper use of the firearm, the proper safety techniques and the laws concerning personal defense in your state. Only free states will allow you to protect your life, but generally do not require anything more than a permit to conceal carry or own. (note some states do not even require permit to own) Therefore it is your responsibilty to be a safe and knowledgable firearm owner.

The problems with disarming a bad guy, a criminal is that you have to close with them to be able to disarm. So not only are they in range, but you are too. There are to many things that can go wrong when you close with someone who has bad intentions. They may be a little quicker, a little more skilled or flat out a little luckier. With a firearm in your possesion you do not have to close the distance which puts you at an advantage right off. You do not have to shoot just because you are using a firearm to protect yourself. At this point you have several options. Deadly force being the last. If the individual is armed with anything besides a firearm you can call out a warning letting them know that you are armed and in most cases they will take you serious and leave or give up. If they continue to threaten your domain or your life or the lives of your loved ones, then deadly force is justified. If the person is armed with a firearm, it is recommended that once you identify the threat, you shoot first without warning. The whole thing is if this person invaded your home without your consent or invitation, they intend harm, and they are a viable threat by pretty much any states standards.

I am also a non-violent person. But when it comes to the safety of myself and my family, if it comes down to us or the badguy, it will be the badguy who is hurting.

If you decide to keep a firearm in your home, you HAVE to teach all other family members in the home firearm safety. Children are curious creatures by nature. They must be taught to respect firearms and proper safety as soon as they are able to learn. One of the most important parts of being a gun owner is being a safe responsible gun owner.


----------



## calpurnia (Sep 26, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *bayviewbill32*
Calm - the U.S. does not negotiate with terrorists. Perhaps France does but WE do not.

Perhaps France does? What do you mean by that, please?

I think this sort of issue is completely psychologically impassable. To those of us who aren't American, guns are threatening, violent and dangerous. We do not see a fundamental liberty in carryin them.

My dad was held hostage at gunpoint for 17 hours. I'd much rather he'd been held hostage with a cricket bat!


----------



## Calm (Sep 17, 2004)

"And It's the Charelton Heston thing." Gotta agree there, that boy's got some wiring problems.


----------



## Calm (Sep 17, 2004)

Thank you Nuttinhny. And Calpurnia, I'm interested in a response to that too. Also, the cricket bat thing, that was my point before too when it was made issue that if there weren't guns, people would use knives or something else - like it was a logical comparison. I blame media hype for that.

I have such a greater chance of disarming someone of their knife than I do their gun it isn't even funny. They have to come so close to me to use a knife against me. And although I live in America now and again, I mostly live in a country where the odds are the weapon will be a knife.

I have spoken with many criminals (long story - did jail visits as volunteer) and they said that it is too hard to get a gun, particularly as a criminal, so they don't bother - that is why 70% of our gun deaths are SUICIDE not murder. Interesting statistic, no?


----------



## lotusdebi (Aug 29, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Calm*
I have spoken with many criminals (long story - did jail visits as volunteer) and they said that it is too hard to get a gun, particularly as a criminal, so they don't bother - that is why 70% of our gun deaths are SUICIDE not murder. Interesting statistic, no?

This is in Australia?


----------



## Calm (Sep 17, 2004)

Yes. I will go on a search if you like and pull up some links, my computer is doing its usual - cranky pants, and is acting slow so I will have to do it later.


----------



## applejuice (Oct 8, 2002)

If you are going to discuss guns and countries besides the U.S., then why not throw Switzerland into the mix. Every household is required to have a gun and every able-bodied male is considered a member of the state militia and is required to know how to use a gun.

As for history, if the people of the countries of Eastern Europe were allowed to have firearms, the history of WWII would be much different. I do not think many Jews in Poland or Hungary had guns or there would have been more resistance.

As for Charleton Heston, I have met him socially, over twenty years ago. He is a very kind, respectful man with manners. Just because he is a member and former president of the NRA does not mean he is wired wrong. That is more than I can say for other celebrities I have met who gnash their teeth at the suggestion of the Second Amendment.

If you do not like guns, then you should not have any. Period.

I have mine, and I know how to use them. I am five feet tall, 125 pounds, and I would not bet even with my black belt in Krav Maga that I could wrestle a knife or bat from anyone larger than me.

Here in California, there are gangs that traffic in guns. Even with all of our laws and bans against assault rifles and semi-automatics, guns are everywhere, legally and illegally.

If I want to get my guns serviced, I need to leave the county. No gun shops here. The one gun shop that sold ammunition to the LAPD during a well-publicized bank heist on Laurel Canyon has gone out of business.


----------



## Calm (Sep 17, 2004)

He WAS a kind, respectful man - when you met him. You don't know if he IS now. Also, being a kind, respectful man doesn't mean he is "wired" like others. And the fact that he was affiliated with the NRA has nothing to do with my opinion. I came to my conclusion from seeing him in interviews and when questioned with logical questions. But, I don't know him, so I really don't know how he is wired. I just perceive him as very closed minded about the gun thing. And closed mindedness is dangerous, no matter who you are. I have met people in the NRA who are great, and open minded to other views. I have met people who oppose guns who are the same. There is no need to "stick to your guns" on an issue - there are two sides to everything.


----------



## applejuice (Oct 8, 2002)

Yes, there are two sides to every issue.

I wish all of you guncontrol lobbyists and enthusiasts would see it that way.

Not all people who have and use guns are crazed maniacs. Many of them are educated and are aware of their position in the community. They know the local police cannot and will not protect them from a real threat. I am educated, bookwise and street-wise. I have been told more than once by the local police to "...shut up ,lady, you don't know what you are talking about...", after I called the police because my manager at work was knifed in the abdomen or I found an intruder in my home one evening.


----------



## Tata (Jun 2, 2004)

Some interesting posts of late. The issue of having a gun in the house for me is pretty much determined by need and that is determined by many factors. Where we live, what is the situation of our neighborhood, city, town, etc.

When children are in the mix a different factor has to be considered. All the previous examples are good about keeping a gun in the house and raising your children in that kind of life style. But, with children as with adults, there is never a 100 percent certainty about anything. Terms like 'highly unlikely' and 'should be' are indicative of that fact. There is always a chance that a tragedy may happen.

The issue of guns in the house is about weighing the risks for yourself and family. A child may not be strong enough to pull a slide back by themselves, but they can have a friend help. One can hold the gun, the other can pull the slide. The slide snaps forward. A fluke happens and the bullet goes off.

There is no certainty that a gun in the house won't save your life or a family member, either. It just may. Random violence does happen. But, if you have guns in the house and this fact becomes known, you are more likely to have people break in who are looking for guns to steel. Where I've lived this was a common crime. Also a very dangerous crime to perpetrate. So, the burglars are usually armed and quite ready to kill you over the guns they want. They will also shoot first because they know you have guns in the house. In other words, by living the lifestyle of guns in the house, the very situations that are feared are invited.

For my family, the issue is likened to vaccination. We weigh the risks. No vaccine is 100 percent effective. Some have bad side effects. Some children can die from the vaccine. Granted, a very small percentage. But, we did not want that to be our daughter. The question parents must ask themselves if they are going to have a gun in the house is - Do you want to be the one who's child dies due to a gun in the house that was accessable? That is the other side of the argument of - do you want to be without a gun when the intruder comes in?

The break-in that was mentioned before where the daughter was home with her sibling is a very frightening scenario for a parent to mull over. What if that were us? This I cannot answer without going onto a much larger post. But, it is something to think about as a parent.

I look at guns in a very multi-directional way. I think that gun ownership is a personal decision. I don't think they should be banned, as I do not believe it would be effective in the US. I do think there need to be controls. The ones in place work but need to be strenghtened. I can see the usefullness of guns in certain situations. But, for me, the risk is too great to have them in the house based on my family's situation at hand.

Now, we live in a small town. But, if we lived out in the country, guns may prove to be more tools than self defense items. If we had them, they would be kept locked in a safe, trigger locks affixed, ammunition separate and in a safe of its own. In effect, at leaste three hard locks befor the gun could even be loaded. I could even separate the firing pins or bolts and store them seperate, as well. Then I would feel better about having a child in the house with a gun. I don't doubt my own ability to teach my child to respect guns. She will learn that weather we own them or not. It's the mere fact that if a gun is preasent, the odds of a death by gun shot increase exponentially. Where as, if no guns are there, the odds of death by gunshot are dramatically lower. So, it is correct that if you own a gun, then you as the owner are responsible to keep the environment safe. Be that by training or physicall locks or both.

Other issues play into all this. Spirituality, for one. I have to face my own beliefs about life. I will weigh heavily the situation befor I would take a human life or even hurt anyone. Defending myself, family or another may warrent it. I have a profound reverance for life. But, by the same reverence, I won't let someone else take it or abuse it, either. Violence is a last resort.

Applejuice, I don't mean this in a confrontational way, I am truly curiouse, Is the crime so bad where you live? Does your family feel that threatened? Obviously, there is the break in that happened and I would be frightened by that, too. But is this a regular risk where you live, or is this more random? By regular, I mean do break-ins happen on a daily / weekly basis in your neighborhood? I'm also not necessarily expecting an answer. I hope it's not too personal of a questioning. Thank you in advance.


----------



## Calm (Sep 17, 2004)

Again Tata, interesting post.

I also believe it is relative to where you live. Where I live, both in Australia and the US, there is no need nor desire to have a gun. And a criminal doesn't know if a home has a gun or not, so having one isn't going to prevent a break in. And as you say, if you do have one, it might even cause one if word leaked out somehow.

I still think that if you have one handy enough and loaded enough to actually use it in time, then it is a risk to the family. Like they say, if you are struggling to open a "child proof" bottle cap, hand it to a child - they'll get it open for you.

Just last night there was banging around outside and then the window opened in the kitchen and I woke my husband "hey, someone's trying to get in!" More crashing in the kitchen while my husband scrabbled for his heavy torch for self-defense. He walked out, saw a large figure in the dark, lifted his torch to strike and suddenly my brother slurred, "Hey, its me, I'm looking for my bag." He was drunk and stupid, and we went mad at him. The thing is, what could have happened if my husband had a gun? I am sure he wouldn't have shot, especially as in Oz chances are an intruder doesn't have even a knife let alone a gun, but hey, these things happen all the time to people.


----------



## moondiapers (Apr 14, 2002)

Calm said:


> I have spoken to criminals myself. When asked about weaponry they said that if they have to go to too much trouble to get a hold of a gun, they will use something else. QUOTE]
> 
> But notice that they didn't say it would detere them from crime, they'd just find another way to be violent. If someone came into my house with a knife and tried to attack me, I'd shoot them. But if I wasn't allowed to have a gun I'd likely be tortured with a knife....I'd much rather be shot than be slowly tortured with a knife.


----------



## Calm (Sep 17, 2004)

Hi Moondiapers (I like that name, made me giggle). If you ever have the misfortune of seeing someone suffer from a gunshot wound to the stomach, you will note that it is one of the most agonizing, body crushing pains one could endure. A gunshot wound to the head that does not induce a black out would give the most massive migraine agony a run for its money. A knife can slice as well as be driven. A gun is made to only drive a piece of metal much deeper into the flesh, causing damage through even bone - a hard feat for any knife wielding maniac with the strength of a horse.

The odds of someone taking great pains to slowly cut you and pierce you with a knife until you bleed to death is sooooo small, and often reserved for sick serial killers, not your average break and enter with intent to rape, attack or most likely steal. I assume you stated what you did about preferring a knife attack is based in not being aware of just how torturous a gun shot wound is, especially if in the right place. Which is fine, but now you know.

About criminals. Most wield a weapon to deter counter attack, not to attack first. Note I said "most". A person out to murder (ie, gang warfare, spousal problems, revenge) would need a reason to pick you, wouldn't they? Break and enters are mostly for theft, and in many cases you can deter theft without violence (prevention).

Where does this fear that people are sitting ducks for attack, that criminals just want to break into their home and shoot them? My God, how do people live with such FEAR?!


----------



## Deirdre (Dec 1, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Calm*
Where does this fear that people are sitting ducks for attack, that criminals just want to break into their home and shoot them? My God, how do people live with such FEAR?!

I keep asking myself the same question, Calm. This belief seems to be pervasive in America with absolutely no credible evidence to back it up, which is why I suggested the OP readA Culture of Fear.


----------



## Calm (Sep 17, 2004)

Its been so long since I have been to the first page of this thread, I just went and had another look. I remember now, you mentioning that, Deidre. Seems we've gone full circle in only four pages. I still don't know what to say about the issue, other than the points as we go as I've done. I do agree that it is fear based. I also agree that it is too hard to reverse the gun legalities at the moment. But I have faith in our intelligence as a human race that there is a solution to every problem - it can just take eons to reach the solution sometimes, and the mind of a genius usually. Perhaps Stephen Hawking could offer a solution - he is one of the best minds we have at this time.


----------



## applejuice (Oct 8, 2002)

To Tata:

Yes, break-ins occur on a daily basis. I have my home covered by bars on the window and a security system with camera surviellance. This is a one family residence. I live here with my twelve years old son. I work a forty hour week as a professional. My older sons are off in the military and in college. My DH is gone to G-d and his reward. My neighbors do not speak English, and my experience of living here for twenty years they have demonstrated that they are not interested in any neighborhood watch program.

The police here act like you are bothering them. I have been told and I have it in print from the reports I have filed that the police think I make things up.

The city councilman's office does not believe me.

I work hard to pay for homeowner's insurance that goes up every year whether or not there is a claim or not because the insurance company knows there are lots of problems here.

Yes, I own a gun.

My son and I know how to use it.

We practice on a regular basis.

The guns are maintained. We are responsible.

I grew up in this neighborhood, and I know its history better than the young police officer who takes a report and files it. No one cares about my safety or my son's, so I have to defend myself since I already know too well no one else will.

I am doing what is right for me.

I do not advise it for everyone.


----------



## nuttinhny (Jun 7, 2004)

Quote:

I am doing what is right for me.

I do not advise it for everyone.
I think this says it perfect. I think this is what all the lawful gunowners believe. We don't want to say everyone has to own a gun, we just want everyone to understand that just because we choose to own a gun doesn't mean we will ever use it illegally.

Quote:

A child may not be strong enough to pull a slide back by themselves, but they can have a friend help.
Absolutely right, since I know you are using this from my post I feel I need to explain a bit further. My son is 19 mths old. He doesn't have many friends over to the house, when we have other children over, my bedroom door is locked. The other gun that is upstairs is so high even I have trouble reaching it and I am 5'6. When my son is old enough to have friends over, old enough to have a friend help him pull the slide back, then changes will be made in how our defense guns are stored. A small bedside safe or something along those lines. We won't wait for him to find it and be curious, it will be changed as we see the situation change. That's all apart of being responsible.
I have raised two daughters (14 & 17) to be responsible with firarms, and since I have raised two already, I feel I can do the same with the baby.

It keeps being brought up that it is the fear of being robbed, raped, murdered that drives people to own guns. I owned guns before we ever moved to what was once a quiet neighborhood. The neighborhood itself is still quiet, but at night, the influences have been moving in. When we thought someone was breaking into our home when our children were home, the neighbor found out from the police that there have also been a number of breakins during the day around here when no one is home. So being a SAHM I have 2 choices, remain inside with all the doors and windows bolted and the alarm system on or lead my life how I want to. I choose to not cower in my own home.

Police deterence doesn't do it either. When we had a rash of breakins with cars and garages this spring, we asked for and recieved extra patrols, the thefts continued to happen. We have since had a Sherriffs Deputy move in right next door. She parks her patrol car in the street in front of the houses, she wears her uniform to and from work, she is very visible. Yet we still have breakins. I wish I had the answer, like we all do. I feel there isn't going to be one though.


----------



## Tata (Jun 2, 2004)

Thank you applejuice for the post. I would be considering having a gun in the house again if I lived where you describe.
And, thank you nuttinhny, as well.

On the subject of fear and why so many folks are affraid even when they don't live in threatening surroundings, I think a lot has to do with media and what is shown as 'normal'. I haven't read, The Culture of Fear, yet. But, I want to. It is a topic that interests me a lot


----------



## wemoon (Aug 31, 2002)

Hello all, I have some thoughts on the gun issue. I read through the thread (not totally word for word, so maybe I missed someone mentioning this) and I did not see how I stand on the gun issue mentioned. I used to be totally against guns in any way shape or form. I'm still definitely against toy guns. But my views have changed quite a bit about the legality of guns and even the legality of assault weapons.

Where I'm standing is I want my measly little self to be able to have has much power as the gov't has. Lets face it, guns do equal power, they are powerful weapons. Really bad people use that power in really bad ways.

I'm not quite sure how to state my thoughts... but say if we the people decide to overthrow the gov't, we would need to have access to guns. I know I'm crazy, I've proven it on many threads the past couple of days, but I would like to see our people revolt against the gov't. I would never own a gun until that time came though, and then I will be thankful that our *right* to own guns was preserved. To me it is about how much power the gov't can have over us, not what our rights are.


----------



## lotusdebi (Aug 29, 2002)

wemoon,

I agree with you on much of what you've said, but I'm too paranoid to be specific about exactly what.







:

I think my position on guns has been established on this thread. I am opposed to toy guns, which surprises a lot of people. I'm more lenient when it comes to toys guns that don't look like real guns (like sci-fi laser guns) and brightly-colored super-soakers. I don't let people shoot my son with toys guns, though. It's too important to me that my son understands that guns are to be respected and handled very carefully. Toys guns can undermine and confuse that lesson.


----------



## wemoon (Aug 31, 2002)

lotusdebi~ I was paranoid writing the post :LOL One cannot speak such things publicly.... Big Brother is WATCHING us! I'm goind to have CIA or something at my door in 5 mins probably!


----------



## applejuice (Oct 8, 2002)

I never had a gun until my DH died.

Before he died, he did take me to a shooting range and showed me how to shoot. I went over his military records after he died, and he had received a medal for sharp-shooting.

We never had a gun in the house,

Never.

The children never even had a toy gun.

I guess they are necessary if you need them or perceive the need.

Any intelligent person should know if they are or not.


----------



## lotusdebi (Aug 29, 2002)

Wemoon, Don't give them my name at Gitmo!


----------



## wemoon (Aug 31, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lotusdebi*
Wemoon, Don't give them my name at Gitmo!









Well, if I disappear from here, you know what happened, and hopefully they won't torture your name out of me


----------



## Calm (Sep 17, 2004)

PMSL W & L!!!

Yeah, I believe in choice and this extends to guns. It does conflict with my faith though, as I took an inner and verbal oath not to harm. If defending my child, I would in an instant reevaluate my oath, and my non-violent heart would be reduced to tearing someone's ba**s off if necessary LOL! But it would have to be a darn heavy threat and her life/liberty at stake. If a solution were ever offered though, one that would bring peace (you know, some MIRACLE) and it entailed erradicating guns, I would definitely follow, as would anyone I would imagine.

Even for hunters, Lord knows I would love to see our men draped in loin cloths with a bow and arrow in tow - yeah baby, bring back fair play (and men in loin cloth!).


----------



## nuttinhny (Jun 7, 2004)

Quote:

(and men in loin cloth!)
Yes that would sure be a site!!

I'm glad wemoon brought up being able to have the same firepower as our government. Depending on how you read it, this is what the second amendment was for.

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.
We will never be able to be as well armed as our government, but our government knowing we are armed, in my opinion, has helped us keep the rights we were afforded by our founding fathers.

Toy guns.. not really sure how I feel there, since I have only raised girls and they never showed an interest in toy guns, I never had to make that decision. Now I am raising a son. Lots of differences and I am learning as I go. When he is a bit older, I will have to decide what is best there as far as toy guns go. I know he will be taught how important gun safety is.

I just wanted to thank everyone who participated here. I felt that feelings and beliefs were stated by everyone and not trampled on. It was nice to be able to discuss and not feel belittled because of my beliefs.


----------



## Calm (Sep 17, 2004)

"I just wanted to thank everyone who participated here. I felt that feelings and beliefs were stated by everyone and not trampled on. It was nice to be able to discuss and not feel belittled because of my beliefs."

Here here! A couple of times things came close, but overall, going/went well. Which is quite amazing for a gun thread. This should be a sticky for how to have an debate without getting personal. LOL! Well it is definitely a cool thread.


----------



## Tata (Jun 2, 2004)

from Calm...

"This should be a sticky for how to have an debate without getting personal. LOL! Well it is definitely a cool thread."

I'll say! Thanks everyone. And Calm, you have some of the best posts. You're so - calm.








On toy guns, I grew up with them, but I sure don't want them around. I've changed a bit since I was 4.

A story to relate along those lines - Two of our neighbor boys (ages 4 and 5) were playing gun games with their toys. They went to two of our neighbor girls (ages 6 and 8) and started shooting at them saying, "I'm going to kill you" to the girls. The girls told them to stop. The boys ignored this and continued the shooting, getting up into the girl's faces. The girls tried several times to tell them to cut it out, to no avail. So, they turned their backs to the boys and walked away. The boys followed continuing the shooting 'play'. Until one of the girls, the older one, went to their shed and pulled out two wiffle bats and chased the boys away.

I found this all so interesting when my partner related this story to me. It seems indicative of how our government acts around the world and how it relates to other cultures. It persists its destruction until it is chased away with violence. If 4 and 5 year old males in this society can have this already internalised to the degree witnessed, (not respecting someone elses wishes to stop, fake death and violence play, persistence until violently chased away - I can do this until I get hit, I don't have to stop just because someone says so) then I have to be a bit worried.

Now, I'm not saying all boys are like this. Just these two in particular. What my point is, is that there is a definate attempt by this society to begin the process of raising a desensitized male youth at an early age. As early as possible, I would argue, so as to know no other way and it will seem normal. Where is the reverance for life? Where is the respect of others? The girls on the other hand wanted nothing to do with the game. This society raises girls differently than boys, as a generalization. And, the girls were older and most likely just found the behavior of the boys annoying. But, as they all get older, the behavior of the boys can manifest into something much harder to deal with.

I think that without parental guidence, the programming of a gun heavy society via media (violent toys, movies, games, printed items) sinks into the brain and stays.

We don't allow the boys to shoot at us. We tell them it is not acceptable to shoot at us or our daughter, and that they need to shoot at things and not people. Sometimes it works. We won't allow toy guns in the house or in our yard.

Well, shoot (no pun intended) another long post. Once I get rambling ....

Thanks again, all!


----------



## Calm (Sep 17, 2004)

Good point. I also actually think it is different for girls and boys - violent movies. They often depict the males as the aggressor, with the odd butt kickin' female, but not as often. I think it is like the "beauty magazine" for boys. Women are pressured in different ways, and can emerge from media with a warped sense of self. Same with boys, who are still pressured to be muscular, aggressive and wealthy. Just as men/boys don't really get much out of a beauty magazine (on that level,







), women/girls don't get as much out of violent movies and media. Could I go so far as to say, it may even be safer for girls to watch such things?

Ok, there's tomb raider, good ol' Lara Croft and other girl aggressors, but you know what I mean. The ratio just isn't even. And with all that testosterone, the drive to be aggressor is big enough without encouragement. I fear for my DD sometimes, what she will be exposed to. I don't want to control her life, but I don't want her to get a warped sense of self. I know it is up to me, as her parent, to guide, but I remember my youth. Peers often had more influence than my parents. Eeek. Interesting times.


----------

