s/o - Abortion-Free Gun Control Thread

[Kat w]

Oh. I must have gone to a wrong link.

Sorry.

I will read thst article tonight :)

[Kat w]

Oh. Yea. 2 articles . k

 

My phone is slow. I have too many pics :/

The Forbes one was 2013.

Then I saw where you posted, think BBC one. I may have seen a similar one.

[Kat w]

Our ammo shortages are due to the government buying up ammunition on a massive scale.

I've heard gun rights advocates say that guns enable resistance, but I don't think they do.

 

All the legal arguments I've read that have to do with actual case law have rulings much more to do with natural and constitutional rights to defend oneself, and the government not being allowed to interfere in lawful uses. I don't think resistance would be considered a lawful use.

This is where the militia comes I to play. I'm not clear on the legality of it....I have only looked into it breifly.....it may have been in the bill of rights my son and I went over.

I just don't remember. I have the thook of the bill of rights here somewhere .

I'll look

[Kat w]

The "but they had bombs" argument also applies to the well regulated militia. So you have the right to bear arms, but only guns not bombs, not fly military planes. How does that really help in a hostile overreaching government situation anyway? When your gov has military technology way way beyond the average recreational shooters arsenal. Maybe you use the guns to take over military equipment I don't know? I suppose isil have done it in the Middle East but I suspect they've had a lot of backing from around the world.

Ohhhhh I see what your saying. I missed that. Yes, I understand now.

 

Yes. It think you might be correct.

 

Side note:

From our own government even.

Ie: at a minimum, taking our tanks we supplied the Iraqi army for assistance .

 

They...took em away.

Iraqi soldiers came back with the Shiites. But, the damage was done.

Edited December 7, 2015 by Kat w

[SKL]

No it wasn't. 

 

Also, Asperger Syndrome is no longer used as a diagnosis. It was, and continues to be, a very controversial change, but at this point, and for the foreseeable future, there is no official diagnosis of Asperger Syndrome. Some people who had this as a diagnosis may meet the diagnostic criteria for Autism Spectrum Disorder, but some will not. 

 

I don't know what this has to do with the topic, but anyway, the term Autism has only been used for about 100 years.  It wasn't consistently viewed as separate from childhood schizophrenia until about 1960.  I did research on this way back when for college.  Before the internet started rewriting history.  ;)

 

Point being, it's a relatively new thing, and diagnosis could be imprecise.  It seems to me that the folks who shot up the schools had something more serious than HFA going on.

[Kat w]

^^^ I did not know this

[8circles]

No no , I know.

I have over our way...aspergers and bipolar ( different ppl of course :))

 

And tho bi polar and schizophrenia are very different things.....they can often go hand in hand.

 

Aspergers with other developmental developing...thsts a mouthful :)....but likewise you can often find similar development. Defeicits! I'm sorry. I try to hit the autoful when u can.

 

Did not me only part of the word to be there.

 

 

I see both

 

I'm sorry, I'm sure it's my fault at least partially.  But I literally don't understand a significant portion of your posts.  I just can't figure out what the actual words are.

 

It's making this conversation very hard to follow.

[Kat w]

Bipolar and schizophrenia can go hand in hand. I know this to be true.

 

Aspergers and other developmental delays often accompany other developmental delays.

Like ADHD spd , ASD and apd.

[Kat w]

I have kids thst are both a mental 'issues' tho not schizophrenia, but in the begging we were told to keep look put for possible signs.

 

I also have HFA, ADHD, other things lime this

 

I was trying to not say too much directly.

 

I have experience with both.

Edited December 7, 2015 by Kat w

[Kat w]

Plis, phone freezes, I apologize .

This is a huge post and my slow phone is dragging on it big-time

[Kat w]

Or....are you not clear on ' which side' I am on.

 

I am on the open for respectful debate on a serious issue.

Tho I may have a viewpoint in o e direction, it doesn't mean I'm not open to the veiws on opposing aide and consideration.

:)

Edited December 8, 2015 by Kat w

[Kat w]

I'm sorry, I'm sure it's my fault at least partially. But I literally don't understand a significant portion of your posts. I just can't figure out what the actual words are.

 

It's making this conversation very hard to follow.

Plus, I am not here to put anyone down for their own viewpoints.

 

I believe we are all entitled to our personal convictions and should not degraded in anyway for what they believe.

 

I respect it. I want people (ppl) lol....to accept it as MY view.

 

I love the dialogue. How will we ever solve anything if we all just fignt and push our own points and form a reaponce before they've even finished listening to them.

 

I listen to listen.....not forming my dispute as they speak.

[albeto.]

Kat, I think she's not disagreeing with you or trying to get to to stop posting. She doesn't know what you're saying. Literally. That's all, I think. 

[Kat w]

Kat, I think she's not disagreeing with you or trying to get to to stop posting. She doesn't know what you're saying. Literally. That's all, I think.

That's what I was thinking too.

Wasn't sure. I know the typos have to be maddening . ( niero issues from spine thst go to me fingertips l)

 

Typing can be hard...and slow phone. I knew I shoulda never bought the droid mini! Lol

[unsinkable]

That's what I was thinking too.

Wasn't sure. I know the typos have to be maddening . ( niero issues from spine thst go to me fingertips l)

 

Typing can be hard...and slow phone. I knew I shoulda never bought the droid mini! Lol

I think you're doing just fine. I can get the gist of what you're saying.

[Kat w]

Lol, awwww. Thanks unsinkable :)

Warm fuzzies :)

[*Lulu*]

I am not at all ignorant about autism. I have a nephew on the spectrum. Here are the facts:

 

Again, 4 mass shootings in 2015 by the FBI definition of killing 4 strangers in a public place.

 

San Berardino and Chattanooga were both for Islamist motivations.

 

The Umpqua Community College shooter, Christopher Harper-Mercer, had been diagnosed with Asperger's. He killed 9.

 

The Charleston Church shooter, Dylann Roof, had been diagnosed with Autism.

 

 

Previous incidents:

 

Adam Lanza, the Newtown shooter had autism.

 

The Isla Vista shooter Elliot Rodger had autism.

 

Here's a Washington Post article about the significant link between autism and mass murder.

You know what else all the shooters had in common?

 

Penises

 

Maybe we should ban male gun ownership?

 

Maybe just ban white males?

 

Or, maybe, we should all take a deep breath and look at the situation not with the intention to protect or promote our personal preference, but with a willingness to do what is best for our society as a whole. Maybe it looks like something we like, maybe not.

 

Maybe we start by refusing to accept our elected representatives using this as nothing more than a way to posture for poll numbers.

 

I will believe officials are seriously trying when they give funding for research and make closing down the "bad apple dealers" priorities no matter which side of the aisle the initiative originates.

[8circles]

Good grief. I was pretty clear about literally not knowing which words you are typing. I even took part of the blame. I can't respond to what you're saying if I don't know what you're saying. I'm sure I'm not the only one having trouble.

 

I am not typo-free so I'm not insulting you, just pointing out that it's hard to follow.

 

Yes, unsinkable, you are superior to me in every way, including deciphering skills. I'll make note.

 

Plus, I am not here to put anyone down for their own viewpoints.

 

I believe we are all entitled to our personal convictions and should not degraded in anyway for what they believe.

 

I respect it. I want people (ppl) lol....to accept it as MY view.

 

I love the dialogue. How will we ever solve anything if we all just fignt and push our own points and form a reaponce before they've even finished listening to them.

 

I listen to listen.....not forming my dispute as they speak.

[Kat w]

Good grief. I was pretty clear about literally not knowing which words you are typing. I even took part of the blame. I can't respond to what you're saying if I don't know what you're saying. I'm sure I'm not the only one having trouble.

 

I am not typo-free so I'm not insulting you, just pointing out that it's hard to follow.

 

Yes, unsinkable, you are superior to me in every way, including deciphering skills. I'll make note.

 

 

Sorry 8circle :)

 

I just wasn't sure.

That's why I asked in a different way. In print there's no human emotions , body language, etc.

 

I don't want you to feel that way. Sorry.

 

I do have unidorantly high typos tho I know.

 

That's why I was asking, was it my typos, the way I said things?

 

I don't have hard feelings :)

Hope you don't either :)

[Bluegoat]

The US constitution can be amended, but it requires a specific procedure to do so.  So far there have been 27 amendments.

 

Unlike the constitutions of some countries, the US constitution does not include a lot of laws.  It was designed to be flexible so that the basic timeless principles could stand the test of time.

 

 

Yes, I realize now that it may have sounded like I thought it could not be amended.  I was trying to say that it is a good thing it can be, it was made to do that, so why be afraid to elk bout it?

 

That being said, I think the political climate today might make it difficult, and not just on this issue but almost any issue.  Which is what I think is worrying.

 

But, as far as I understand it, the kinds of laws people are proposing mostly fll within what is allowed anyway.

[Bluegoat]

Let me try and explain why they are linked in my mind - recreational shooters and mass killers. I think it's because counties who don't have recreational sport shooting also don't have near daily shooting tragedies. I don't see any benefit personally from guns-as-recreation. I only get the tragedy. And the risk.

 

I am not proposing we limit ammo. The conversation is , is what we have right now the right balance of freedom vs safety? Let's look at various factors. The arsenal of the San Bernardino killers was legally obtained. In many parts of the world , they wouldn't have that opportunity. Do we love the status qui or are there lessons we could learn to benefit public safety?

 

I don't love the status quo, so I am asking questions. The answers I'm hearing don't make me feel better - they don't make me feel like the next tragedy isn't days away. Guns as sport are wrapped up in my mind . Because every proposal to try and make positive change might impact that sportsman too and he is the one standing in the way. And if the argument is 'well target practice daily requires lots of bullets' I do squint at that a little bit. A friend knows someone who died in the CA shooting and she's a mess about it. He had young kids.

 

I think you're starting from  false premise here.  Lots of other countries have recreational shooting without the same kinds of problems with guns.  Shooting is an Olympic sport.

 

I think the real difference is outside the US, in developed countries that aren't in civil wars or something similar, people don't generally have guns for protection from other people.  Protection from bears or tigers, sure, if that need to go places they might eat you, or if you are a farmer you will often have a gun for animal protection -  but not for protection from the people around you, or the government, unless you're a criminal. 

[Bluegoat]

Hmm.  This makes me wonder whether some kids are being misdiagnosed with autism.  Autism used to be called "childhood schizophrenia" (but then it didn't include what we now call "Aspergers").

 

Autism by itself does not make people plot to go kill people.  But if the true condition is misdiagnosed (or undiagnosed) paranoid schizophrenia, then I could see it.

 

I would not support a rule that bars people with ASD from having guns, as long as they can independently pass a training course and test (which should also be required for non-ASD folks).

 

There could be a different connection.  People who think about things in an absolutist kind of way can tend to go down certain paths in their thinking. 

 

apparently among violent religious extremists there is a higher than norms % of engineers - and not because they decide to become engineers to facilitate being an extremist. 

 

I think there can be ll kinds of weird relationships like this.  Though, I would not suggest prohibiting engineers from owning guns.

[Katy]

I think you're starting from  false premise here.  Lots of other countries have recreational shooting without the same kinds of problems with guns.  Shooting is an Olympic sport.

 

I think the real difference is outside the US, in developed countries that aren't in civil wars or something similar, people don't generally have guns for protection from other people.  Protection from bears or tigers, sure, if that need to go places they might eat you, or if you are a farmer you will often have a gun for animal protection -  but not for protection from the people around you, or the government, unless you're a criminal. 

 

Right.  And there are other countries where gun ownership is higher, but limited to citizens and it's harder to become a citizen, takes several generations, etc.  I'm thinking specifically of Switzerland. Anyone know what crime rates, gun violence, suicide, and health care look like there? 

 

There could be a different connection.  People who think about things in an absolutist kind of way can tend to go down certain paths in their thinking. 

 

apparently among violent religious extremists there is a higher than norms % of engineers - and not because they decide to become engineers to facilitate being an extremist. 

 

I think there can be ll kinds of weird relationships like this.  Though, I would not suggest prohibiting engineers from owning guns.

 

Yes, this. 

[*Lulu*]

You're arguing that these particular killers, who had pledged allegiance to a group that has declared war on us, and who had a house full of homemade bombs, wouldn't have killed people if they hadn't had access to guns? That's not logical. They had a house full of bombs.

 

I would posit that those supporting Donald Trump have similar concerns as yours. Stopping immigrants and shutting down mosques and throwing out everyone who might possibly be connected to Islamists might make us safer. But the cost would be constitutional rights and basic human decency. I'm not going to vote for him, and I'm also not going to support those who connect law abiding citizens with those who have declared war on us. And war is half of the mass shootings this year.

 

The other half are unhinged young men on the autism spectrum. That condition should be added to the do-not-sell-guns-to list IMO.

 

I can basically guarantee there will be another attack, because a group we barely acknowledge has declared war on us and because we refuse to put high functioning autism on the list of conditions that shouldn't be allowed weapons.

 

I'm very sorry for your friend and his family.

"The other half are unhinged young men on the autism spectrum. That condition should be added to the do-not-sell-guns-to list IMO"

 

Is that not a direct linkage of autism and killing sprees? Is that not a direct statement wanting to ban persons on the spectrum from gun ownership because they are a risk?

 

That is NOT the same as suggesting some strange overlap in a "my isn't that odd" sort of way.

Edited December 8, 2015 by *Lulu*

[swimmermom3]

The thing I hate the most about this thread is that instead of us all coming together to mourn the horrific tragedy in California, accusations are made that it is all the fault of the law abiding posters that own guns. Or anyone who doesn't automatically agree with any and all gun regulations being proposed or that the NRA is equivalent to ISIS. From my point of view, that feels like some sort of sick mind game that gets emotions high and breaks down the discussion.

 

We have all (on both sides) been making sweeping generalizations. No one has said that what happened in San Bernadino is all the fault of the law abiding posters that own guns. At least I hope they didn't.  You felt that there was the implication?  I do remember seeing one post that compared the NRA to ISIS or whatever, and I can see how that would be offensive. But please keep in mind that accusing non-gun owners of playing sick mind games is also offensive as is the common " You all are just afraid of guns." The implication seems to be if you held them, stroked them, shot them, you would see the light. I don't think that is going to happen for many people as guns often produce a nearly visceral response and sometimes for very good reasons.

 

For both sides, attacking what people fear is pointless and it doesn't serve to propel the discourse forward in a constructive manner.

 

My personal opinion is that genuinely trying to understand why people are afraid is helpful. 

 

Even as a liberal, "make love, not war" kind of person, I don't think that I am all that afraid of guns - most of the time. I stated before that I have lived where guns were kept for dealing with issues of livestock or were in fact, sort of a way of life, as in the part of Montana we were living in.  I don't think that responsible gun owners are part of the problem.

 

For the most part, I don't worry about you and your gun if you aren't in my face.  I'd actually prefer CC, if the regulations are truly as strict in getting the permit as everyone implies. Although, my 75 yo mother, who has never been interested in guns before, now has a CC permit as does my dad. They travel all over in their motor home and the guns make them feel safe. I am not sure about that. In fact, I think at their age and inexperience they may be more likely to have their guns used against them - at least my mom.

 

If I am at Starbuck's and I see your gun discretely covered for the most part, I might twitch, but I will be okay. If you are acting like an ass and you have a gun, CC or open carry, I am out of there, but then if you are acting like an ass and I see no gun, I might well be out of there too.  However, I will be thinking dark thoughts. If you have a gun and are an ass, I am likely to think that you are exercising your gun rights while blissfully trampling the rights of those around you, including the business owner who just lost business because your terrified his customers. Then I can't help it and I think dark thoughts about all gun owners.

 

Open carry is where I am truly afraid - of people.  I get a totally different vibe from many of the open carry proponents. It often comes across as being not about self-protection or utilization as a tool, but about making a political statement or more importantly almost a fetish - it's all about the gun and being cool.  In that case, I don't trust your judgement. You are like the guy with the fast car who drives too fast to impress the girls and blows through a stop sign.I also believe there is an open carry contingent that genuinely likes to use their guns to intimidate people. 

 

I don't really understand why you need to wear two guns out in public. Do you plan on saving your loved ones in a movie theater shoot out?  Is that truly possible?  Do the LEOs think this is a credible option? Does it make their job easier or harder? If you accidentally kill an innocent bystander, will you go to jail?  Those that have a "hero complex" worry me to no end. Those that are trying to protect their loved ones in their own home, I totally acknowledge and respect that right.  Can you understand that if you wear a gun in a movie theater, even though you know you are a good guy, the other patrons have no reason to believe that and there is a precedent for gunning people down in a movie theater?  They are not just being stupid gun-haters; their fear has a genuine basis.

 

I think I understand your fears about protecting yourself and your loved ones, and I can respect that you are concerned about government overreach, even if I can't always  understand that fear.  If you tell me that you have some decent instruction in shooting and gun safety and practice safe storage and transport and don't wave your gun in my face, I am fine with protecting your rights, which are mine too, should I ever decide to own a gun. However, if you tell me that you have every right in the world to have unlimited weaponry and ammunition of every kind and that no one can require you to take any kind of instruction, or to store your guns safely to avoid accidents, that there can be no legislation of any type because you don't want it and "eff" me and every other non gun owner, then I see red and have the knee-jerk response to want to ban all guns.

 

I hope this makes sense. :tongue_smilie:

[swimmermom3]

Even the NRA supports blocking people that are mentally ill from obtaining weapons, and in one article I read, restoring federal funding to asylums that was stripped in the 1980's.  Keeping mental health records private, or not forcing mentally ill people to get treatment is typically a concern of people who would rather take guns away from everyone than infringe on the right to privacy for those with mental illnesses or conditions such as autism spectrum disorders.  You can blame that block on democrats.  One person described it to me as a matter of fairness and civil liberties.  Basically, it's better to treat the entire population as if we're incapable of having access to weapons rather than single out those who are demonstrably more likely to harm themselves or others.

 

 

So you want to...  ban the most popular guns among law abiding citizens?   Ban guns altogether?

 

When you say do something, what do you mean exactly?  I have never heard anyone come up with any law that would have stopped any mass shooting that didn't boil down to taking guns away from everyone.  Which is not possible.

 

:crying:  Wow. So how does this work?  How will you define the mentally ill?  Right now, one in ten Americans take antidepressants. Will you list them all?  Do you really get what listing the names of the mentally ill and making them public will do to those people? Already, someone with a suicide attempt on their records will never be in the military  or most likely law enforcement, even if the attempt was 15 years ago.  Doors are closed.  So let's list all the names of people who are mentally fragile for whatever reason so that their classmates can taunt them; they can be denied jobs or housing.  Hey, what a handy list for the unscrupulous.  Hmmm. RESTORE ASYLUMS???  So you are talking about warehouse facilities? What percentage of gun crimes are committed by the mentally ill?  Aren't you the same person that said most of the gun crimes were gang-related? 

 

So the rights in the Constitution are only for you and those that think like you?  To hell with everyone else?

 

May you nor anyone you love (n)ever experience any form of mental illness. You cannot out pray it. You cannot out good genes/active lifestyle it. You cannot out money it. I have found that when we lack compassion, life has a way of teaching it to us in a most uncomfortable form.

 

ETA:  The above is not a curse. We've  lived with it for nine years and it is nothing I would ever wish on anyone, in all sincerity. 

 

Edited December 8, 2015 by swimmermom3

[swimmermom3]

One thing to add to the post about shooting:  There is nothing more dangerous than a gun in the hands of someone who hasn't spent time at the range.  If you don't spend the time, you shouldn't have a gun.  The risks are too high.

 

This was said on a previous thread a while back and it did make an impression.  If this is the case would you have any objection to basic instruction requirements for gun owners?

 

Is there a practical way to make that work?

 

[Katy]

We have all (on both sides) been making sweeping generalizations. No one has said that what happened in San Bernadino is all the fault of the law abiding posters that own guns. At least I hope they didn't.  You felt that there was the implication?  I do remember seeing one post that compared the NRA to ISIS or whatever, and I can see how that would be offensive. But please keep in mind that accusing non-gun owners of playing sick mind games is also offensive as is the common " You all are just afraid of guns." The implication seems to be if you held them, stroked them, shot them, you would see the light. I don't think that is going to happen for many people as guns often produce a nearly visceral response and sometimes for very good reasons.

 

For both sides, attacking what people fear is pointless and it doesn't serve to propel the discourse forward in a constructive manner.

 

My personal opinion is that genuinely trying to understand why people are afraid is helpful. 

 

Even as a liberal, "make love, not war" kind of person, I don't think that I am all that afraid of guns - most of the time. I stated before that I have lived where guns were kept for dealing with issues of livestock or were in fact, sort of a way of life, as in the part of Montana we were living in.  I don't think that responsible gun owners are part of the problem.

 

For the most part, I don't worry about you and your gun if you aren't in my face.  I'd actually prefer CC, if the regulations are truly as strict in getting the permit as everyone implies. Although, my 75 yo mother, who has never been interested in guns before, now has a CC permit as does my dad. They travel all over in their motor home and the guns make them feel safe. I am not sure about that. In fact, I think at their age and inexperience they may be more likely to have their guns used against them - at least my mom.

 

If I am at Starbuck's and I see your gun discretely covered for the most part, I might twitch, but I will be okay. If you are acting like an ass and you have a gun, CC or open carry, I am out of there, but then if you are acting like an ass and I see no gun, I might well be out of there too.  However, I will be thinking dark thoughts. If you have a gun and are an ass, I am likely to think that you are exercising your gun rights while blissfully trampling the rights of those around you, including the business owner who just lost business because your terrified his customers. Then I can't help it and I think dark thoughts about all gun owners.

 

Open carry is where I am truly afraid - of people.  I get a totally different vibe from many of the open carry proponents. It often comes across as being not about self-protection or utilization as a tool, but about making a political statement or more importantly almost a fetish - it's all about the gun and being cool.  In that case, I don't trust your judgement. You are like the guy with the fast car who drives too fast to impress the girls and blows through a stop sign.I also believe there is an open carry contingent that genuinely likes to use their guns to intimidate people. 

 

I don't really understand why you need to wear two guns out in public. Do you plan on saving your loved ones in a movie theater shoot out?  Is that truly possible?  Do the LEOs think this is a credible option? Does it make their job easier or harder? If you accidentally kill an innocent bystander, will you go to jail?  Those that have a "hero complex" worry me to no end. Those that are trying to protect their loved ones in their own home, I totally acknowledge and respect that right.  Can you understand that if you wear a gun in a movie theater, even though you know you are a good guy, the other patrons have no reason to believe that and there is a precedent for gunning people down in a movie theater?  They are not just being stupid gun-haters; their fear has a genuine basis.

 

I think I understand your fears about protecting yourself and your loved ones, and I can respect that you are concerned about government overreach, even if I can't always  understand that fear.  If you tell me that you have some decent instruction in shooting and gun safety and practice safe storage and transport and don't wave your gun in my face, I am fine with protecting your rights, which are mine too, should I ever decide to own a gun. However, if you tell me that you have every right in the world to have unlimited weaponry and ammunition of every kind and that no one can require you to take any kind of instruction, or to store your guns safely to avoid accidents, that there can be no legislation of any type because you don't want it and "eff" me and every other non gun owner, then I see red and have the knee-jerk response to want to ban all guns.

 

I hope this makes sense. :tongue_smilie:

 

 

Thank you for posting this.  This is the most well-reasoned and respectful response from the moderate-to-left side of this topic I have heard in quite some time.

 

Yes, there has definitely been the implication that buying guns, agreeing with any aspects of the NRA's positions, even supporting the right to own guns, and more specifically semi-automatic guns, is the reason for the San Bernardino shootings, and if not those, all of the other murders, murder-suicides, and gang violence in the country. That's viscerally offensive too.

 

I can see how the implication that if someone learned to shoot they would understand things differently could seem condescending and cold.  I hate condescension. I think you're referring to my post describing what shooting is like. The thing is, there are some things that I frequently hear from gun control advocates that I think would be obviously if not incorrect, at least more nuanced if they had more experience with shooting.  Things that have been stated in this thread about not understanding shooting as a sport, or semi-automatic guns being "assault" weapons, or about large magazine sizes having no purpose other than murder.  Those assertions aren't accurate, but that's not the sort of thing that seems rational with no experience.

 

As an aside, semi-automatic pistols with fairly large clips are what I was taught to shoot with. They are what most of my friends were taught to shoot with.  They are easier to shoot and arguably safer to handle than something like a revolver or shotgun.  They allow you to focus on the mechanics of shooting instead of constantly changing ammunition. The repeated insinuation or outright assertion that there is no good reason to own a semi-automatic or a larger clip is wrong.  They are the most popular weapons among law abiding citizens because they're easier and more fun to shoot, not because we're all secretly plotting murder.  We're not.

 

I have several friends who prefer CC too.  I think the idea that CC is safer, or at least less offensive, is regional.  Friends in Iowa (one of the states with lower gun crime and where it is not typical to see weapons in town unless it's early morning and deer season) say they prefer CC too.  Many of them have sentiments similar to you - open carry is for jerks.  Iowa is not a stand your ground state.  There is a duty to retreat in Iowa, even if your life is in danger.

 

Friends from Florida, where when I was a kid at least (haven't lived there for a long time, things may have changed), guns were more normal in my small town, and open carry was typical.  CC was for someone with something to hide, and there was more of an implication that CC might be trying to sneak something, or might be more likely to have bad intentions, even though most adults I knew did CC.  Florida is a stand your ground state.  I don't know if that has something to do with the attitude about open carry or not.

 

I get a different vibe from the open carry jerks who are doing it to make a political point too.  It seems more like harassment and trying to scare people than it does like a political demonstration.  Especially in places like Starbucks, or near schools.  Again, maybe it was because I was raised in a stand your ground state, where being a jerk and trying to intimidate others while holding a gun is a legitimate reason to kill someone if you think your life is in danger, but honestly it just feels like those men are asking for someone to shoot them.  I don't personally know anyone who thinks that's okay.  Maybe they're doing this in places where it's not a stand your ground state so the implication isn't the same at all wherever that is.  Anyone know the rules in Texas, or anyplace else these morons have "demonstrated" ?

 

I once had to wear two guns in holsters in public.  I was mortified.  My dad was a cop and he insisted.  I was a teenager, but not old enough to legally concealed carry. I was going to a shooting competition. The locker for said competition was in a different vehicle, and I was traveling there in an open soft-top convertible Jeep without any lockable compartments secure enough for weapons.  There were small areas that locked - I think maybe the glove box and a small area behind the rear bench seat, but neither of them were strong enough to suit my dad, so he said I had to wear them.

 

I suspect the attitude about this is within law enforcement is again different by states.  In some areas, if cops can see your weapons they feel safer because they know what you have and where your weapons are.  Not seeing weapons might mean you are concealing them, potentially for illegal reasons, and are therefore potentially more of a danger.

 

If you shoot someone, either legitimately or accidentally, you're going to jail.  You might not be arrested, but they are going to keep you in an interview room where they can control you, and interview you while they are investigating to see if it was murder or self defense or even knowable.  Basically if you're a mother alone and you called 911 as two men were trying to break into your house, and the door opens and you're standing in front of your babies and you shoot, you're not going to be arrested.  Unless you're in a duty to retreat state like Iowa.  Then if you can run before you shoot you have a legal duty to.

 

If you kill someone, unless witnesses or 911 tapes or extensive criminal histories on the part of the victim make the circumstances very clear to police, chances are your life is going to be ruined.  Chances are you'll lose your job and go bankrupt spending the next two years in court even if a jury finds you not guilty.  But your life was saved. And your children were saved.  No one I know takes that lightly.  I had a conversation the other day with DH about how I'm not certain I would shoot to save my own life.  My children, absolutely.  But me?  I might be okay with dying. I think it would depend on the circumstances. I attend the Methodist church, which is against the death penalty no matter how heinous the crime because you never know when a person will make a choice to truly repent and turn to God, and ending their life would remove that opportunity.  I'm at peace with my family and with God.  I'd like to see my children grow up, and see their children grow up and have them know me.  But ultimately I'm not afraid of death. So I waffle about that.

 

I do see how open-carry scares those who aren't used to having guns around.

 

I'm not against requiring instruction and certification exams. These regulations are done on a state, not national level.  I'm going to blank on the exact case and I don't feel like googling, but the necessity for only local regulation came from a supreme court case too. Basically some of the earliest federal gun control legislation happened in the mid 1930's after the St Valentine's Day massacre and an attempted assassination of President Roosevelt. There were rules that on a federal level machine guns and easily concealable weapons such as hand guns or sawed off shotguns (at the time were thought to only be for murder) were registered and heavily taxed with every ownership transfer.  And by heavily, I mean the taxes were in the hundreds of dollars.  Thousands in today's money.  Much more expensive than the weapons themselves. Anyway, someone got in trouble for transporting a sawed off shotgun across state lines, which made it a federal case.  The man thought his rights were being infringed.  Most of the law was thrown out, and the part that wasn't thrown out it was clear in the decision that it was made on the faulty assumption the sawed off shotguns hadn't been used in war (they had).  Anyway, one lasting bit of caselaw from that decision was that most gun control legislation had to be on a local and state level.  I think that subsequent decisions have more or less upheld that, with some exceptions (bombs, etc).

 

The storing guns safely thing sounds completely reasonable to me.  It was a supreme court decision in the DC case, and honestly I think it was overreach.  I personally don't think it takes overly long to get a gun from a secure place if you are using it for self defense, but they apparently did.   Perhaps individual circumstance does matter in this case.  Maybe if you are older and live alone and don't have children visit you, it is easier to not keep guns locked up unloaded.

 

I think a lot of the anger I see about legislation is because people don't understand the history of gun control laws and what has been overturned already.

[TechWife]

This was said on a previous thread a while back and it did make an impression.  If this is the case would you have any objection to basic instruction requirements for gun owners?

 

Is there a practical way to make that work?

 

 

I think so. My state requires drivers ed before getting a learning permit. Drivers ed is provided by private providers. The state provides funds to them for a discounted rate to students 12-18 years of age. I don't think this would be anymore cumbersome or difficult to execute or document for gun safety. It would certainly increase the need for gun safety educators, thereby providing increased revenue stream for them. 

[SKL]

Since I think everyone should take a guns safety course if they are ever going to touch a gun, I would support making this a requirement of having license to carry or use a gun.  I would support grandfathering people who have significant (legal) gun experience already.

[Katy]

:crying:  Wow. So how does this work?  How will you define the mentally ill?  Right now, one in ten Americans take antidepressants. Will you list them all?  Do you really get what listing the names of the mentally ill and making them public will do to those people? Already, someone with a suicide attempt on their records will never be in the military  or most likely law enforcement, even if the attempt was 15 years ago.  Doors are closed.  So let's list all the names of people who are mentally fragile for whatever reason so that their classmates can taunt them; they can be denied jobs or housing.  Hey, what a handy list for the unscrupulous.  Hmmm. RESTORE ASYLUMS???  So you are talking about warehouse facilities? What percentage of gun crimes are committed by the mentally ill?  Aren't you the same person that said most of the gun crimes were gang-related? 

 

So the rights in the Constitution are only for you and those that think like you?  To hell with everyone else?

 

May you nor anyone you love ever experience any form of mental illness. You cannot out pray it. You cannot out good genes/active lifestyle it. You cannot out money it. I have found that when we lack compassion, life has a way of teaching it to us in a most uncomfortable form.

 

 

Defining it would be a big legal question.  Personally I don't think taking an antidepressant should be a factor. Antidepressants are prescribed for many other uses such as nerve pain. Wellbutrin is used under a different name to help stop addictions such as smoking.  Severe depression is often defined by things like the inability to function and suicidal ideation. Perhaps suicidal ideation should result in a ban for a period of a year or even five years. Schizophrenia, Bipolar, other similar illnesses, brain damage, or syndromes that result in diminished capacity as well. 

 

The military should ban those with a history of suicide attempts from service. There is nothing more stressful than military service in war, and if a person has a history of responding to severe stress with psychological breakdown, they are no more safe to have at war than those with severe food allergies.

 

I never said any such list should be public or open for people to ridicule others.  That's quite the leap you made there. We're already moving towards having one unified digital medical record, and discrimination for disabilities is already illegal when it comes to jobs or housing.  I think the direction we should go is more toward licensing.  You want a gun, you take a safety course and an exam and apply for a license, where a clerk that is not in your area and who does not know you runs a criminal background check and looks at your digital medical history.  If there is a history of felony or certain conditions, you get a denial with a chance to appeal.  You go to a private court hearing with a judge and explain you didn't really ever have bipolar, it was a misdiagnosis.  Or maybe you were suicidal three years ago after a loved one died, but it was exacerbated by a new medication and when you went off of it your depression is gone and you are fine now.  Those with approved licenses show their license to a gun dealer, who scans the card or checks the database to be sure your license is still active (it could be revoked for a new diagnosis or criminal arrest), and as long as it is, you can purchase a weapon without a waiting period.

 

Yes, we need to restore federal funding for mental hospitals.  They were shut down largely for abuse, but those would not happen now because things like restraints both physical and chemical are regulated, and depending on the type often require approval from a judge.  I do not mean a warehouse facility unless the family needs it.  I have heard of many situations where families are torn apart because one ill child desperately needs help and the family cannot afford private hospitals.  They frequently get no help unless and until that child commits a crime.  That's a travesty.  Families need more help.

 

I didn't say most crimes were gang related.  I said the reports stating there were 355 mass shootings in 2015 are only true if you change the definition from the traditional FBI definition of killing 4 or more strangers in a public place to killing 3 or more people under any circumstance, even in domestic violence or gang war situations or in the course of other crimes.

 

Constitutional rights are for everyone.  The supreme court ruled that guns can be legally denied those without capacity such as the mentally insane.  Denying someone without capacity a weapon or insisting on federal funding for mental health care doesn't deny anyone their rights, it simply ensures that rights cease at harming the rights of other citizens.

 

I have written extensively on this forum in the past about loving someone with severe mental health issues.  I have also written about being physically attacked and injured by patients with diminished mental and emotional capacity. Regarding your implied curse - I've noticed the same thing.  For example, you just twisted my words and made a lot of false assumptions about where I'm coming from, my background, and the implications of implementing my ideas.  I wonder who will be making false assumptions about you in the coming days.

 

 

 

This was said on a previous thread a while back and it did make an impression.  If this is the case would you have any objection to basic instruction requirements for gun owners?

 

Is there a practical way to make that work?

 

 

 

I don't have any objection.  I would even argue that basic gun safety should be taught in public schools on an annual and age-appropriate basis to all kids just like sex ed, whether they ever plan on being gun owners or not, and that potential gun owners should take advanced instruction on gun safety. Some states already require something like that for concealed carry permits.

 

The idea earlier in this response of requiring passing an exam, background, and medical check to get a license to purchase firearms or ammunition sounds completely reasonable to me.  There are three potential problems I can see in implementing something like that:

1. There might be constitutional issues with enacting a regulation like that on a national level.  Some aspects of national gun control laws were struck down in the late 1930's for being overreach.  It's possible the current court would interpret that differently, given the landmark cases they decided in Chicago & DC, but they might insist the federal government doesn't have the right to restrict the process like that, and it might have to be done only on a state level.
2. With all of the people who assume there is no legitimate purpose for medium to large capacity magazines or semi-automatic firearms, and with calls in the media almost every day to repeal the second amendment entirely, it might be VERY difficult to convince gun owners to agree to a licensing process, which would effectively create a database of gun owners.  If gun control activists were legitimately more interested in gun safety than in repealing the second amendment that might change, but that's a big if.  Generally activists are not known for being moderate, no matter which side they're on.
3. Some states (like Kansas) have a constitutional right to carry.  Meaning, you have a right to carry or concealed carry anywhere except certain restricted government buildings automatically unless you have been restricted from doing so due to court order or felony conviction.  You don't need a class.  You don't need a permit.  If you're an adult with no criminal history, you have the right.  Suddenly requiring oversight of any kind would probably invite immediate challenge lawsuits in those states.

[Kat w]

Good grief. I was pretty clear about literally not knowing which words you are typing. I even took part of the blame. I can't respond to what you're saying if I don't know what you're saying. I'm sure I'm not the only one having trouble.

 

I am not typo-free so I'm not insulting you, just pointing out that it's hard to follow.

 

Yes, unsinkable, you are superior to me in every way, including deciphering skills. I'll make note.

 

 

I was in a hurry earlier and didn't read the quote. It woulda made so much more sense had i. lol

 

Oh...no no. I didn't mean this about you. No. Ugh.

 

Misunderstanding

[Ausmumof3]

 

Defining it would be a big legal question. Personally I don't think taking an antidepressant should be a factor. Antidepressants are prescribed for many other uses such as nerve pain. Wellbutrin is used under a different name to help stop addictions such as smoking. Severe depression is often defined by things like the inability to function and suicidal ideation. Perhaps suicidal ideation should result in a ban for a period of a year or even five years. Schizophrenia, Bipolar, other similar illnesses, brain damage, or syndromes that result in diminished capacity as well.

 

The military should ban those with a history of suicide attempts from service. There is nothing more stressful than military service in war, and if a person has a history of responding to severe stress with psychological breakdown, they are no more safe to have at war than those with severe food allergies.

 

I never said any such list should be public or open for people to ridicule others. That's quite the leap you made there. We're already moving towards having one unified digital medical record, and discrimination for disabilities is already illegal when it comes to jobs or housing. I think the direction we should go is more toward licensing. You want a gun, you take a safety course and an exam and apply for a license, where a clerk that is not in your area and who does not know you runs a criminal background check and looks at your digital medical history. If there is a history of felony or certain conditions, you get a denial with a chance to appeal. You go to a private court hearing with a judge and explain you didn't really ever have bipolar, it was a misdiagnosis. Or maybe you were suicidal three years ago after a loved one died, but it was exacerbated by a new medication and when you went off of it your depression is gone and you are fine now. Those with approved licenses show their license to a gun dealer, who scans the card or checks the database to be sure your license is still active (it could be revoked for a new diagnosis or criminal arrest), and as long as it is, you can purchase a weapon without a waiting period.

 

Yes, we need to restore federal funding for mental hospitals. They were shut down largely for abuse, but those would not happen now because things like restraints both physical and chemical are regulated, and depending on the type often require approval from a judge. I do not mean a warehouse facility unless the family needs it. I have heard of many situations where families are torn apart because one ill child desperately needs help and the family cannot afford private hospitals. They frequently get no help unless and until that child commits a crime. That's a travesty. Families need more help.

 

I didn't say most crimes were gang related. I said the reports stating there were 355 mass shootings in 2015 are only true if you change the definition from the traditional FBI definition of killing 4 or more strangers in a public place to killing 3 or more people under any circumstance, even in domestic violence or gang war situations or in the course of other crimes.

 

Constitutional rights are for everyone. The supreme court ruled that guns can be legally denied those without capacity such as the mentally insane. Denying someone without capacity a weapon or insisting on federal funding for mental health care doesn't deny anyone their rights, it simply ensures that rights cease at harming the rights of other citizens.

 

I have written extensively on this forum in the past about loving someone with severe mental health issues. I have also written about being physically attacked and injured by patients with diminished mental and emotional capacity. Regarding your implied curse - I've noticed the same thing. For example, you just twisted my words and made a lot of false assumptions about where I'm coming from, my background, and the implications of implementing my ideas. I wonder who will be making false assumptions about you in the coming days.

 

 

 

 

 

I don't have any objection. I would even argue that basic gun safety should be taught in public schools on an annual and age-appropriate basis to all kids just like sex ed, whether they ever plan on being gun owners or not, and that potential gun owners should take advanced instruction on gun safety. Some states already require something like that for concealed carry permits.

 

The idea earlier in this response of requiring passing an exam, background, and medical check to get a license to purchase firearms or ammunition sounds completely reasonable to me. There are three potential problems I can see in implementing something like that:

• There might be constitutional issues with enacting a regulation like that on a national level. Some aspects of national gun control laws were struck down in the late 1930's for being overreach. It's possible the current court would interpret that differently, given the landmark cases they decided in Chicago & DC, but they might insist the federal government doesn't have the right to restrict the process like that, and it might have to be done only on a state level.
• With all of the people who assume there is no legitimate purpose for medium to large capacity magazines or semi-automatic firearms, and with calls in the media almost every day to repeal the second amendment entirely, it might be VERY difficult to convince gun owners to agree to a licensing process, which would effectively create a database of gun owners. If gun control activists were legitimately more interested in gun safety than in repealing the second amendment that might change, but that's a big if. Generally activists are not known for being moderate, no matter which side they're on.
• Some states (like Kansas) have a constitutional right to carry. Meaning, you have a right to carry or concealed carry anywhere except certain restricted government buildings automatically unless you have been restricted from doing so due to court order or felony conviction. You don't need a class. You don't need a permit. If you're an adult with no criminal history, you have the right. Suddenly requiring oversight of any kind would probably invite immediate challenge lawsuits in those states.

Again it's amazing how close both sides of this issue actually are.

 

I worry that with more consequences to admitting to mental illness more people just won't seek help when they need it. Otherwise a lot of this sounds quite sensible.

[SKL]

The issue of how to deal with mental illness has been tackled by at least some states.  The first thing I would do (if I needed to draft that law) would be to see what those states did and why, and use that at a starting point for a debate involving folks from all sides of the issue.  Ultimately there will be people who are not pleased with the outcome, on both sides, but I think it's better than letting criminally insane people have guns.

[SKL]

I have a random question.  Does anyone know how many names are on the no-fly list right now?

 

I read that a rather large number of TSA agents had been found to be on the no-fly list in the recent past.  That made me wonder how common it is to be on there.

 

The only way I know I'm not on there is that I recently flew.

[Kat w]

Again it's amazing how close both sides of this issue actually are.

 

I worry that with more consequences to admitting to mental illness more people just won't seek help when they need it. Otherwise a lot of this sounds quite sensible.

Oh. This is nins and my dh point exactly. If say...HFA (high functioning aspergers) or someone who just needed to talk things out with a counselor for awhile ( healthy BTW) that those things would be used against them.

 

How bout a mom who lost a child 10 he's layer wants a cc for a firearm, she would or would that be used against them down the road?

 

Could happen. If we start dkwn this slopw.

 

As to the mental standard to which we measure this , deviates later as in...opnes up and widena the compass I'm

In which we measure these types of things....where do we stop??

 

This can be a very very slippery slope.

OTOH , none of us want schizophrenia running around with a gun, unmedicated .

 

One thing the bi pplar realm, a y termed 'mental illness' share is....the very high propensity to go off their meds.

 

How do we know they will stay on their stabilizing meds? We don't.

 

It's a very complex issue and not one to be rushed Into.

[poppy]

The issue of how to deal with mental illness has been tackled by at least some states.  The first thing I would do (if I needed to draft that law) would be to see what those states did and why, and use that at a starting point for a debate involving folks from all sides of the issue.  Ultimately there will be people who are not pleased with the outcome, on both sides, but I think it's better than letting criminally insane people have guns.

 

My problem is that these folks mothers, fathers, husbands, wives still have all the access in the world.  Adam Lanza didn't buy his gun, he took it.  This is why smart guns are necessary.  Smart guns, I would think, are a better solution to gun owners than strict 'lock-up your weapons' rules.

 

More important than a few mass shootings, it would prevent at least some of the the 100+ dead children who kill themselves or someone else with their parents guns. 600 accidental deaths overall; 15,000 nonfatal accidental shootings every year.   I can't think of a good reason to not require smart gun technology on weapon sales.  It would make guns more expensive, sure, but let's face it, guns are already wicked expensive. 

Edited December 8, 2015 by poppy

[Kat w]

Thank you for posting this. This is the most well-reasoned and respectful response from the moderate-to-left side of this topic I have heard in quite some time.

 

Yes, there has definitely been the implication that buying guns, agreeing with any aspects of the NRA's positions, even supporting the right to own guns, and more specifically semi-automatic guns, is the reason for the San Bernardino shootings, and if not those, all of the other murders, murder-suicides, and gang violence in the country. That's viscerally offensive too.

 

I can see how the implication that if someone learned to shoot they would understand things differently could seem condescending and cold. I hate condescension. I think you're referring to my post describing what shooting is like. The thing is, there are some things that I frequently hear from gun control advocates that I think would be obviously if not incorrect, at least more nuanced if they had more experience with shooting. Things that have been stated in this thread about not understanding shooting as a sport, or semi-automatic guns being "assault" weapons, or about large magazine sizes having no purpose other than murder. Those assertions aren't accurate, but that's not the sort of thing that seems rational with no experience.

 

As an aside, semi-automatic pistols with fairly large clips are what I was taught to shoot with. They are what most of my friends were taught to shoot with. They are easier to shoot and arguably safer to handle than something like a revolver or shotgun. They allow you to focus on the mechanics of shooting instead of constantly changing ammunition. The repeated insinuation or outright assertion that there is no good reason to own a semi-automatic or a larger clip is wrong. They are the most popular weapons among law abiding citizens because they're easier and more fun to shoot, not because we're all secretly plotting murder. We're not.

 

I have several friends who prefer CC too. I think the idea that CC is safer, or at least less offensive, is regional. Friends in Iowa (one of the states with lower gun crime and where it is not typical to see weapons in town unless it's early morning and deer season) say they prefer CC too. Many of them have sentiments similar to you - open carry is for jerks. Iowa is not a stand your ground state. There is a duty to retreat in Iowa, even if your life is in danger.

 

Friends from Florida, where when I was a kid at least (haven't lived there for a long time, things may have changed), guns were more normal in my small town, and open carry was typical. CC was for someone with something to hide, and there was more of an implication that CC might be trying to sneak something, or might be more likely to have bad intentions, even though most adults I knew did CC. Florida is a stand your ground state. I don't know if that has something to do with the attitude about open carry or not.

 

I get a different vibe from the open carry jerks who are doing it to make a political point too. It seems more like harassment and trying to scare people than it does like a political demonstration. Especially in places like Starbucks, or near schools. Again, maybe it was because I was raised in a stand your ground state, where being a jerk and trying to intimidate others while holding a gun is a legitimate reason to kill someone if you think your life is in danger, but honestly it just feels like those men are asking for someone to shoot them. I don't personally know anyone who thinks that's okay. Maybe they're doing this in places where it's not a stand your ground state so the implication isn't the same at all wherever that is. Anyone know the rules in Texas, or anyplace else these morons have "demonstrated" ?

 

I once had to wear two guns in holsters in public. I was mortified. My dad was a cop and he insisted. I was a teenager, but not old enough to legally concealed carry. I was going to a shooting competition. The locker for said competition was in a different vehicle, and I was traveling there in an open soft-top convertible Jeep without any lockable compartments secure enough for weapons. There were small areas that locked - I think maybe the glove box and a small area behind the rear bench seat, but neither of them were strong enough to suit my dad, so he said I had to wear them.

 

I suspect the attitude about this is within law enforcement is again different by states. In some areas, if cops can see your weapons they feel safer because they know what you have and where your weapons are. Not seeing weapons might mean you are concealing them, potentially for illegal reasons, and are therefore potentially more of a danger.

 

If you shoot someone, either legitimately or accidentally, you're going to jail. You might not be arrested, but they are going to keep you in an interview room where they can control you, and interview you while they are investigating to see if it was murder or self defense or even knowable. Basically if you're a mother alone and you called 911 as two men were trying to break into your house, and the door opens and you're standing in front of your babies and you shoot, you're not going to be arrested. Unless you're in a duty to retreat state like Iowa. Then if you can run before you shoot you have a legal duty to.

 

If you kill someone, unless witnesses or 911 tapes or extensive criminal histories on the part of the victim make the circumstances very clear to police, chances are your life is going to be ruined. Chances are you'll lose your job and go bankrupt spending the next two years in court even if a jury finds you not guilty. But your life was saved. And your children were saved. No one I know takes that lightly. I had a conversation the other day with DH about how I'm not certain I would shoot to save my own life. My children, absolutely. But me? I might be okay with dying. I think it would depend on the circumstances. I attend the Methodist church, which is against the death penalty no matter how heinous the crime because you never know when a person will make a choice to truly repent and turn to God, and ending their life would remove that opportunity. I'm at peace with my family and with God. I'd like to see my children grow up, and see their children grow up and have them know me. But ultimately I'm not afraid of death. So I waffle about that.

 

I do see how open-carry scares those who aren't used to having guns around.

 

I'm not against requiring instruction and certification exams. These regulations are done on a state, not national level. I'm going to blank on the exact case and I don't feel like googling, but the necessity for only local regulation came from a supreme court case too. Basically some of the earliest federal gun control legislation happened in the mid 1930's after the St Valentine's Day massacre and an attempted assassination of President Roosevelt. There were rules that on a federal level machine guns and easily concealable weapons such as hand guns or sawed off shotguns (at the time were thought to only be for murder) were registered and heavily taxed with every ownership transfer. And by heavily, I mean the taxes were in the hundreds of dollars. Thousands in today's money. Much more expensive than the weapons themselves. Anyway, someone got in trouble for transporting a sawed off shotgun across state lines, which made it a federal case. The man thought his rights were being infringed. Most of the law was thrown out, and the part that wasn't thrown out it was clear in the decision that it was made on the faulty assumption the sawed off shotguns hadn't been used in war (they had). Anyway, one lasting bit of caselaw from that decision was that most gun control legislation had to be on a local and state level. I think that subsequent decisions have more or less upheld that, with some exceptions (bombs, etc).

 

The storing guns safely thing sounds completely reasonable to me. It was a supreme court decision in the DC case, and honestly I think it was overreach. I personally don't think it takes overly long to get a gun from a secure place if you are using it for self defense, but they apparently did. Perhaps individual circumstance does matter in this case. Maybe if you are older and live alone and don't have children visit you, it is easier to not keep guns locked up unloaded.

 

I think a lot of the anger I see about legislation is because people don't understand the history of gun control laws and what has been overturned already.

The point on Florida is true. I live here. Have or 20 hrs. My sil is a cop. They would all rather see hour gun and know you have it than to have it concealed.

 

We are Technical ally a cc state, but noone enforces it unless some kid or someone is being stupid about it.

 

Waivin a gun around in public etc.

They welcome the responsible gun owner.

Florida is one of the states I know personally from local news, my son in laws accounts, ,) they get daily briefing s of what's going on around the state and national esp if it pertains to lae enforcement)

 

Alot of the responsible gun owner, even in theaters, have thwarted a crazed guem desire to take innocent life.

 

You don't hear that on the news. ( national news) it acyo happens a good bit here.

[poppy]

 

 

Alot of the responsible gun owner, even in theaters, have thwarted a crazed guem desire to take innocent life.

 

I think I once read that Florida is the most heavily armed state in the US, or perhaps the highest rate of concealed carry. I think this is the logical outcome of.  Crazed gunmen who need to be thwarted.  We don't have that here in Massachusetts.  Not that it never happens, but, we have some of the fewest guns in the US, and far, far less gun violence than the states with a lot of guns.   

 

[NicksMama-Zack's Mama Too]

The point on Florida is true. I live here. Have or 20 hrs. My sil is a cop. They would all rather see hour gun and know you have it than to have it concealed.

 

We are Technical ally a cc state, but noone enforces it unless some kid or someone is being stupid about it.

 

Waivin a gun around in public etc.

They welcome the responsible gun owner.

Florida is one of the states I know personally from local news, my son in laws accounts, ,) they get daily briefing s of what's going on around the state and national esp if it pertains to lae enforcement)

 

Alot of the responsible gun owner, even in theaters, have thwarted a crazed guem desire to take innocent life.

 

You don't hear that on the news. ( national news) it acyo happens a good bit here.

I've been pulled over by Virginia State Police in southern Virginia. When they ran my tag there must have been some indication that I have a CCW permit. When the officer approached my vehicle he asked if I had a weapon on me and I said, "No, because I'm heading south. If I was heading north, I might have a different answer for you.". He smiled, told me to watch my speed and sent me on my way. I do have to wonder what would have been different if I was carrying that day.

 

Unfortunately, if you are a male or a black male, you may be treated a little less friendly.

https://youtu.be/pC-bTdyHh44

[Kat w]

I've been pulled over by Virginia State Police in southern Virginia. When they ran my tag there must have been some indication that I have a CCW permit. When the officer approached my vehicle he asked if I had a weapon on me and I said, "No, because I'm heading south. If I was heading north, I might have a different answer for you.". He smiled, told me to watch my speed and sent me on my way. I do have to wonder what would have been different if I was carrying that day.

 

Unfortunately, if you are a male or a black male, you may be treated a little less friendly.

https://youtu.be/pC-bTdyHh44

This is so true. And what they run I. Florida when you get pulled over it does show you have cc.

Me or hubby have never been asked about it :)

 

They like us here ha-ha :)

Yes , I think you may be right. The highest gun ownership.

 

My cousin lives in AZ. the wild wild west there. Open Cary and noone cares! Lol

 

We actually moved to Florida for their cc/ friendly gun carry laws :)

I moved from va.

[Kat w]

I think I once read that Florida is the most heavily armed state in the US, or perhaps the highest rate of concealed carry. I think this is the logical outcome of. Crazed gunmen who need to be thwarted. We don't have that here in Massachusetts. Not that it never happens, but, we have some of the fewest guns in the US, and far, far less gun violence than the states with a lot of guns.

Poppy,

 

The police here have a theory. It's always pretty warm and sunshiny here.

That's where you see a larger criminal actions.

When its cold and rainy here, not nearly as many calls.

 

So I think there's alot of validity to...we have good weather, the pills have over run the state.

 

Incidentally . the meth and pill problem has directly affected our violent crime. It's gone up. They need more drugs so they Rob and steal and kill in the process.

 

2 yrs ago a methed out guy was on a kling spree ( illegally owned gun)

He killed 18 ppl while he elided police.

 

One nite about day 4 he creeps up on a 91 yo wan taking out her trash. He came up behind her with his gun, pointed it at the back of her head.

She reached around with her gun, shot him in the stomach.

 

He was dead when cops got there.

A lil ole 91 yo woman took down the big ( he was big guy) crazed meth withdrawing bad guy...

And with one pull of her legally owned gun trigger..

Killed the man who police couldn't find. And had killed many including 2 cops when they went to serve the warrant. One of our counties cops died another seriously wounded.

 

He's gone. And so are his bad acts.

All because she legally carried her firearm...even to the trash! Lol

 

She said when interviewed....I had it for bears but...this works too! Baha

:)

[Kat w]

We have a high rate of drug related crimes.

We defend ourselves :)

 

PS. Thst never made national news. Many or most of these cases dont.

American news has a tendency to be liberal and biased.

They report what they want.

 

Maybe of my liberal friends I went to hs with have changed their stance and many were because of the LA riots.

 

They then went out and bought guns. To my knowledge at least 2 have dended off would be robbers ( and maybe rapist and killers) with their legalli owned handguns.

And they all live in va.

Edited December 8, 2015 by Kat w

[Kat w]

IMO Massachusetts = cold.

Criminals are lazy. They don't wanna be cold. Lol

 

We see in parts of the world where the weather is good....higher crime.

 

PS. Please don't let George Zimmerman style incidents sway you on the good people of Florida. We don't lime him either lol :)

Edited December 8, 2015 by Kat w

[poppy]

We have a high rate of drug related crimes.

We defend ourselves :)

 

PS. Thst never made national news. Many or most of these cases dont.

American news has a tendency to be liberal and biased.

They report what they want.

 

Maybe of my liberal friends I went to hs with have changed their stance and many were because of the LA riots.

 

They then went out and bought guns. To my knowledge at least 2 have dended off would be robbers ( and maybe rapist and killers) with their legalli owned handguns.

And they all live in va.

 

 

 

I am sad to say my hometown in PA is full of opiates.......... not warm there most of the year. Still has far fewer firearm related issues than in gun-loving states like Alabama and Alaska.  I get that info from primary sources, I don't watch the news.  I'd caution you to do the same, if you are hearing lots and lots of stories about good guys with guns stopping bad guys with guns. That sounds like agenda pushing to me.  Really, it's better with fewer shooters and fewer people you have to shoot.

[Kat w]

I am sad to say my hometown in PA is full of opiates.......... not warm there most of the year. Still has far fewer firearm related issues than in gun-loving states like Alabama and Alaska. I get that info from primary sources, I don't watch the news. I'd caution you to do the same, if you are hearing lots and lots of stories about good guys with guns stopping bad guys with guns. That sounds like agenda pushing to me. Really, it's better with fewer shooters and fewer people you have to shoot.

I can see where you would think that.

I do. And I know. I have friends in PA. ...horrible.

Pa is a little further south than what hour talking about . Massachusetts.

 

And their spring, summer and fall seasons are a little longer.

I appreciate the caution. I do honestly try to look at both sides and with a topic that the reality is deadly, I think we always have to be assessing and not coming into the new facts with a bias. That's me.

 

There have been alot of good points made here on the board on both sides and I know, rightfully so , this is a very emotionally charged topic.

Which I think sways us to the , run to quickly act and irradicate firearsm camp, I have been tempted myself through the years.

 

I used to be anti fun. Not saying you are, that's what I was. Even growing up in a pro gun southern family, I thought it was horrible.

 

Til one night someone tried to rob my dad. He pointed his gun to their belly. The ran. He called cops.

That firearm I believe saved my dad. When they found him, he was runnin from attmepted murder charge.

[Kat w]

...and that was in va.

[Kat w]

The stories I hear are local or state news and from my sil.

 

They are jus reporting...what's going on. Both sides.

They did when the straight A student in a charter school who just so happen to be black, was gunned down by a white man who didn't like the radio being too high.

He's going to prison and I'm glad.

So, we do hear both sides here.

As

[poppy]

The stories I hear are local or state news and from my sil.

 

They are jus reporting...what's going on. Both sides.

They did when the straight A student in a charter school who just so happen to be black, was gunned down by a white man who didn't like the radio being too high.

He's going to prison and I'm glad.

So, we do hear both sides here.

As

 

A kid got murdered with a gun = hearing both sides? I don't get it. 

 

There are over 10,000 homicides by gun every year. Total gun deaths are over 30,000.  A grandma who used a gun to save herself is a nice story but it doesn't nearly begin to balance out the cost.

 

[Joker]

The stories I hear are local or state news and from my sil.

 

They are jus reporting...what's going on. Both sides.

They did when the straight A student in a charter school who just so happen to be black, was gunned down by a white man who didn't like the radio being too high.

He's going to prison and I'm glad.

So, we do hear both sides here.

As

I lived in Florida for over a decade (just moved) and the news reporting is as bad there as everywhere else.