Quote:

---

Like it or not - having a "gun" around for the sake of "protection" or for the "thrill" of adventure is putting yourself in more danger than you'd be otherwise.

---

As a card carrying Life Memeber of the Nra I have to say I both agree and disagree with this statement.
First let me say that even though I am a Nra member I do believe in some forms of gun control. In Calif. in order to buy a handgun, you have to take a handgun certification test. It cost $25 and is vertually impossible to fail. Personally I think any handgun owner should be required to take a firearms course. Now as for the statement. Yes a gun can get you in trouble. But it doesn't just bring trouble to you or put you in more danger. It gets you in trouble because the person carrying it hasn't been trained properly. A gun should not just be pulled all willie nillie. A gun should only be pulled as a last resort, when your life or someone elses life is in immediate danger. In other words if some dumb@$$ 10 feet away is waving a knife, no your gun shouldn't be pulled. You should be trying to talk the dumb@$$ down. But if someone obviously crazy person is shooting at people, then blow the sucker away. The point of this rant is there are times when you may need to pull a firearm but more times than not you can talk your way out of a situation without doing it. But just blanket saying that because your carrying is inviting trouble is just not accurate. Now if your carrying just for the thrill of having a gun in your pocket, then let me offer this advise, DONT BE A DUMB@$$, put it away. You should only be carrying if you honestly feel you may be in danger. Like always carrying large sums of money to the bank, etc.
CC

We may as well be living on different planets.
Of the thousands of people I know none of them have had any of that happen to them :
-confronted with a knife weilding attacker
-ditto with gun
-involved in a rant where a gun is involved or required.
etc...

Dan,
A univ O Washington study.

"The risk of domestic homicide is three times greater if a gun is present in the home and the risk of suicide is five times greater. A gun kept for protection is 22 times more likely to kill someone the owner knows than to kill someone else in self-defense."

Complete article

I knew a guy who found out this in a very bad way. One of his boys grabbed a shotgun off the wall, pointed it at his brother (playfully) and blew his brother away, right in front of the father.

Yes, a million things wrong with that picture.

Yaeh, but ...!

There is no 'Yeah, but...' eh?

I once fund and posted the state by state stats about the correlation between deaths or violent crimes and no of guns per capita.... I'll try to find them again.

Listen I'm just a passenger on Planet USA when I cross over, but it changes the way I enjoy my life when driving through the south.

Quote:

---

We may as well be living on different planets.
Of the thousands of people I know none of them have had any of that happen to them :
-confronted with a knife weilding attacker
-ditto with gun
-involved in a rant where a gun is involved or required.
etc...

---

Neither have I, thats the point.

Now I read the article and

Quote:

---

"The risk of domestic homicide is three times greater if a gun is present in the home and the risk of suicide is five times greater. A gun kept for protection is 22 times more likely to kill someone the owner knows than to kill someone else in self-defense."

---

Whats their point. What facts are they quoting here. Does the homicides include self defense? Or are we talking where momma is mad and daddy for jumping the housekeeper. In that case I think I'd rather be shot than have vital pieces of my anatamy cut off. Bobbet ring a bell. Um suicide. I can slit my wrists with a knife, drink bleach, down every pill in the medice cabinet, tie a rope to my garage rafters, suicide is suicide, a gun doesn't increase the likelyhood. So their saying that 22% of gunowners kill someone in cold blood. That would be the 22 times more likely right? I DON'T THINK SO. And are we talking licenced firearms owners here or the gangbanging coke dealer who has his 9 for "protection". Maybe they're 22 times more likely to kill in cold blood than self defense.

Quote:

---

I knew a guy who found out this in a very bad way. One of his boys grabbed a shotgun off the wall, pointed it at his brother (playfully) and blew his brother away, right in front of the father.

---

I'm sorry if this hurts, but it is a prime example of why every firearm owner should take a class on firearm safety course. What was he doing with a loaded shutgun on the wall. And what was he doing watching this, instead of whipping the boy with the gun. Ever heard of the saying don't point a gun at anything you don't intend to kill. Why wasn't the gun in a cabinet. A prime example of why the libs are trying to take my rights awasy, dumby's like this. I'm sorry if this was a friend of yours but geesh, what a dumby. Is that how you spell dumby?

Again I do believe in some gun control. I think all gun owners should have to take a safety test, just like hunters do. My rifles are all locked up, unloaded and in the case of my center fire rifles, the firing pins have been removed. I have no children and yet by handgun is in hidden away in my closet, unloaded, and in its own case. I have a loaded clip where I can access it quickly. When I am blessed with children I will purchase a locking handgun safe for quick access but so the children can't get to it. THAT CALLED BEING RESPONSIBLE.

There are two sides to every issue.

I feel that handguns are an American issue and, while we Canadians may have our own opinions, it should not be our place to criticize American values or policies. That, in my opinion, is no different than Sir Paul McCartney spending a few hours learning about the Labrador seal hunt, thereby making himself an expert on the subject, and then chastising Canada for allowing such a crime against nature to occur. We'd prefer that he had the common sense to recognize that we
Canadians also know a little about the subject.

In Canada, we allow gun ownership where we feel that the benefits of having a gun available outweigh the risks. Many of the Inuit in the North of our country still put food on their kitchen tables by shooting seal and caribou with rifles. Many farmers and ranchers will rid themselves of pests by using a rifle to shoot animals that would otherwise kill their livestock. And, we allow people to purchase rifles for sport hunting, which is very popular in Canada.

However, where we feel that the risks outweigh the benefits, we don't allow gun ownership. This is why handguns are not allowed in Canada. We feel that the benefits of the general public owning handguns are small compared to the risk they pose to the population.

It's true that the vast majority of American gun owners are responsible. But, what concerns us is that handguns seem to have a knack for finding their way into the hands of people who are either too young, too angry or too drunk/stoned to be thinking straight. And, the last thing you need in the hands of some who's not thinking straight is a gun.

Rifles don't lend themselves to concealment, and are therefore safer to the public. They do not allow a person the same latitude in committing a crime that a concealed gun would.

Not trying to criticize you or your views. Just trying to explain the Canadian perspective.

Quote:

---

PS: And, we shake our heads in disbelief when we hear about people in your country arguing that the ban on assault rifles should be lifted. Why, oh why, would anyone NEED an assault rifle. I fully understand people WANTING an assault rifle to play with and show their buddies, but I cannot comprehend anyone having a legitimate need for one. And, of course, the assault rifles that would undoubtedly be the most popular would be those who's modifications to disable their "fully automatic" mode could be most easily overcome. I don't care what anyone says, the words "reasonable" and "machine gun" have no business being in the same sentance together.

---

This is where I start having disagrements with my NRA brethern. I had an sks assult rifle, complete with folding sholder stock (except this is Cal and the stock was welded open). I was going to modify it into a hunting rifle with scope, but sold it instead because it wouldn't have been accurate at long distances. Yea I'm sure there fun to shoot. I see these guys with their ar15s, they look cool but I don't see the point of owning one. First it doesn't make an accurate rifle at long distances, second rifles are not good defense weapons. They are meant for distances of 25 yards and out. Most defensive uses of firarms happen within 10 feet. I do disagree with the ban, becasue it gives the libs a stepping stone for the next ban and then the next and the next until they come knocking on my door for my .270 deer rifle or my 80 year old 12ga bird gun.

Quote:

---

This is where I start having disagrements with my NRA brethern.

---

It's true that there is no common ground amongst the NRA other than their common interest in firearms. Many members of the NRA agree that there should be a ban on assault rifles. Others would own a bazooka if it were legal.

At some point someone has to draw a line between what most people would consider "reasonable" and what most would consider "unreasonable". I believe that line has been well drawn with the ban on assault rifles.

A line between what's reasonable and what's not won't move unless people's opinions on the subject change.

Quote:

---

I do disagree with the ban, becasue it gives the libs a stepping stone for the next ban and then the next and the next until they come knocking on my door for my .270 deer rifle or my 80 year old 12ga bird gun.

---

You learned your lessons well grasshopper, if the camel gets his nose in the tent.... LOL

Just a wild guess but I would think the people who are for gun control would probably be 98% AGAINST taking away sporting and hunting rifles. But you keep believing that NRA crap.

Nelson,
You say we shouldn't criticize Americans on their choices in the guns debate.... of course, we should. That's what makes us humans.
Americans and others criticize us for lots of things.
Should we interfere? No, unless it affects us or is about to affect us.

CC, having said the above, I guess I'm completely clueless about why anyone, like kframe here who owns like 80 guns, would want to own guns if they're not a hunter and not a collector.
Is 'guns' a status symbol of some sort?
Are more guns owned by short bald, fat, insecure or ugly men with little penises? Of course I'm being facitious.

But who in their right mind would insist on owning guns just because the constitution has it written that you can. (keeping in mind that amendment, I believe was added to allow citizens to arm against a government rogue or otherwise and well know full well that's nonsense in 2007).