I would say that mandated gun ownership for self defence is a good thing. Take Kennesaw , GA, for example, where home owners are required to have a gun,this city is one of the safest in the country. A would be burglar had better make sure there is no one home before he tries to steal your stuff as every one will be packing heat.

"But we are told that we need not fear; because those in power, being our representatives, will not abuse the powers we put in their hands. I am not well versed in history, but I will submit to your recollection, whether liberty has been destroyed most often by the licentiousness of the people, or by the tyranny of rulers.

I imagine, sir, you will find the balance on the side of tyranny. Happy will you be if you miss the fate of those nations, who, omitting to resist their oppressors, or negligently suffering their liberty to be wrested from them, have groaned under intolerable despotism!

Most of the human race are now in this deplorable condition; and those nations who have gone in search of grandeur, power, and splendor, have also fallen a sacrifice, and been the victims of their own folly. While they acquired those visionary blessings, they lost their freedom."(Patrick Henry)

I sold all my guns. Too much trouble. You have to shoot em, then clean em. I carry one of these now:

http://www.unbreakableumbrella.com/

HH wrote..

The gun partisans have a problem... ...gun-toting vigilantes. ...gun zealots

Why do you have to call freedom-loving Americans names? Are you unable to argue your side of the equation without ad hominem attacks?

Just because you don't trust yourself with a gun doesn't mean you should project those feelings upon the rest of us.

Also, I'm not sure why you equate guns with primitive.

Mrgone wrote..

The second, and most preposterous, is to protect oneself against the tyranny of the government itself. This is patently false by any modern measure.

I strongly disagree. I take it you aren't familiar with the Jews in the Warsaw ghetto in WWII, right?

You know, America's hunters are the largest army in the world.

Quote:

I don't spend my fall weekends tramping around the woods in pursuit of a buck, but a lot of my friends and neighbors do.

This blogger adds up all the hunters in just a handful of states, and comes to a striking conclusion:

The state of Wisconsin has gone an entire deer hunting season without someone getting killed. That's great. There were over 600,000 hunters.

Allow me to restate that number. Over the last two months, the eighth largest army in the world - more men under arms than Iran; more than France and Germany combined - deployed to the woods of a single American state to help keep the deer menace at bay.

But that pales in comparison to the 750,000 who are in the woods of Pennsylvania this week. Michigan's 700,000 hunters have now returned home. Toss in a quarter million hunters in West Virginia, and it is literally the case that the hunters of those four states alone would comprise the largest army in the world.

His point? America will forever be safe from foreign invasion with that kind of home-grown firepower.

Hunting -- it's not just a way to fill the freezer. It's a matter of national security.

John

Not only that, but on balance, while there are usually one or two accidental shootings during hunting season, when you consider the odds.....

One in 700,000 is pretty damn good, considering that your odds of being killed in a car wreck are about 1 in 8,300.

I'll take the risk of being shot while hunting if I can trade it off for the risk of being killed by an incompetent driver.

I've read all through this ticker and nowhere has it been mentioned that in actual fact it was unarmed citizens who subdued the shooter. One of these was an elderly lady:

http://azstarnet.com/news/local/govt-and....

Another was an elderly gentleman who gives the best description so far of the incident:

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2011....

Way to go unarmed seniors!


Also here's some interesting info on the weapon and a sensible gun policy:

http://www.balloon-juice.com/2011/01/10/....

Quote:

I strongly disagree. I take it you aren't familiar with the Jews in the Warsaw ghetto in WWII, right?

Hmmm, they were in the Warsaw Ghetto.

Quote:

On January 18, 1943, the first instance of armed resistance occurred when the Germans started the final expulsion of the remaining Jews. The Jewish fighters had some success: the expulsion stopped after four days and the ŻOB and ŻZW resistance organizations took control of the Ghetto, building shelters and fighting posts and operating against Jewish collaborators.[6]

The final battle started on the eve of Passover of April 19, 1943, when a Nazi force consisting of several thousand troops entered the ghetto. After initial setbacks, the Germans under the field command of Jürgen Stroop systematically burned and blew up the ghetto buildings, block by block, rounding up or murdering anybody they could capture. Significant resistance ended on April 23, and the Nazi operation officially ended in mid-May, symbolically culminated with the demolition of the Great Synagogue of Warsaw on May 16. According to the official report, at least 56,065 people were killed on the spot or deported to German Nazi concentration and death camps, most of them to Treblinka.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warsaw_Ghet....

Yea, they did just fine fighting the government. You see, THAT is exactly what I'm talking about.

Here is the problem with that Balloon-juice post.
To a competent shooter, it wouldn't have mattered about the 30 round magazine.
It only takes a matter of seconds to change out to a fresh magazine, and a very well trained and determined shooter can manage to fire with almost no interruption by ejecting a spent magazine before firing his last round and locking open the breach. Had this individual not had 30 round magazines, he would have carried multiple 15 round magazines. Had he not had 15 round magazines, he would have carried multiple 10 round magazines. This is just another example of being politically opportunistic by the gun snatching crowd.

The difference between you and almost everyone on this board, Mrgone, is that we would rather die on our feet with a gun in our hands than live on our knees.

" nowhere has it been mentioned that in actual fact it was unarmed citizens who subdued the shooter"

Someone did not read too closely. One of the defenders was armed. Father of Reds

In the bad old days out west, most shootings were done from ambush. This gives the shooter the best odds. No amount of defensive armament can deprive an attacker of the element of surprise. That is why it is very difficult to foil a planned assassination.

Unfortunately, carrying a gun does not provide the faculty of precognition, the ability to anticipate future events. All it does is enable a shootout AFTER the aggressor has fire the first shot(s). A Glock pistol can empty a 30 round magazine in about 20 seconds. How will an armed citizen, taken by surprise, prevent that from happening?

By flooding the nation with easily obtainable firearms and ammunition we are steadily improving the odds of attackers against defenders. The attackers have selected their targets, planned their moves, and prepared their weapons. They are often carrying multiple guns and lots of ammunition. The defenders have no such advantages. It may be emotionally satisfying to gun down a crazy man after he has killed or wounded a dozen victims, but it does nothing for the victims.

No amount of defensive gun ownership will prevent crazy people from shooting others. But the easier it is to get guns, the more crazy people will get them and use them, and they will always have the attacker's advantage.

I would rather die of old age, on a warm island.

With really hot chicks bringing me drinks.

bob

Quote:

By flooding the nation with easily obtainable firearms and ammunition we are steadily improving the odds of attackers against defenders.

I don't recall anyone, especially gun-rights advocates, flooding the nation or advocating flooding the nation with guns. It's been quit the opposite since the Brady Bill.

What part of 'criminals will always get guns' don't YOU understand?

Bull****

The vast majority of time, a citizen has a weapon and attacker leaves.
It happens over a 1000 times a day.

bob

Bo, I know this is hard for you to understand, but I didn't say that. Perhaps you should try actually reading something before spouting off on it.

Oh, and in case you weren't paying attention (again), you already live on your knees.

Hh

according to you, the cops should run and hide.
and never leave their bunkers.

bull****.

most armed citizens are not shot from ambush.
most are not even shot.

bob

HH wrote..

Unfortunately, carrying a gun does not provide the faculty of precognition, the ability to anticipate future events. All it does is enable a shootout AFTER the aggressor has fire the first shot(s). A Glock pistol can empty a 30 round magazine in about 20 seconds. How will an armed citizen, taken by surprise, prevent that from happening?

The first two or three rounds will not be prevented.

But an armed citizen to the side or behind the shooter who is skilled in the use of his weapon can draw and place his first shot at center-of-mass within the usual range for defensive encounters (which the FBI documents is within seven YARDS) within ~2 seconds or so.

Had a plurality of the population been armed magazine size and the rest would have been immaterial; the shooter would have gotten his attempt at assassination off, but that's likely all.

Quote:

In the bad old days out west, most shootings were done from ambush. This gives the shooter the best odds. No amount of defensive armament can deprive an attacker of the element of surprise. That is why it is very difficult to foil a planned assassination.

The "bad old days out west" had a lower per-capita incidence of being shot than does NY City - or any other restrictive firearms city - today.

I live on my knees, pay taxes, and have guns - that's the difference. Thanks to this talk of congressional gun control, which always comes up after a tragic shooting (Columbine, Austin, etc) a newly purchased weapon will be getting buried this week, with ammo, in a location only I know about 100 miles away.

Have a peachy day.

Here ya go hh...
http://www.americanrifleman.org/blogs/ar....

Bo, so do I. Again, that was not my point.

Bo, I hereby volunteer my backyard as your stash place. For a (very) nominal fee, I will even do the manual labor and bury it right next to my beloved dog. AS for HH, forget it. Lo said it best, there is no cure for having your nutsack or your frontal lobes cut off.

Sadly, I lost all my guns in a tragic boating accident.

Quote:

Yea, they did just fine fighting the government. You see, THAT is exactly what I'm talking about.

The troops and equipment diverted to put down the uprising were not available to kill American, British, or Russian soldiers. For that alone it was worth it and ended the war that much quicker.

Quote:

I don't recall anyone, especially gun-rights advocates, flooding the nation or advocating flooding the nation with guns. It's been quit the opposite since the Brady Bill.

Perhaps you don't recall the advocacy for mandatory gun possession laws. Perhaps you don't recall the steadfast opposition to background checks for buyers at gun shows. Perhaps you don't recall the record sales of small arms ammunition this past year, resulting in rationing at some gun dealers. Perhaps you don't recall the repeal of the assault weapons ban, resulting in the availability of the extended capacity magazines used in the Virginia Tech and Giffords shootings.

The NRA clearly wants more guns in the hands of Americans, and some posters on this thread say they would welcome open carry of firearms in all cities and towns. There can never be too many guns in America for the NRA.

This much I'm certain of:

If you walked in the door this afternoon and a 6'4" 225 lb man was raping your wife on the living room sofa, on the left side of the door there was a shotgun loaded with 00 buckshot, on the right side a phone, you would NOT pick up the phone and dial 911.

And if you say in response you WOULD dial 911 and NOT stop the attack using the shotgun, I have a very good divorce attorney your wife should speak with this afternoon. She deserves better and your children deserve to live with her.

There can never be enough of something guaranteed by the United States Constitution, affirmed by the courts, and embraced by millions of law-ading Americans.

I would absolutely welcome the open carry of firearms. We have police that do it now and are basically accountable to no one, fire dozens of rounds at (often unarmed) suspects, and show a total disregard for the law.