ABOUT     READ     SHOP    

Gun rights and gun control


Somebody sent me this. Any thoughts?10689854_726787727410180_6098383608659636679_n


Oversimplified bullshit. You stop crime by fixing the social problems that cause it- not by living in a state of paranoia. That's how young girls get shot by knocking on stranger's doors at night when they've had a car accident and need help. That's how dads accidentally kill their own kids when the kid comes home late at night from a party. That's how dumb neighborhood watch captains shoot boys walking down the street because they look suspicious wearing a hoody... in the rain. That's how you get a society of trigger happy idiots. It's not how you stop crime.


It is, however, how the NRA would like you to think you stop crime- because it helps sell their product and promote their special interests.


If someone is elderly, disabled or living alone, and they have a legal firearm and the training to use it, is it not a good idea? Police response in my community is reasonable, but the police can't be everywhere. There is a lot of violent crime here.

This is a recent story from wire service UPI: http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2014/10/24/Lumberton-grandpa-shoots-granddaughters-would-be-rapist/6161414165804/


In the USA, it seems as,
wanted to introduce
restrictions on delivery of
the weapon. But this law
was frozen quickly. That
who sells the weapon,
low sales aren't
favorable. Those who
sells the weapon, has
communications in the
government. That who
sells the weapon, all the
same on problems of
little people. And people
not robots, sometimes
can and are afraid, and to
become angry.


The NRA would have you see it their way.

The fact is unless you are trained in the use of firearms and are prepared to use it. Owning a firearm is of no use to you.

When a person uses a firearm, there is never one shot used. It is actually several shots.

It is up to the owner of a firearm to keep them in a safe; secure place and to follow the rules of the state when purchasing them.

Felons don't follow rules or those with certain mental health issues. We have seen it many times already.

The problem is we need to keep firearms away from those who can't have them and those who shouldn't have them due to some mental health issues.

Here's food for thought. Elderly man comes home and finds two people in his home. One a male and the other female. They beat the poor guy up, break his collar bone. He manages to get his pistol. The two crooks run from the house. The male is already gone leaving the female behind. The elderly man follows. She tells him not to shoot she's pregnant. Guess what. He shot her left handed, (right collar bone was broken and his is right handed). He shot her anyways and yes it was in the back. She died, her accomplice was caught and faces murder charges for her death. The elderly gentleman was not charged. For those who are wondering, the young lady was never pregnant.

If this man didn't have a gun in his home things may have turned out poorly for him.
The two young crooks never counted on a war veteran, much less one with experience is using a firearm.

It doesn't mean the elderly man was in the right or wrong. He was frightened and did what he thought was right at the time.

Then you have the recent school shooting in Washington. Five young people are now dead. How in the world was that young man able to get his hands on a firearm?

All I'm saying is there has to be a better way of doing things and the NRA needs to be part of the answer and not creating obstacles to find those answers.


G0lden said: It doesn't mean the elderly man was in the right or wrong. He was frightened and did what he thought was right at the time.

Then you have the recent school shooting in Washington. Five young people are now dead. How in the world was that young man able to get his hands on a firearm?

All I'm saying is there has to be a better way of doing things and the NRA needs to be part of the answer and not creating obstacles to find those answers.

Yes- Exactly. That's why regulations are a good idea. There IS a midpoint between banning guns altogether (which no one, to my knowledge, has ever actually suggested) and allowing pretty much anyone who wants one to have a gun and open carry it into restaurants.

I don't understand why it's so hard to require background checks, a waiting period and a database for gun purchases. It makes sense. If you have mental health issues or a criminal background, you should not own a gun. It's just not safe for your community. That might not prevent all crime- but it could prevent some, and that's worth something. If we keep track of all gun sales, then we can identify where the guns on the street originated from. You could at least find out who the last owner was that didn't conduct a legal sale- and arrest that guy. I also think that marketing guns to kids is just moronic. And I think letting an average person own an UZI is dumb- as dumb as letting a kid shoot one. Because who needs to do that really?

This isn't being anti-gun. It's being pro-common sense.

This is just kind of insane to me:


Scanning through the above link, I get the impression that the guns are sport hunting rifles. These would let a child to practice target shooting with a real gun, rather than an air rifle.

I'm not sure if they are meant for hunting, or just target practice. Don't hunters go after small game with shot, rather than small bullets?

These appear to fire only 22-size ammo, are not automatic, and are not handguns. They are for sporting use only. The guns are still potentially lethal. (GOlden mentioned several shots. I don't think you could stop a serious, healthy adult assailant with a single 22 round.)

It's up to parents and instructors to determine the maturity and readiness of the child. The same could be said for archery, water sports, horseback riding, power tools, and those child-size gas-powered motorcycles. A rifle like this should be locked up, and used only with adult supervision. Unfortunately, adults can be even less responsible than children.

As to how criminals get hold of firearms, some are purchased legally by another person. Firearms are taken by burglars. Guns can also be borrowed or stolen from relatives. When an elderly homeowner dies, I advise relatives to search the property for handguns.

I think that ammunition could be more easily controlled than guns. With care and proper storage, a quality firearm can last for decades. Ammunition, however, is perishable.

My local police don't advise the general public to use weapons of any kind. I'm sure many people here have multiple weapons, though, and I know at least one young lady who has a concealed weapons permit.

BTW In Utah this week, a man snatched a 5-year-old from her bed. When confronted by the father, he released the child and ran. A few years ago, a jewelry store owner stood up to an armed robber and ordered him out of her store. In both cases, no gun was necessary, just a firm command. I wouldn't count on this in every situation, though.

I'd love to fix the social problems that contribute to violent crime. With the amount of apathy and entitlement I sense here, I don't see that happening anytime soon. People have to want to better themselves.


A kid can learn to shoot with a bb gun. A child does not need to be firing a real rifle- for hunting or target practice or anything else. It's not a good idea.

There was a recent situation where a little boy shot his sister with the child's rifle their parents gave them for Christmas. In another situation, a toddler shot her baby sister. And then, of course, the parents who took their daughter to a shooting range and, with the permission of the professional instructor, let her fire an UZI she couldn't physically control. People are stupid about guns and kids. By allowing their children to use these weapons, they are putting their kids in a very dangerous situation. No one would do that if we were talking about any other dangerous product. No one would think it was a great thing to get a kid it's own truck to drive, or to teach a kid to butcher a cow and give the child it's own, child-sized, butcher knife to practice with. No one would ever say "Hey! Let's make a child-sized chainsaw so children can practice cutting trees!" But no one has a problem with giving children guns and taking them hunting. Wait until they are fifteen- eighteen- twenty. You can learn to shoot at eighteen. You don't need to be shooting things at the age of ten.

Oh yeah- here:


Coming from an older generation, the way things were handled about firearms in the day were very different so to speak.

My brother learned at a very young age about guns and was told to not touch one if he found one by chance. (me, I scared of the damn things. My step father showed me how to load a pistol once. That was more than sufficient for me.)

As my brother gained maturity, he was allowed to learn how to use both handguns and rifles. By the time he was twelve, he was the proud owner of a 12-gauge shotgun. He used it to hunt for brown squirrels, nothing more. Then he got his first hunting license the following year. He got to go deer hunting with my step-father and a family friend.

He now has several weapons and they are locked up in a gun safe. Both of his boys know how to use a firearm and they were taught the same way he was.

He is a responsible gun owner and follows the rules in their purchase to the letter. California has what are considered some of the most strict gun laws in the country.
However, that doesn't mean that felons are not getting weapons and those that have certain mental health issues unable to obtain them.

There is nothing wrong with background checks. A waiting period is required here in California. A secure database of all purchases would be a nice thing to see nationwide. (of course we want it to be secure, got to keep the hackers at bay. I would include sale at gun shows as well).

What I would also like to see is mandatory training for those who have never used a firearm before. This way they can get an idea what a gun can do, the recoil of the weapon, and even get to figure out that what they thought they want may not be the right thing for them. This would be beneficial in determining what kind of firearm would be best for them. No everyone needs a 357 magnum, and a small 22 may be the better fit.

Guns are never going to be away from this country. We just need to try to make things safer for everyone else. Who knows a life may be saved along the line as well.


I agree with all the points you made, Golden. Very well said.

I know that people do let their kids handle guns- and that, in an old-school sense, that has been and is pretty common in some places. But the same is true of a lot of other things. My grandmother grew up on a horse ranch. She started driving the family truck when she was twelve. But that doesn't mean it's a good idea to let twelve year olds drive. Most people would agree it isn't.


Same here are far as being a farm kid, but I never drove. I handled the chickens when they needed to be feed or vaccinated. Mind you by chickens, I mean a flock of 12,000- to 16,000 birds.

Plus the day of age was so much different when I was a child compared to today.


California has a very long coastline, as well as an international border to the south. That probably makes it hard to control gun smuggling.

Until it died earlier this year, I drove my father's old pickup truck, which he handed down to us. I could see over the dash, handle the steering and reach the pedals, and most twelve-year-olds are taller than me. I think "farm use" pickups are safer in a rollover than some of the ATVs on the market.

It's a shame that most kids no longer learn the skills that you learn growing up on a farm. Kids may be able to participate in butchering a deer, a hog or small game, but a cow is a pretty big project. I recall seeing a documentary in which Indian children were taught how to butcher a buffalo by a tribal elder, who was passing on native skills and wisdom

If you raised chickens, I can see a very good reason for your brother to know how to handle a gun. Predators can do thousands of dollars worth of damage.

Regarding the child who shot his sister with the rifle, IMHO the parents made two big mistakes. One was to assume the gun wasn't loaded. There's an old safety rule that says there's no such thing as an unloaded gun. The other was to leave both guns out, including the air rifle. I would think of pressing charges, but they have suffered enough.

The gun manufacturer was wise not to comment. You can only give your customers all the information they need, and hope they use common sense.

The Uzi story made national headlines, and it was flat out ridiculous. There was no reason to put an adult-sized automatic rifle in the hands of a child. I still wonder what the instructor was thinking. To me, this doesn't mean that responsible adult trainers shouldn't teach kids shooting, archery, martial arts, skateboarding, dirt bike riding, rock climbing, skiing, cooking over a campfire, and a wide variety of water sports, all of which can lead to death or severe injury.

I agree that kids should learn at least what do when they find a gun, what a gun looks like, and that gunfire doesn't sound the same as it does in the movies. Movies, TV and video games can give the wrong impression of what a gun can and cannot do. They should be able to name a gun when talking to police: shotgun, rifle, automatic or revolver.

Finally, they should understand what actually happens to someone when bullets and pellets enter the body, as horrific as it is.


I remember one incident that my grandfather found a bobcat in the building we housed the birds in. Mind said bobcat is long since dead.

The uzi incident saddened me. Here is a mere 9 yr old and she just accidently killed the instructor. Her view of guns may be very different now than what they were before the accident. Plus she has to live with the thought that she took a human life. accidental or not, it still makes an impression.


Kids shouldn't handle guns. Period. It's not necessary- so what's the point?
My family raised chickens. We never shot anything. We put the chickens in a cage- and they were perfectly safe. They still are. If we ever might have needed to shoot something, I wouldn't have had my twelve year old sister do it. Because my family isn't desperate and that's just wrong. I do not intend to let my own kids drive until they are sixteen because I'm not keen on child endangerment. It's just basic common sense. You do it if you have to- but if you don't have to, don't do it.


That boy shot his sister because his parents had a casual attitude toward guns. They failed to differentiate between a tool designed specifically to kill and a different kind of object and that's why they failed to be safe about it. If they didn't have blinders on about guns, they would never have left one near their child. No one would make that mistake with a chainsaw- plugged in or not.


I've read enough news to know that there are too many idiots with guns, and I've been to a teenager's funeral as a result of such idiocy.

There are many Americans owning guns, because they no longer trust the authorities to show up when they are needed. Some know what to do with a gun, while others don't even know how to keep it away from their children.

Police response can vary widely between communities. If an intruder appears in a home or a business, police are only going to show up after someone gets to a phone.

Women and children are frequent targets of sexual assault. Women who live alone, or work late at night, and parents of children small enough to actually be picked up by an assailant, might keep guns.

There are news stories about guns being used in mass murders, or gun-related accidents killing innocent people, or legally-acquired guns being used by criminals. There are also many stories about guns being used to stop criminals. It's hard to say how many crimes are prevented because a property owner or business manager wore a gun visibly.

We could restrict gun use to law enforcement and private security, but recent news shows even police officers can misuse guns.

I doubt there is an easy answer.


Funny thing happened earlier this week. My boyfriend and I were getting some fast food when we had a run in with some gang members. My bf got stabbed-but walked away. If the other guy had had a gun, we would both be dead. I don't why he didn't have one. But I'm all for gun control. (edited for brevity's sake)


Seriously. You can kill someone with a knife- but you are less likely too. A gun would have maimed him severely at the very least. A knife resulted in some cuts and stitches.


OMG luna ... are you and your friend really okay?

I'm glad your boyfriend did not suffer severe injuries! Best wishes for a fast recovery.


Yes, we are fine. It's all over. The walk-away lesson from this is- always carry mace


Good plan ... hope you'll never slide again in a situation to need it, tho.

Glad you are well. *hugs*


Sorry to hear about your boyfriend, hope he is well soon. Remember that self-defense propellants may have a shelf life, and I think you have to shake them occasionally.

It bothers me that crime is bad enough for gangs to confront two adults walking together. I hate it when punks think they own the streets.

The pro-gun lobby would tell you that you or your boyfriend should have carried a gun. But if someone is already close enough to use a knife on him, I don't see how a gun would help.

A recent Gallup poll shows almost a third of American respondents saying guns make a home safer: gallup.com/poll/179213/six-americans-say-guns-homes-safer.aspx I'm with the slim minority that says "it depends." A gun is not capable of doing anything on its own.


In our situation, a gun being present would have made things infinitely worse- no matter who drew it. The last thing that I would have wanted would have been for those guys to get their hands on a gun. I actually grabbed a mop (We were behind a restaurant going to our car) and jumped on the back of the guy that was on my boyfriend. I used the handle to choke him off of him. He then fought me for the mop- but I didn't let go of it. If I'd had a gun- if anyone had had a gun- he would have tried to get the gun to use it. And either he would have killed us with it, or we would have had to kill him. I don't really relish the thought of killing anyone. And I don't like the idea of being killed. I'm glad no one had a gun.


I think the best thing, personally, would have been to be carrying mace. It's not lethal- but it's pretty effective. I used it once in the past, and it does take a person down. I also don't think they would have expected it.


Guns making homes safer... I don't know. Someone in our family was shot by a gun we had in the house. In one of the neighborhoods I lived in growing up, my neighbor's kid accidentally shot his friend when he was showing him his parents' gun. He shot the kid in the belly. He lived- but he was severely hurt. My sister's husband collects guns- but he only uses them for hunting. He keeps them locked in a secret closet inside his closet behind a safe so that his kid won't find them. I've only known one person who used a gun effectively in self defense.. my boyfriend when I was sixteen. He took one of his dad's guns out and threatened some guys that were hanging around his car. He actually shot someone once who was breaking into the house when he was home alone as a little kid too. That sort of scarred him for life- but I guess being dead would have been worse. He ended up going into law enforcement and the military. Now guns are his bread and butter.

What is the ratio of homes across America in which people have defended themselves with guns vs. accidentally shot a family member or friend with a gun? It think more people accidentally kill a friend or family member than defend themselves. I honestly don't think guns make anything safer. I think there are alternatives when it comes to self defense.


I haven't seen stats for it, but I agree. Many people think guns will magically solve problems. In the movies and TV, stunt doubles use prop guns in a way that makes it look easy, and the good guys always get the bad guys in one shot.

I suspect a lot of women buy guns because they are tired, or afraid, of becoming victims. They worry about robbery and sexual assault, or they are in an abusive relationship, or they fear for their children's safety.

As you said, we stop crime by fixing the social problems that cause it. Take the Amish as an example. They don't keep guns, even though they have a lot of valuable property worth stealing. But they have strong community ties and look out for each other. The fortress mentality is replaced by a network mentality.


Six in ten is actually two thirds. It's interesting to find out what people think. But what people think and what actually is the case are not always the same thing.

Yeah- it looks like a gun in the home is actually more dangerous than no gun in the home. At least according to this article:


And this op ed based on statistics:

This is a good point:
"Americans already own twice as many guns per person as any other nation. How many more Americans would need to carry weapons in public in order to create a serious criminal deterrent? Five times as many? Ten? Is this even possible, let alone desirable?"


I'm not sure if they are factoring sports rifles, or collectors who own restored or mint-condition guns that will never be fired, but I agree, there are way too many guns in the wrong hands.

If a gun is kept at home just for crime prevention, it has to be secure enough not to be stolen or played with, and yet available enough to be accessed in a few seconds. How many gun owners can figure out an arrangement that meets both needs?

There are plenty of Americans who shouldn't own guns, just as there are many who should not drive cars. As the Boomer population grows older, this is going to apply to more and more people whose eyesight, responses and mental faculties are declining. (Is that a burglar, or my grandson?)

A person who is mentally healthy when he buys or inherits a gun, may later become depressed to the point of suicide. Veterans who suffer from PTSD may still be in possession of their service pieces.

Since the righty to bear arms is written into the U.S. Constitution, the government can't simply round up everyone's firearms. Nor do I think that's a great idea.

I don't think we can count on Washington to be objective about gun violence or the right to bear arms. Politicians may be for or against gun control, but they have the Secret Service looking after them, and in some cases, their loved ones. The President's girls attend school with armed snipers on the roof.

(BTW In response to school shootings, the gun lobby thinks we should train and arm school personnel. If schools go begging for money for maintenance, supplies and activities, where are they going to get the money for firearms training and weaponry?)

What if people used their money to support law enforcement, instead of buying more guns? Remember TV shows like "Adam-12" and "Car 54", where there were two cops in every car? The police are spread so thin now, that I rarely see a cruiser with two officers in it.

To some extent, psychology can be more effective than violence. (Obviously not in the case in which Lunakat's boyfriend was wounded.) Police officers and armed guards carry loaded guns all day long, and practice marksmanship as part of their job. Yet they can go for ten years or more without ever firing their guns.


I, for one would like to see improvements on gun control.

Luna is right if she or he boyfriend had a gun, they would of had to use it or be killed. Not a fun thing to think about either.

Guns at schools. Hell no. All it takes is a lapse of attention and a child has the gun.

Armed guards at school. Hmmm, may think that one over for a bit.

As for the U.S. Constitution. The right to bear arms has more to do with a well armed militia. I don't think the founding fathers were thinking about every nut and their uncle needing to own a firearm. Plus we have a well armed military today and not a militia.

So better gun control would be nice and a true enforcement of the laws that are already on the books. This may help to some degree.

As for us babyboomers. My mother has excellent eye sight and is very capable of handling a firearm. Same as my stepdad, who is part of the silent generation. My eyesight, we ain't going there, because I don't like guns and have had lousy vision since birth.

Even those who hunt have to be careful. A young family friend of ours was hunting with my dad and several family friends. It was deer season here in California, so you know the hunters are out in droves. Well, this particular young man was sitting on a rock, in a visible open area, and clearly marked as a hunter. Another hunter, an older gentleman, that swore up and down he saw a deer; shot this young man with a 30 odd 6. The bullet missed his spine by the merest of a fraction of an inch. My mother got the call at base camp to pack up their heading for Reno. The CHP helicopter took him there for treatment. He survived and has a scar near his spine the size of salad plate.

As you can see all precautions were taken by one person and another in the heat of the hunt threw caution to the wind. Yes this young man sued the shooter and won, but the whole mess could have been avoided if someone took the time to make sure he was really seeing a deer and not seeing someone wearing a hunters' orange vest.

Guns need to be handle with great caution and respect.


Trollbabe said: What if people used their money to support law enforcement, instead of buying more guns? Remember TV shows like "Adam-12" and "Car 54", where there were two cops in every car? The police are spread so thin now, that I rarely see a cruiser with two officers in it.

That's a really good point. There are so many other things money could go toward. Funds could go toward head start programs, drug prevention or rehab programs. Or head start programs. Or intervention programs for at risk kids. Or programs to help people who have been in prison reintegrate into society and find jobs. Etcetera, etc..

G0lden said: As you can see all precautions were taken by one person and another in the heat of the hunt threw caution to the wind

Right- that's why simply saying "But I'm careful" doesn't work. Because someone else might not be- and all it takes is one mistake.

G0lden said: Guns need to be handle with great caution and respect.

That's pretty much the bottom line, I think. People who open carry, who give guns to their kids, who treat guns like a fashion accessory, like cool, collectible items, or like extensions of their egos are just plain stupid. People who say "guns don't kill people" are in denial.

All in all, I think we all agree on most points.


What genius came up with this toy?

If you're going to buy toy weapons for your kids, at least make them look and sound like something other than a gun.

A few years ago, I was late for work because my husband and I were huddled in our car, on the phone to the police. We thought some teens were handling a gun. Turned out they decided to take a paintball game out into the street. We left after the police arrived and broke it up. My husband is a veteran, and yet he was fooled by the paintball gun.


Naturalnews.com reported November 26th that gun sales in Ferguson, Missouri had spiked 700 percent, as nervous citizens armed themselves against rioters and looters. Stuff.co.nz notes that one firearms dealer near Ferguson has seen gun sales increase tenfold.

Guns may not be the answer to ending violence, but a lot of citizens and property owners are betting on it.


That's kinda ironic because the ones creating most property damage in Ferguson are Police and SWAT teams, not rioters and looters.


I also didn't see anything about shooting sprees. It's possible that looters may steal firearms from sporting goods stores and departments, but I don't see anything about rioters using guns, or people shooting off guns randomly.


They did in the LA riots after the Rodney King verdict.


Guns can be used to kill more people quickly, and at a distance. However, I've read many stories about domestic violence, and I see that many assaults and murders are committed with common household objects, such as knives, or with the assailant's bare hands.

Will tighter gun restrictions do much to reduce one-on-one violence, if we don't get to the root cause?


Does one of you own a gun *wondering*
If so, why?


NightAngel said: Does one of you own a gun *wondering*
If so, why?

Not in my household, but other family members own guns that are stored in a gun safe. Those in the family that own them. Target practice, hunting, and collecting, seem to be the main reason. Protection is near the bottom of the list is seems.