Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skell

Did you read that article magprob or just post it based on its title? It said that gin killings are rare. Gun killings in America where everyone has them are far from rare. Our infantile approach of gun control certainly seems to keep the kids in our country safer than those in yours. I'm quite happy to forgo my right to bear arms for that cause.

So let me get it clear. You're saying that if you lose your right to bear arms you become easier for your Government to control? I have heard that train of thinking before. Hard to see the logice in it, but i also find it hard to see the logic in wanting to carry a gun.

I really can't believe that you and others think the answer is for everyone to have guns to protect themselves with. It really is like a John Wayne movie isnt it, pilgrim. :)

So everything would be rosy if at the time someone else on campus with a semi automatic had of got to this lunatic first and shot him dead before he got the other 30 odd? That makes everything ok because "we got the bast@rd good? We shot him down. God Bless the Second Amendment. We saved ourselves and wiped out a nut case in the process. Wow what a days work". What about the other two who were never saved by this good gun wielding citizen that just saved the day. Is it there fault for not having a gun stuck down there trousers while on their way to class just in case they needed to blow someones brains out in the name of self protection?

That is actually a widely held attitude over there isn't it? Thank God we are about as far away as we can get down here. But thats ok, i'm sure most of you guys are glad we are too ;)

---

Because I own handguns and shoot for sport. If people were dying from throwing shrimp on the barbie, would it be right for them to take your barbie? You believe because of the stupid actions of a very few, the majority must suffer. The majority must rule. I've heard this line of thinking before.

Hello again:

The discussion is too broad because it takes in everybody. Allheart with her fryingpan and the magdude with his .22.

I can't decide for you how to keep your family safe. I can only make those decisions for myself. I don't know who would or wouldn't be safer with a gun. I do know that I'd be safer with a gun, and I'm glad I live in a country that allows me to have one (my name notwithstanding).

excon

PS> I know the magdude is going to tell me his gun is bigger than that. Yeah, right...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by magprob

Because I own handguns and shoot for sport. If people were dying from throwing shrimp on the barbie, would it be right for them to take your barbie? You believe because of the stupid actions of a very few, the majority must suffer. The majority must rule. I've heard this line of thinking before.

---

No, but maybe the shrimp :confused:

I don't know what the answer is - but I do not wish to force my view of guns on anyone else, but I sure would feel a whole lot safer knowing guns were not so easily accessible.

Now I ask to learn - so have some patience.

To shoot for sport - Could not someone go and check in to where the shoot - pick up there gun at the site where they shoot - and when they are done - return the gun back where it will be safely locked away until you come back again? Kind of like going to a roller rink and renting skates. Okay, now don't throw any shrimp at me, I am just asking... to learn... K ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Allheart

Now I ask to learn - so have some patience.

---

Hello again:

Patience?? We ain't got no stinkin patience... Just kidding. I have lots of patience for you.

Here's the thing. You ask a very good question. It's a question that's been asked before, but they put drugs in the place of guns.

They asked: If we just made it illegal to sell drugs, that would work, wouldn't it? I say no. What if we put drug dealers in jail for a long time, that would work, wouldn't it? No. If we gave them the death penalty for some drug crimes, that would work, wouldn't it? No.

It SHOULD work - it really should. In fact, to some, they don't understand WHY it doesn't work. They think, well if we REALLY cracked down...

If we made guns illegal, it should work. It really should. And, in an ideal world, it would. But in the real world, it doesn't. Our lawmakers should pay attention to the way the world IS, not the way they would like it to be. You know, the Emperor and his clothes and all that stuff.

excon

My family is one of hunters. We own land in northern Wisconsin and Upper Michigan. I learned how to shoot a rifle and care for it when I was about 12 years old from my dad. I also learned a LOT of rules from my dad about how to handle a weapon, and what it should and should not be used for. I think every kid in my family goes through it.

How would they possibly check in and out weapons for hunting? And with whom? THOUSANDS of people go deer hunting up here in November... can you imagine the DNR trying to hand out guns and hunting licenses?

Plus... some of those guns have been in my family for 4-5 generations. My dad goes hunting with a muzzle-loader (in season, of course, and with a license).

Once again, it comes back to responsibility. If people taught their kids respect for others lives, and for the lives of animals, and for the law, would we really have this problem?

The problem is not guns. The problem is people. Since there are some people who use guns for the wrong reasons, and we can't get rid of all the people, the logic becomes "let's get rid of all of the guns" To me, that's as silly as saying "people are stabbed every day! Let's get rid of knives!" or "fire kills people AND destroys property! Let's get rid of fire!" or "People who use automobiles in a harmful way (like drinking and driving) kill many innocent people every year! Let's get rid of cars!"

Making guns illegal will put the guns only in the hands of criminals. Plus, it will make me a criminal, because I'll be damned if I'm giving mine up. I want to be able to fight with something other than sticks and stones when we have to overthrow our government.

Allheart, I'm not mocking you, honey. I'm trying to show you that checking guns in and out just wouldn't work.

excon *** thanks***

And it really does make sense the way you spell it out. Deal with the world the way it is... not the way we would like it to be.

Thanks again excon - pretty good for NOT drinking the koolaid :)

It really does make sense though - the way you spelled it out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by magprob

to kill our right to bare arms.

---

I don't know ANYONE who is trying to kill our right to "bare arms". I wear shortsleeve shirts all the time, I see plenty of men and women in short or sleeveless tops. No one complains or protests. :D

The vast majority of gun control advocates are NOT about inhibiting the (alleged) right to "bear arms". They, like me, just want to limit the ability to obtain arms. That the VT shooter was able to just walk into a store and walk out with a handgun is ridiculous and unconscionable. If the gun lobby would work towards reasonable controls that might help prevent a situation like this rather then trying to stop ANY attempt at reasonable controls, they would be doing the country a service and helping to preserve the rights they hold so dear.

Like I said before, I have a gun in my home. I really don't even think about it though. But, when I first got married, I had never lived on my own and my husband traveled a lot. So I was left alone in a new city. The fact that it was there - in it's case - beside my bed - some how made me feel safer. Now our gun and ammo are in two different cases and I can never remember if the red dot on the safety means Fire or Stop.

I think it is a personal choice. Could I actually shoot someone? I don't know. If they were heading toward my daughter's room - probably. If they were beating my husband - probably. And this is assuming that I would be cool and calm under this crazy circumstance.

For me and my family - I am glad I have the choice to have a gun. If guns aren't for you - then you have the choice not to have one.

They were saying on a show today that in VA you can only buy one gun a month. How many are to many? I mean - if you are a collector.. Or an average joe. How many is to many?
My house only needs one. But that is me.

Man, there really are some deep, intelligent people here! I guess all I am saying is don't punish me because of some poor mentally disturbed soul that went off and killed 32 people. Don't group me or profile me in with that! Don't punish the auto industry because more people die in car crashes than gun shots. In the human condition, there are no easy answers. When more good guys than bad guys have guns, the good guys usually win. That's just they way the world works. excon hit it right on, the way the world is, not the way someone wishes it to be.

At gun ranges, you can use the guns they have there. Check one out - use it then check it back in when you are done.
Hunters is a whole other story. And there are hunters that actually eat what they kill. Some don't even go to the market to buy meat. They ONLY eat what they kill. What impact would it have on them if you were to take their guns away.
Bow season would be busy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ScottGem

I don't know ANYONE who is trying to kill our right to "bare arms". I wear shortsleeve shirts all the time, I see plenty of men and women in short or sleeveless tops. No one complains or protests. :D

The vast majority of gun control advocates are NOT about inhibiting the (alleged) right to "bear arms". They, like me, just want to limit the ability to obtain arms. That the VT shooter was able to just walk into a store and walk out with a handgun is ridiculous and unconscionable. If the gun lobby would work towards reasonable controls that might help prevent a situation like this rather then trying to stop ANY attempt at reasonable controls, they would be doing the country a service and helping to preserve the rights they hold so dear.

---

So, would the gun shop owner do a psychological test on person wanting to buy a gun? Will psychologist be the only ones allowed to sell guns? Or is it really just the best place to kill the right to bear arms, cut it off at the source?
BTW, I don't care what you bare, I just want you to know that naked clowns really, really scare me! :eek: :D

Hello again:

For what it's worth, the newly elected DEMOCRATIC senator from that very state, Va, who is very ANTIWAR, who has a son in Iraq, packs a very large gun. He got busted with it at the capitol (at least his aid did).

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by magprob

So, would the gun shop owner do a psychological test on person wanting to buy a gun? Will psychologist be the only ones allowed to sell guns? Or is it really just the best place to kill the right to bear arms, cut it off at the source?

---

See that illustrates my point. You try to turn reasonable controls into an attempt to take away your rights.

Lets try this scenario. The kid walks into a store and fills out an application to purchase a gun. The store owner tells him to come back in 2 weeks. He then posts the application to a database. Now the school counselor was told by the shooter's English teacher that he needs counseling. The counselor institutes a tickler file that finds out he has applied for a handgun purchase. This sets off red flags and the kid is brought in for some heavy counseling. Maybe that counseling helps and the kid learns to channel his anger and he's alive today along with 31 other people.

But if his application doesn't set off any alarms, he comes back in 2 weeks and walks out with his handgun.

So the legitimate gun buyer can still get his weapon fix, but maybe (I think probably) the tragedy is avoided. This is what I mean by REASONABLE controls. But you don't want that. You see ANY attempt at reasonable controls an attack on your rights, rather than the protection of other people's rights that it truly is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Synnen

I want to be able to fight with something other than sticks and stones when we have to overthrow our government.

---

There may be some persuasive reasons for allowing guns to be widely available, but the ability to overthrow the Government is definitely not one of them. Synn honey, if you think that citizens with handguns, rifles, and shotguns are going to prevail against the military in all its gory (not a misspelling), you need to rethink your revolutionary strategy.

If there were to be added regulations to gun laws - what would you find acceptable?
I mean, after 9/11 - the security at airports has really gotten intense. Rightfully so. I don't mind waiting in the long lines, taking my shoes off and showing my ticket and i.d. a hundred times. If it means I am going to arrive to my destination safely - without the harm of a bomb or terrorist. So, if we are inconvienced a little with a waiting period, background check, etc. Wouldn't it be worth it? If our intentions are honorable? The government knows pretty much everything about every one of us - why not have a system that could check for mental instabilty?
Most of the time - those making the news like this - aren't the ones who have owned guns for years - they just picked theirs up recently.
Personally, I don't mind a little inconvience if it means that I will be safer and my family will be safer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by magprob

Because I own handguns and shoot for sport. If people were dying from throwing shrimp on the barbie, would it be right for them to take your barbie? You believe because of the stupid actions of a very few, the majority must suffer. The majority must rule. I've heard this line of thinking before.

---

I haven't the slightest problem with you owning guns for sport. In fact I think that is great. Any type of sport is great. Shooting is actually quite a sport down here. But I think owning a gun for sport and owning a gun for protection are two entirely different things. Unless your gun sport is picking off the neighbors kids when they get a bit too noisy playing BBQ. Why can't you keep your gun at the location where you carry out the sport? Why do you need it in your pocket or under your pillow?

We don't eat shrimp in Australia Mag. We call them prawns. That was just a sickening advertising campaign aimed at getting more of you guys to come here for holidays. It worked too!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skell

I haven't the slightest problem with you owning hand guns for sport. In fact i think that is great. Any type of sport is great. Shooting is actually quite a sport down here. But i think owning a gun for sport and owning a gun for protection are two entirely different things. Unless your gun sport is picking off the neighbors kids when they get a bit too noisy playing BBQ. Why can't you keep your gun at the location where you carry out the sport? Why do you need it in your pocket or under your pillow?

We don't eat shrimp in Australia Mag. We call them prawns. That was just a sickening advertising campaign aimed at getting more of you guys to come here for holidays. It worked too!!!

---

Skell - I agree 100%. Why do people need it under the pillow?

And what the heck is a prawn?? :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Allheart

No, but maybe the shrimp :confused:

I don't know what the answer is - but I do not wish to force my view of guns on anyone else, but I sure would feel a whole lot safer knowing guns were not so easily accessible.

Now I ask to learn - so have some patience.

To shoot for sport - Could not someone go and check in to where the shoot - pick up there gun at the site where they shoot - and when they are done - return the gun back where it will be safely locked away until you come back again? Kinda like going to a roller rink and renting skates. Okay, now don't throw any shrimp at me, I am just asking....to learn....K ?

---

Yes they can Allheart. At least down here they can.

Sport shooting and self protection are two completely different issues.

Skell - Do some use it for self protection in Australia?