It really does not matter if they check them or not where the program is “no questions asked”. They might find out a gun was used in a crime but would have no idea who turned it in.

Jeremy says: A person is not defenseless if they do not have a gun. Martial Arts, Tazers and Pepper spray while not quite as powerful or lethal are still capable forms of self defense.

That would be fine, Jeremy, if the psychopaths that are trying to take your life are using similar weaponry. But tell me, how will pepper-spray or a taser fare against a shot-gun, or an assault-rifle? Martial arts? Rather difficult to perform, with a whole in your chest! Why risk your life? Put the bastard down!

Jeremy says: One does not have to kill the person attacking in order to survive.

Agreed! That’s why target practice is so important. You can wound the sob…!

How naive! OK, I’ll take the gun. You get the pepper spray, tazer and martial arts. BANG!!! Youre dead!!!

Good one Nancy, I’m on your side!!!

Jeremy:

You are right – you don’t have to kill them. BUT … most people aren’t calm and collected when someone is trying to kill them. You want something that works fast and once they go down they stay down, preferably forever. You don’t want to risk missing or him getting back up. And someone with a weapon ALWAYS is in a better position than someone using martial arts – despite what martial arts instructors might tell you. Less than 10% of the public can think in such a case.

As I was told in the Army, you use martial arts ONLY if you don’t have a knife or gun – and you quit using it the moment you do have a weapon. A taser won’t put down everyone and pepper spray is useless if you use it on someone familiar with it. So is tear gas. But a gun will take down everyone.

I’ve been in cases like this. I’m one of the few who tend to remain calm and thinking. And I still want a gun if someone is coming at me. Particularly if he has a gun himself.

Jay:

NEVER try to wound an attacker! Wounds sometimes don’t stop people. You shoot at the widest place to “stop” them. Wounding or killing doesn’t matter since you want to STOP the attacker – preferably before he reaches you. Even experts will tell you that. I’ve recently heard of people being shot as many as 11 times who don’t die – and many of them can still fight back.

Life, psychopaths and violence cannot be predicted. All we can do is live our lives as best we can and hope that should a situation arise where violence is necessary that we can survive. I believe that for your average jon and jane q just going up their everyday lives that self defense, pepper spray and tazers are good enough. I believe the mindset inspired by self defense is better then that inspired by carrying a gun. I am trying to provide alternatives to guns. And I genuinely believe that it is a good idea to focus on preventing violence or rather preventing situations from arising where violence becomes unavoidable and necessary. I believe carrying a gun only encourages such situations. I believe marital arts creates a better mindset for avoiding violent situations and not having to resort to violence. I will try to be reasonable. If a person lives in an area where violent crime is common or if you are a person who has been the victim of a violent crime I can certainly understand the desire to carry a gun. And in that case go right ahead. But for people living in areas where violent crime is not common I believe guns are not necessary. A person can have a gun in their home as a form of protection, I will accept that. I just do not believe one has to carry it around with them. All I am saying is I believe a gun is not the only form of self defense. I believe there are alternatives. I always support the idea of encouraging people to give up guns. My thought is instead of offering them shoes offer them self defense classes which I believe allows them to still have protection and gives them what I believe is peace of mind.

I stand corrected, 45!

Jeremy Leochner says:
“Life, psychopaths and violence cannot be predicted.”

“I believe that for your average jon and jane q just going up their everyday lives that self defense, pepper spray and tazers are good enough.”

You are welcome to your beliefs. You are NOT welcome to force them on US.

“I believe the mindset inspired by self defense is better then that inspired by carrying a gun.”

You do realize that carrying a gun IS inspired by self defense don’t you?

“I am trying to provide alternatives to guns.”

If you really were you would stop trying to take guns away from us.

Jeremy Leochner says: “And I genuinely believe that it is a good idea to focus on preventing violence or rather preventing situations from arising where violence becomes unavoidable and necessary.”

I agree. Hence the recommendation that you take a really good self defense course at frontsight (.) com Part of their training includes how to spot a problem and move away from it.

Jeremy Leochner: “I believe carrying a gun only encourages such situations. I believe marital arts creates a better mindset for avoiding violent situations and not having to resort to violence.”

You do realize that martial arts INCLUDE proper use of tools including projectile types.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martial_arts

Jeremy Leochner says: “I will try to be reasonable. If a person lives in an area where violent crime is common or if you are a person who has been the victim of a violent crime I can certainly understand the desire to carry a gun. And in that case go right ahead. But for people living in areas where violent crime is not common I believe guns are not necessary.”

You don’t have to be reasonable when it comes to your belief. Where we draw the line is when you try to use government to force your belief that we don’t need to defend ourselves using the best tools for the job.

How do we know they are far better than your MA Mojo? Cause people who are really facing death a lot choose firearms for defense 10 times out of 10. (U.S. Military)

Vicki

1: “I believe that for your average jon and jane q just going up their everyday lives that self defense, pepper spray and tazers are good enough.”-I assure you this is my personal belief but it is not my belief on policy. People have a right to carry a weapon. Though I might disagree I would never support them not having a right to do so.

2: I apologize I did not clarify myself. I meant that self defense classes or martial arts provides a better mindset then guns.

3: I support no law confiscating guns.

4: Yes self defense training teaches use of projectile weapons but its primary teaching is that these weapons are only to be used in cases of dire need. Self defense teaches people ways to fight without fighting.

5: Again I want to reiterate. My personal choice of self defense does not carry over to my views on policies. I believe people have a right to choose their own form of self defense whatever my personal views. Where I draw the line is where I believe their choice of self defense threatens me and my friends and family. People have a right to defend themselves as they wish. However if I believe it is putting my family or myself at risk I will oppose it both personally and politically. That aside I accept other peoples personal choices even if I disagree with them. My problem is I am a stubborn man who thinks he is right and wants to convince others to believe what I believe. I apologize if I go to far.

Jeremy Leochner writes:
“Where I draw the line is where I believe their choice of self defense threatens me and my friends and family. People have a right to defend themselves as they wish. However if I believe it is putting my family or myself at risk I will oppose it both personally and politically. ”

And when we draw the line because we believe (with actual proof of clear and present danger) that your successful political opposition threatens OUR friends and family how say you?

Jeremy Leochner: “That aside I accept other peoples personal choices even if I disagree with them.”

But only if you don’t FEEL like their choices threaten you and your friends and family.

Jeremy Leochner: “My problem is I am a stubborn man who thinks he is right and wants to convince others to believe what I believe. I apologize if I go to far.”

As long as you only try to persuade them that you are right we have no problem and will support your first amendment right to talk to them and associate with them.

You go to far when you use the power of government to force your belief on them.

Thank you for the clarification btw.

Vicki.

1: If what I support genuinely threatens you and your family then we need to discuss it. I do not want to place anyone in danger. I will try and reconcile my views with your safety.

2: Perhaps feel is not the right word. I am not always right. But if I believe that my family is in danger I believe I am justified in trying to do something. If I am wrong then I hope I can be convinced of that.

3: Thank you for respecting my rights. I will respect yours. I will do my best to ensure I do not support something that violates the rights of others. At times I may be wrong. If I am I hope I can be convinced of that fact.

4: Your welcome.

Jeremy Leochner says:
“1: If what I support genuinely threatens you and your family then we need to discuss it. I do not want to place anyone in danger. I will try and reconcile my views with your safety.”

Ok. Do you support gun-free zones such as those around schools (required by law), Churches, movie theaters (required by the property owner) and the like?

person who is willing to needlessly attack another is a total monster; i am not taking chances by pepper spraying or being beaten–i will protect my family and stop the intruder with my gun. these sorry excuses for humans just cost monetarily/emotionally and are eventually released into society to repeat their offenses. people with your beliefs are VICTIMS. you have no guarantee that you will disable a creep in that manner.

Vicki.

Yes I do. In regards to theaters I am willing to compromise. However schools and churches I am against. In regards to schools guns are not good to have around. The problem is we teach children not to solve their problems with guns. Whether they know about it or not if we bring guns into school we are hypocrites. And I am certain that that rubes off. Kids may be kids but they are no fools. If a child discovers that the adults are carrying or keep guns on campus why should they believe guns are not the answer. And how can we expect teachers and counselors to deal with potentially threatening students if the teachers and counselors are of the mind they need guns to protect themselves. With schools they need to deal with the problem before it comes to a shooting. I believe stocking up on weapons only increases the risk. Because how can we teach children not to rely on guns when we ourselves are relying on guns. As to churches I just cannot see the point of carrying a gun. I have heard of cases where shootings have taken place in churches so I should compromise. I still think that a person does not need to carry a gun in a church but I guess its okay. Where I stand firm though is the school.

Jeremy Leochner says:
“Yes I do ” (support gun-free zones).

Based on the clear and present examples of killers hunting specifically in gun-free zones how do you justify placing all those law abiding people in direct danger?

Jeremy Leochner: “In regards to theaters I am willing to compromise. However schools and churches I am against.”

What is so special about a theater that you would be willing to “compromise?

Jeremy Leochner: “The problem is we teach children not to solve their problems with guns. Whether they know about it or not if we bring guns into school we are hypocrites.”

Not even close. By having guns there and NOT using them to solve “problems” for which guns are not the proper tool we teach children self-discipline by direct example. The antithesis of hypocrisy. And should the time come when the gun IS the proper solution we will be able to teach, by example, that as well.

Jeremy Leochner: “And I am certain that that rubes off. Kids may be kids but they are no fools. If a child discovers that the adults are carrying or keep guns on campus why should they believe guns are not the answer.”

Because kids are NOT fools and see that the adults do not shoot each other over trivial disagreements.

Jeremy Leochner: “And how can we expect teachers and counselors to deal with potentially threatening students if the teachers and counselors are of the mind they need guns to protect themselves.”

??? First the teachers and counselors need guns to protect the CHILDREN. 2nd why would the children feel threatened?

Jeremy Leochner: “I believe stocking up on weapons only increases the risk. Because how can we teach children not to rely on guns when we ourselves are relying on guns.”

As I have said before you are welcome to your belief. You are NOT welcome to force that belief on others. We WANT to teach children to rely on guns because we ourselves ARE relying on guns all the time. Or do you support removing guns from police?

Jeremy Leochner: “As to churches I just cannot see the point of carrying a gun. I have heard of cases where shootings have taken place in churches so I should compromise.”

Yes you have as I have given you links to at least 1 example.

Jeremy Leochner: “I still think that a person does not need to carry a gun in a church but I guess its okay. Where I stand firm though is the school.”

Ok Good now lets eliminate all other gun-free zones then we can hash out a compromise on schools.

Oh and here some school examples:
http://www.davekopel.com/2a/othwr/principal&gun.htm
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/1/25/153427.shtml
http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/people-stop-killers-people-guns-article-1.211272

I read about one gun buy back program where a dealer took in some junk guns he had accumlated and got a nice price for what amounted to pieces of scrap metal.

I will trade anyone some shoes for a gun……but dont be surprised if I end up with the shoes too,afterward……haw!
-CC.

Good one, CC!

Where was that said? Hmmm!

In the comments sections of various “2nd Amendment Under Fire” stories right here on PLD. Look at the bottom of this page to a link to the 30+ stories. Then choose any to start your research.

Even you have implied that if not said it outright eddie.

Wrong CZ52.

Ah but I am not wrong eddie you have said in the past that you would not be comfortable and would feel unsafe knowing someone in close proximity to you was armed.

cc:

You arent’ looking at it correctly. We have the absolute best legal system ever developed to deal with criminals – from a lawyer’s point of view.

A criminal commits a crime. In 90%+ cases they are arrested that week. The lawyer gets hired. It takes about 2 years for the trial, so the lawyer gets a steady income for the two years whether the criminal pays it or some judge appoints the lawyer to handle it at taxpayer expense. The guy goes to jail – and gets out again to start the whole cycle over again since jail isn’t something to worry most criminals. It doesn’t matter who the criminal harms or what he might steal – the lawyers get paid. If the criminal does get a serious sentence, the lawyer can continue to make money by appealing it. The only thing that worries the lawyer is some victim or cop shooting the criminal. Then they have to find another “client” to replace their lost income.

Not everyone WANTS to go around killing INNOCENT people!!! The wars our government gets us into have NOTHING to do with defending our country! They are about money and control!!! I think it would be very difficult to bomb innocent children because their leaders don’t want to use petrodollars!

Dear Grady,

Thanks but no thanks, if you understand what the game is as well how its played than the choice is really quite clear.

“You serve and you carry.” There is No other Choice.
Your only equal when you have equal measure, thus you also all have equal Freedom’s at that point.

Thats the only way in a world of pure EVIL can you ever hope to have FREEDOM. “Odd how that works,” but it dose!

Peace and Love

TIME, you’ve got a warped view of freedom!!! Look up he definition!!!

Time:

There are only two ways to have freedom. You take it all yourself and make the rest slaves (a tyrant) or you give everyone the same freedom you have as long as they let you have the same freedom. You don’t have to be evil to get it. The problem is that we see more real freedom in the hands of the tyrants (evil) than we do in the people (good) because too many otherwise good people are too scared of other good people having the EVIL guns! That’s why the libs are so afraid of allowing gun safety to be taught in schools. It might convince some kids that guns aren’t really as bad as the people using them. And, to a lib, guns are evil – not the people using them.

Dear Nancy.

Thanks for your input. Words I am quite clear on the meanings of. Saddly its words that have gotten this nation in the bloody mess its in due to fact most people don’t understanding what word values really are.

If anyone wants TRUE FREEDOM, saddly you will have to first break down the walls that confine you, AKA the prison walls both mental and physical { all Americans are in a Prison} – rather anyone likes it or not thats the sad truth of the matter.
If folks think they are FREE here in America, { thats warped!} American’s are in such a tight control grid its beyond words.

Saddly guns and traning with said guns make people equal,
{you know how to defend yourself – I know what you know,} thus we become equal.
{If you have the same gun I have, then again we become equal.}
Logic presents only one case to defend said Freedom,
YOU must be equal in what you know and its application.

Thats not warped – thats just pure logic.

As noted; Switzerland has a very low craime rate. Also no nation really wants to tangle with them either, why?
I coved that; everyone must serve their nation and learn how to use guns and understand tactic’s of selfdefence to insure their lasting FREEDOM.
They don’t have to carry, but then again the size of Switzerland and our nation it becomes quite self explanatory as to why I noted everyone should carry here.

By the way the Swiss have REAL FREEDOMS in comparison to any other nation in the “”alledged FREE world.”"
Thats a fact. Again Why? Trained Forces that understand what must be done to insure their FREEDOM at all cost.

To be quite frank, I don’t like guns and I sure don’t like the idea of killing anyone. But I also understand that sometimes crap happens.

Slaves are slaves due to lacking of Equal Force. Again, PURE LOGIC.

Again thanks for your post.

Peace and Love

Dear 45,

I am a “TRUE LIBERAL” Thus I am as far from any form of a {NEO QUASI FASCIST liberal} that people now equate to being a TURE Liberal.

Just as many “Conservatives” today are not TRUE to the nature of the word. These people also have a title, they are called “NEOCNS” and they are just as much FASCIST as the Neo Quasi Liberals.

Would I be happy to see all guns melted and made in to plows, thats a great question.
So my answer is this, as long as “MAN” is ruling over other men, NO!

If per chance the “TRUE Christ” were ruling over us, then YES, I would indeed be happy to see all guns melted to make plows.
But my friend, its not TIME for our Beloved Father’s SON to come back to us yet.

Thus we are in a world run by “PURE EVIL” – I don’t say that lightly either. As its really quite obvious the Laws of our Beloved Father are not followed even by many who claim they are of the cloth.

So I stand by the fact that every persons should serve their nation for at least 5 years. As well always be on call for their nations defence to insure its FREEDOM.
Also that all persons should carry at all times.

As I noted to Nancy I don’t even like guns nor the idea of killing anyone. I do admit I have a Beretta 92 FS, and I do shoot it at the range weekly, I admit its a well crafted beautiful piece of art work.

Will I use it if need be, yes, and I am quite sure that it will scar me forever if I have to – but I will not let anyone hurt my family, nor would you from many of your post I have seen.
As I noted in my reply to Nancy, we are not FREE its all an illusion.

Peace and Love

TIME, it works for Switzerland because they are only concerned with defending themselves. They don’t attempt to be the world’s police force. They don’t try to force every other country to bend to their will. I don’t think that anyone would object to DEFENDING our country if we came under attack. But when WE are the ones doing the attacking, I don’t know. I just haven’t got the stomach for it!

And, how would they support themselves during this two year period? Who foots the bill?

eddie47d, we ARE a nation awash with guns, which is EXACTLY WHY WE HAVE NEVER HAD AN ENEMY ATTACK ON OUR SOIL!!!

“We are still the leading nation in the world in murder/death with the use of weapons”.

eddy, won’t you EVER learn? The USA is not even in the top 10 nations in gun related deaths per ca pita but have the MOST guns per 100 citizens than ANY nation on earth!

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

If guns were the problem the USA would have the MOST gun related deaths because we have the MOST guns……. but that’s not so!

Eddie47d writes:
“Most of you never comprehend the fact that we are a nation awash in guns.” Ah but we DO know that. We point it out every time a liberal whines about 20,000 gun deaths. Guns don’t kill people. People kill people. Yet with the US “awash” in guns there are ONLY 20,000 “gun” deaths.

Guess that destroys the liberal argument that guns are only meant to kill. Either that or there are a LOT of defective guns.

Vicki:

What a lot of libs also never mention is that most of those gun deaths are of criminals shooting each other or victims or cops shooting criminals. For some reason I fail to feel sorry for those people. And I don’t believe their “argument” that if the criminals didn’t have guns they would be very hard workers and the kind of people you would want to live next door to you.

Only 20,000 and that is suppose to be a source of pride for you Vickie! Compared to what other industrial nation or should I say civilized nation. Your pro gun attitude is wicked to say the least.

eddie get real! How many folks die in automobile accidents each year? 30,000 to 40,000? How many people die from a drug overdose each year? 100,000? How many patients are inadvertently killed by their physicians each year? 250,000? How many unborn babies are aborted each year? 750,000?

UNDERSTAND THIS eddie, the biggest percentage of people who die from gunshots are CRIMINALS!!! Get it? How many “criminals” die in auto wrecks? From overdoses? In the hands of their doctor? At abortion clinics? I would say VERY FEW!

Here’s an idea eddie, why don’t you focus your efforts on banning automobiles, drugs, doctors and abortion clinics? That’s where the REAL problem is!!!

eddie47d says:
“Only 20,000 and that is suppose to be a source of pride for you Vickie! Compared to what other industrial nation or should I say civilized nation. Your pro gun attitude is wicked to say the least.”

Of course it is a source of pride that the US, which is awash in guns according to liberals, still manages to have a low murder rate (even including people pushed out of windows).

http://www.photius.com/rankings/murder_rate_of_countries_2000-2004.html

notice the list puts US at 78 (worst 121 but there are more than 35 countries that could not be rated due to poor or no data.)

Now looking at that list we find that there are a lot of other industrial nations that have a lower murder rate. They also are known for not being particularly open to immigrants.

And I bet Egypt and Syria might be in a totally different category if the stats were from recent years instead of before the Arab spring.

Yes HH there are car deaths and we have laws that try and keep those deaths to a minimum. Yes we have drug deaths and we try and educate the population on the dangers of those drugs. Hospitals don’t want unnecessary deaths by drugs or by doctors but they happen. Most hospitals try and prevent such incidences. The same with owning a weapon where apparently some don’t want any laws governing their availability and ease of causing multiple deaths. I don’t want an auto death anymore than I want a gun death.Car safety and ownership are important and there are laws to govern that ownership. The same should be with any weapon.

“Car safety and ownership are important and there are laws to govern that ownership. The same should be with any weapon.”

There are more than enough laws on the books governing weapon ownership and use. I have seen the number used of 200,000+ laws nationwide concerning firearms alone (includes, I believe federal, state, county, and city). The various police agencies cannot enforce the existing laws so why would any new ones accomplish anything.

Since a number of these programs are “no-questions asked” some of the people turning in guns are neither fools nor sorry. What better way to get rid of the evidence.

Vicki, Evidence or stolen property. Some turn in inoperatable junk and get something for it.(the streets are safer now)

JimH says:
“Vicki, Evidence or stolen property.”

That would be the same thing would it not? At least that is why some guns are confiscated from legal owners. To be used as “evidence” in an investigation.

Hi, Vicki, Stolen property would be evidence. So would a gun that was used in a crime, but not stolen.
It’s splitting hairs but what’s important is what you point out about the no questions asked.
It’s an important point you make.

JimH. Thanks for the clarification

They are trying to convince you to trade something made in America for something made in China……and for some….that will work!
-CC.

huntman, correct but do you mean the 92F(S). The military version is called the Beretta M9.

Jeremy, how would they know if I had a gun in my home or not so why would they be afraid? if it is concealed on my hip how would they know and again why would they be afraid? guns are as inanimate as a baseball bat or a knife or a car but all of them can kill you just as fast and just as dead. Guns are a tool which allow peopel to be on an equal playing field and protect themselves. the only ones that need to be afraid are the criminals that mean harm to lawabiding citizens.

Jeremy, you need to get together with Karolyn! The two of you can put your faith in hope and love away ALL the evil! Because that really works!!!

Jeremy says: But I would much prefer to put my faith in hope rather then fear. Hope sometimes fails but fear never succeeds at all.

Nice speech, Jeremy. A speech, btw, fit for a dictator! Tell you what, you put your faith in hope, and i’ll put my faith in my understanding of human nature. Have you been watching the news as of late? Rather than trying to disarm the American populace, we should be sending truck loads of pepper-spray and taser’s to Syria! Oh, i almost forgot, and a generous supply of hope! What a looney tune!

Rick I am talking about people who carry guns or who keep them in their homes. I believe that carrying a gun is centered on fear of ones fellow man. My worry is carrying a gun only encourages that fear. I believe it is better to lower the fear and build up reason. Help someone before they become a criminal, help someone before they go on a shooting rampage. And for the sake of argument spot a danger before it becomes a threat. I believe that the mindset encouraged by always caring a gun is not conducive to seeing a threat before it becomes a danger. It just encourages fear of all. I believe fearing your fellow man is not a healthy way to live life.

And from the sound of your post Jeremy you have no clue what you’re talking about. I don’t carry my gun from fear of my fellow man and I don’t know anyone who carry’s because of fear. I carry my gun for the “just in case” scenario, not in fear!

Hope is better than fear. Violence happens but it is the exception rather then the rule. There is evil in this world as there always will be. But dealing with evil by indulging in evil is not the way. Some would say fight fire with fire. I have always thought fighting fire with water seemed adequate.

Jeremy says: But dealing with evil by indulging in evil is not the way.

Self defence is not indulging in evil, nor is it evil, Jeremy. I think you’re confused!

Jeremy says: Some would say fight fire with fire.

Self defence, and someone trying to take your life are not one and the same, Jeremy. Again, you’re confused!

Jeremy says: I have always thought fighting fire with water seemed adequate.

What are you saying, you would use a water-gun against an attacker armed with a gun?

Sorry Jay. I am waxing philosophical and I apologize.

First: I believe self defense is not evil. My issue is I believe that self defense based on carrying a gun encourages rather then discourages violence. I believe it encourages fear of other human beings and I disagree with that.

Second: My use of fire against fire and water against fire was me waxing philosophical. I was talking in a sense of how one views the world. This is my point. Some would say there are violent people in the world and that we need to arm ourselves in order to protect ourselves. That there are psychopaths and we must be at the ready in case they come. Basically there are armed thugs out there so we must arm ourselves. I consider such ideas to be little better then fighting fire with fire. Because I believe that it is like fighting hate with hate or at least hate with fear. Violent criminals and psychopaths cause great evil in this world. But I believe responding to them with fear and hate as I believe guns are is not the way. Hence my idea of water against fire. I believe that the way to respond to the evils of the world is to try and avoid or prevent situations where violence becomes necessary. If I or my loved ones are being attacked then violence is probably inevitable in order to survive or protect the ones I love. My thought is to try and avoid or prevent such a situation from arising in the first place and should it arise to try and find a non violent way out. I guess my point is I believe violence is only necessary when it is necessary. We cannot know when that precise moment is. We can only act as we feel is right. My thought is self defense classes create a better opportunity to avoid violent situations then carrying a gun. I consider carrying a gun to be fighting fire with fire. I consider self defense classes to be fighting fire with water.

Jeremy says:First: I believe self defense is not evil. My issue is I believe that self defense based on carrying a gun encourages rather then discourages violence. I believe it encourages fear of other human beings and I disagree with that.

I disagree with your assertion that, carrying a gun encourages violence. If indeed that were true, than we would have a much higher incidence of gun violence. As it stands, approximately 25,000 deaths per year, due to the use of guns. The majority of which, are due to criminal activity, suicides, and accidents. There are approximately 43-55 million households that have at least one gun. The estimates for the number of privately owned guns range from 190 million to 300 million. Remove those that skew the stats for their own purposes the best estimates are about 45% or 52 million of American households owning 260 million guns. Now, compare the number of death per year as the result of guns, subtracting the number of deaths by guns due to criminal activity, which is the majority(roughly about 17,000) subtracting the number of suicides by guns(roughly 1,500), subtracting the number of deaths by guns due to accidents(roughly about 600), and the rest, police officers shooting criminals in the line of duty, and it quickly becomes clear that there are literary millions of responsible gun-owners who do not fit your stereo-type of gun-owners, and who prove your assertion, “carrying or owning a gun encourages violence”, WRONG!

Jeremy says: Second: My use of fire against fire and water against fire was me waxing philosophical.

Yes, i know. But that still doesn’t excuse you from trying to confuse the issue, whether knowingly or not.

Jeremy says: I was talking in a sense of how one views the world. This is my point. Some would say there are violent people in the world and that we need to arm ourselves in order to protect ourselves. That there are psychopaths and we must be at the ready in case they come. Basically there are armed thugs out there so we must arm ourselves. I consider such ideas to be little better then fighting fire with fire. Because I believe that it is like fighting hate with hate or at least hate with fear.
Violent criminals and psychopaths cause great evil in this world. But I believe responding to them with fear and hate as I believe guns are is not the way. Hence my idea of water against fire. I believe that the way to respond to the evils of the world is to try and avoid or prevent situations where violence becomes necessary. If I or my loved ones are being attacked then violence is probably inevitable in order to survive or protect the ones I love. My thought is to try and avoid or prevent such a situation from arising in the first place and should it arise to try and find a non violent way out. I guess my point is I believe violence is only necessary when it is necessary. We cannot know when that precise moment is. We can only act as we feel is right. My thought is self defense classes create a better opportunity to avoid violent situations then carrying a gun. I consider carrying a gun to be fighting fire with fire. I consider self defense classes to be fighting fire with water.

Well of course, Jeremy, one should not look for violence, nor encourage it. But the reality is, that sh*t happens, and although i will do my best to play like Gandhi, when the shtf, i’ll exchange the Gandhi fortune-cookie philosophy for my 9mm toots sweet; thank you very much!

Jay

1: I can respect that. My problem is how do we require and encourage responsible ownership. How do we make sure that when people purchase or own guns that they will be responsible and not just go off half cocked at the first sign of danger. I guess my desire is if people feel the need to have a gun I would appreciate it if they also took self defense classes or any other form of teaching that encourages people to have a ready and set yet calm and collected state of mind. Be ready to deal with a violent situation. But also have the ability to deal with a bad situation before it becomes violent. Simply owning and knowing how to use a gun does not give you the ability to diffuse a situation.

2: I apologize. It was not my intention to cause confusion. I will try to be more direct in my posts.

3: Gandhi was a tricky one. He did not want people to follow his ideals when it was convenient for them. Yet he also said ” I do believe that, where there is only a choice between cowardice and violence, I would advise violence… I would rather have India
resort to arms in order to defend her honour than that she should, in a cowardly manner, become or remain a helpless witness to her own dishonor.

But I believe that nonviolence is infinitely superior to violence, forgiveness is more manly than punishment. Forgiveness adorns a soldier…But abstinence is forgiveness only when there is the power to punish; it is meaningless when it pretends to proceed from a helpless creature….

But I do not believe India to be helpless….I do not believe myself to be a helpless creature….Strength does not come from physical capacity. It comes from an indomitable will.

We do want to drive out the best in the man, but we do not want on that account to emasculate him. And in the process of finding his own status, the beast in him is bound now and again to put up his ugly appearance.

The world is not entirely governed by logic. Life itself involves some kind of violence and we have to choose the path of least violence.”

My desire is to find the path to least violence. My thought is self defense classes or at least guns with self defense classes are the best paths to take.

VERY SHARP INDEED . YOU ARE RIGHT

Because police are constantly dealing with armed thugs who are shooting at them. Certainly more so then your average joe.

Jeremy, And the rest of the public don’t face armed thugs? I thing you might rethink that theroy. or just ask a victim of crime and see what they think. anyone can face an armed thug at any time and unless they are also armed they are left at that person’s mersy and I for one do not want to be in that situation. I want a fair chance.

Good answer, Vicki!!! A good self-defense tip: “A gun in your hand is better then a cop on the phone”. No charge!

Jeremy Leochner says:
“Because police are constantly dealing with armed thugs who are shooting at them. Certainly more so then your average joe.”

Are you talking about police as a group or an individual policeman?

Since you specified a single average person (“joe”) I will presume you mean a single average policeman.

Unfortunately the FBI conveniently neglects to collect that data.
http://www.lvrj.com/news/deadly-force/142-dead-and-rising/national-data-on-shootings-by-police-not-collected-134256308.html

But what little data they do collect put the average policeman at only slightly higher risk of having to deal with an armed thug. And that is only cause there are fewer policemen then citizens.

Remember when you are mugged or murdered you ARE there. The policeman won’t have to face the thug cause by the time he gets there the thug is long gone.

I did find this link to a story that includes a comment that
“True, only a tiny fraction of law enforcement officers will ever be in what is known as an officer-involved shooting.”
http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/news/crime-law/police-officers-can-deal-with-ptsd-like-symptoms-a/nPX8Q/

But I did not see any cite to back up the assertion.

I did find this disturbing info
“Not only did the ACLU statistic turn out to be not as far off as he imagined but Aveni has made other unexpected discoveries – pertaining especially to hit ratios, low-light shootings, multiple-officer confrontations, mistaken judgment calls and less-lethal technology – that have convinced him police firearms training needs a significant overhaul. ”

http://www.policeone.com/officer-shootings/articles/117909-Study-reveals-important-truths-hidden-in-the-details-of-officer-involved-shootings/

Now this cite has a list of how accurate the police in 2 cities are when they shoot.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/09/weekinreview/09baker.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all

So why again are police allowed to carry guns but we arn’t?

Oh and there is this tidbit.
““Law-abiding citizens in America used guns in self-defense 2.5 million times in 1993 (about 6,825 times per day), and actually shot and killed two and a half times as many criminals as police did (1,527 to 606). These self-defense shootings resulted in less than one-fifth as many incidents as police where an innocent person was mistakenly identified as a criminal (2 percent versus 11 percent).””
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/a-nation-arms-itself-for-what/

Seems that the number of self defense uses per day is way more then necessary to show that the civilian populace does need guns for protection.

Rick. People do face armed thugs. But the chances are much less then that of a cop who is trying to catch armed thugs. Police are actively seeking out armed thugs. Their chances are much higher. Armed robbery and assault happens. It happens often in some places. My point is crime rates have to be taken into account. If you live in an area with a low or fairly low crime rate, specifically violent crime then a gun is not exactly a necessary defense. In areas where crime rates are higher perhaps a gun is a necessary form of defense. What I am trying to say is a gun is not the only solution. Self defense in the form of martial arts and pepper spray and tazers are also effective. Not as powerful but still capable. It is foolish to assume one will never be attacked by a violent criminal. But I consider it paranoid to assume that one could be attacked by a violent criminal at any time and that one needs a gun at all times to protect themselves. If a person does not have a gun they are not automatically helpless. And bear in mind one of the fundamental teachings of most self defense classes so far as I understand is to have a calm and collected yet always watchful and ready state of mind. My thought is a person who has self defense training is more likely to spot a potential threat before it becomes a danger then someone who is armed who is afraid and watchful of everyone. Too much security is just as bad as not enough.

You know what Vicki you got me there. I did not know that. I apologize. I suppose the only thing I have to fire back with is that police are armed with pepper spray and tear gas bombs and are trained to use them. I guess for me it comes down to training. My thought is if a person feels compelled to carry a gun I would think it good for them also to have a better understanding in dealing with a situation in a non violent way. Or rather to differentiate between a situation where a gun is called for and where pepper spray is called for. In a stressful situation people can lose their head and shoot first and ask questions later. My thought is if a person took self defense classes perhaps they would be less likely to make such assumptions and less likely to kill in self defense. Perhaps my wish would be that if a person feels compelled to buy and carry a gun perhaps they should also take self defense classes as well. That way they would have protection to deal with a dangerous situation should it arise but also have the calm mindset to try and deal with a situation before it becomes dangerous in the first place.

” But the chances are much less then that of a cop who is trying to catch armed thugs.”

Jeremy you have posted that multiple times but offer nothing to support your statement. One other thing, I think you will find that most police do not actively try to catch armed thugs most are patrol officers who never face more than a drunk armed with bad breath.

But, programs like this are VOLUNTARY.

Why might you object to the choices any individual may make in this issue?

First you tell a woman she’s gotta stay pregnant if she gets pregnant, now you want to tell her she must have a gun? Sheesh…

Let folks make their own decisions. That’s the American way.

Rob

Robert Smith says:
“programs like this are VOLUNTARY.

Why might you object to the choices any individual may make in this issue?”

We are not objecting to their choices. We would, however, prefer that they were properly informed before making the decision.

Robert Smith demonstrates the fallacy of putting words in others moughts by writing:
“First you tell a woman she’s gotta stay pregnant if she gets pregnant, now you want to tell her she must have a gun? Sheesh…”

As far as I know there is only one city in all of the US that does that. I disagree with their law as much as I disagree with all the other infringements on God given rights.

Robert Smith: “Let folks make their own decisions. That’s the American way.”

So if this really were your decision, why do you support anti gun laws? Why do you support forced health care where the taxpayor is forced by government to pay your medical bills (http://personalliberty.com/2012/08/17/3-reasons-why-america-will-crumble/#comments)

It would appear that you claim own decisions only when it suits you.

Perhaps pepper spray or tazers. Or if all else fails they can keep their guns if they wish. I just believe your average person is not going to face someone gunning at them.

vicki, you said, “As far as I know there is only one city in all of the US that does that. I disagree with their law as much as I disagree with all the other infringements on God given rights”.

I assume you are talking about Kennesaw, Georgia? I know what you’re saying about “other infringements”, we shouldn’t need permission from the government to keep a gun in our home OR on our side. As for Kennesaw, it has worked out very well for them, the year before it was mandated the number of home burglaries was 65, that dropped to 26 in 1983, and down to only 11 in 1984. Overall crime rate has decreased by more than 50% between the years of 1982 and 2005.

But if you DID live in Kennesaw and disagreed with that “law” you would be exempt from it just by disagreeing with it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennesaw,_Georgia?source=Patrick.net#Gun_law

In 1982 the city passed an ordinance [Sec 34-21]
(a) In order to provide for the emergency management of the city, and further in order to provide for and protect the safety, security and general welfare of the city and its inhabitants, every head of household residing in the city limits is required to maintain a firearm, together with ammunition therefore.
(b)Exempt from the effect of this section are those heads of households who suffer a physical or mental disability which would prohibit them from using such a firearm. Further exempt from the effect of this section are those heads of households who are paupers or who conscientiously oppose maintaining firearms as a result of beliefs or religious doctrine, or persons convicted of a felony.

Jeremy Leochner says:
“Perhaps pepper spray or tazers. Or if all else fails they can keep their guns if they wish. I just believe your average person is not going to face someone gunning at them.”

So we have reached agreement that you fully support the 2nd Amendment? Good.

I also agree that the average person is not going to face someone gunning at them.
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/violent-crime/violent-crime

HH thanks that was the city I was thinking of.

” I just believe your average person is not going to face someone gunning at them.”

Jeremy, it is not just people “gunning for them” as you put it. It is any instance where a person is fearful for his/her safety or the safty of their family. That can come from an unarmed assailent just as well as an armed one. It can also come from an assailent armed with something other than a firearm.

If a person lies their life assuming they will face bad guys with guns they are paranoid. Paranoia prevents one from dealing with a potential threat before it becomes a problem and it can prevent them from seeing it coming. Facing bad guys with guns is not a likely prospect for your average person. It could certainly happen and does. The point is we do not know. I believe that self defense classes provide a person with a calm and ready state of mind which is a better way to live then one who is fearful and guarded. Being constantly ready for threats when one is not under threat is just as bad as not caring about threats. I believe self defense classes help a person to balance defense with life’s reality.

Jeremy Leochner says:
“If a person lies their life assuming they will face bad guys with guns they are paranoid.”

Then writes:
“I believe that self defense classes provide a person with a calm and ready state of mind which is a better way to live then one who is fearful and guarded.”

And writes:
“I believe self defense classes help a person to balance defense with life’s reality.”

So we are in agreement. Self defense classes help people be more calm should they be attacked. But I don’t understand why you seem to not like some of the tools people choose for self defense.

Do not get me wrong Vicki I like guns. I am a guy I like big guns that cause big explosions and other things. I just do not believe they are necessary for defense. I like tanks but I do not think they are needed for defense. I have my own personal beliefs about self defense and I try and reconcile that with the policies I support as well as with the rights and views of others. I concede people want to have guns. They have a right to and whether I agree or not it is their choice. Its just not the choice I would make.

“I just do not believe they are necessary for defense. I like tanks but I do not think they are needed for defense”.

If the bad guy has a gun then a BIGGER gun is necessary for defense, if the enemy has a tank then a BIGGER tank is necessary for defense. If you DON’T have a gun and encounter a bad guy with a gun, you’re screwed! If you HAVE a gun and encounter a bad guy WITHOUT a gun, HE’S screwed!!! I don’t want to be the one gettin’ screwed so I’ll keep my gun!

Jeremy Leochner says:
“Do not get me wrong Vicki I like guns. I am a guy I like big guns that cause big explosions and other things. I just do not believe they are necessary for defense.”

Then why do police carry them?

Jeremy Leochner says: “I like tanks but I do not think they are needed for defense.”

Then why do soldiers drive them?

Jeremy Leochner says: “I have my own personal beliefs about self defense and I try and reconcile that with the policies I support as well as with the rights and views of others.”

Ok so what exactly is your position on the purpose and meaning of the 2nd Amendment?

Jeremy Leochner says: “I concede people want to have guns. They have a right to and whether I agree or not it is their choice. Its just not the choice I would make.”

Agreed.

Jeremy L., as soon as you put your qualifier that you like guns but, we know that you are lying.

1: I believe that for people who are not actively seeking to arrest criminals guns are not necessary as part of the defense arsenal. I believe police need guns as a back up.

2: I mean tanks are not necessary as defense for the average citizen. I like tanks but I am not going to go out and buy one and roll around in it all day, I do not require that level of protection. A soldier needs it, not me.

3: My belief is the second amendment is based on peoples rights to defend themselves against threats either from their fellow citizens or from the government. I believe that their rights are to keep and bear arms. I believe people have a right to keep weapons in their homes or on their person so long as they comply with local laws. In regards to local laws I believe that so long as one has the capacity to purchase a weapon and carry it the laws are not infringing on their rights. By that I mean things like Background checks and Waiting periods and requiring licenses to carry concealed weapons. I believe such things while annoying are not infringements on peoples rights to keep and bear arms. I see gun control laws as being the equivalent of laws governing journalism or slander or libel. One cannot say or write what so ever one wishes. By the same token people have a right to own and carry weapons but do not have the right to do with their weapons what so ever they wish.

” I believe that for people who are not actively seeking to arrest criminals guns are not necessary as part of the defense arsenal.”

Jeremy, I live in the country in a rural (over 50% forrest) county. If I am lucky I can expect a “fast” response time of 15 minutes from a deputy should I have need of one. Yet, you say you do not believe I need to include a gun as part of my defence arsenal. So tell me sir what I am supposed to defend myself with should someone present a threat to me or my family fresh cow patties?

Jeremy Leochner says:
“My belief is the second amendment is based on peoples rights to defend themselves against threats either from their fellow citizens or from the government. I believe that their rights are to keep and bear arms. I believe people have a right to keep weapons in their homes or on their person so long as they comply with local laws.”

And when the local laws forbid them from bearing arms (even openly) what say you to local government?

Jeremy Leochner: “In regards to local laws I believe that so long as one has the capacity to purchase a weapon and carry it the laws are not infringing on their rights.”

Ah so will you join millions of us who are objecting to local laws that make it a crime to purchase and or carry guns, knives and other tools? California recently changed the law from open carry of UNLOADED guns to no open carry. Would you consider that an infringement?

Jeremy Leochner: “By that I mean things like Background checks and Waiting periods and requiring licenses to carry concealed weapons.”

Background checks accomplish what exactly? Oh to make you feel safe. Didn’t we already establish in previous discussion that anyone who should not be allowed to have a gun HAD to be under close adult supervision? Failing to keep them supervised means they can go get a gun from any of the black market sellers. Sellers that stand to gain a lot by a ban on guns for law abiding citizens.

Now lets see about waiting periods. What might they accomplish?

Well the theory is that crimes of passion will be reduced cause the person not having a gun will have to wait to “cool off” before they can purchase one. If that were really the reason then why does someone, who ALREADY has a gun, have to wait?

Now lets take the example that joe gets really mad at his ex-wife and tells her he is coming over tomorrow to kill her. She runs out to get a gun and oops. Has to wait 3 days. So she calls him up and says he should come over in 4 days cause she is a bit busy. How well do you think that will work?

A right delayed is a right denied. Now who said that?

Jeremy Leochner: “I believe such things while annoying are not infringements on peoples rights to keep and bear arms.”

You are welcome to your belief but facts and definitions clearly disagree.
infringement =: an encroachment or trespass on a right or privilege.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/infringement

Jeremy Leochner: “I see gun control laws as being the equivalent of laws governing journalism or slander or libel. One cannot say or write what so ever one wishes.”

If there were an equivalent law for writing then it would be illegal to carry pens and paper (or ipads ) Or to use your examples

It would require you to pass a background check to buy pens, pencils etc.
It would require you to wait before taking possession of said pens, pencils etc.

Jeremy Leochner: “By the same token people have a right to own and carry weapons but do not have the right to do with their weapons what so ever they wish.”

Gun control laws interfere with the possession of guns and not their use. There is no real need for separate laws for use as it is already illegal to attack someone without just cause.

CZ52. In your case yes perhaps a gun is warranted. I just do not believe it is necessary for all.

Vicki.

1: Yes I will oppose any law that prevents people from even purchasing a weapon.

2: I am a little less enthusiastic about open carry but I suppose it is peoples rights so yes I will.

3: Back ground checks are for the purpose of finding out about someone before giving them a gun. Determining their legal and psychological history. Its a way to prevent someone who is emotionally or mentally unstable from getting a gun. It means they do not just give a gun to anyone old enough or with enough money to pay for it. Waiting periods allow for such background checks to take place.

4: There is a huge difference between a pen and a gun. The laws regulating free speech and free press are based around preventing people from lying or saying things that can cause harm to reputations without cause. There is a difference between something that can hurt your reputation and something that can hurt you.

5: Gun control laws do not interfere with possession. They regulate when and how one can use a gun. Once one goes through the procedures to obtain a weapon its theirs and as long as they follow the laws regulating use it is still theirs. The problem with the argument about laws preventing people from attacking others without cause is it can happen without intending it. People shoot at each other sometimes even if there is no threat. I support the laws I support out of a desire to ensure that if someone obtains a gun that person is capable of knowing when a gun should be used and when it shouldn’t. Because I believe that shooting someone who is not a threat or who can be beaten off without using a gun is wrong. Police do it and should be held accountable. But so should anyone who owns a gun if they do that. That is the bottom line for me. When is a gun a necessary defense. My only desire is for the people who carry guns to understand that before they get a gun.

“5: Gun control laws do not interfere with possession. They regulate when and how one can use a gun”.

That’s the dumbest statement you’ve made yet Jeremy! Gun laws DO interfere with possession, I can’t buy an automatic weapon because their illegal unless you have a government issued permit (a gun law)! I can’t carry my weapon into a church or court house or school because it’s prohibited (that’s a gun law regulating WHERE I can or cannot carry)!

By the way Jeremy, ask somebody about the gun laws in Chicago or New York and see if they think their gun laws don’t interfere with possession. You can’t even OWN a hand gun in the city of Chicago! If THAT’s not interference I don’t know what is!

Jeremy Leochner says:
“3: Back ground checks are for the purpose of finding out about someone before giving them a gun. Determining their legal and psychological history. Its a way to prevent someone who is emotionally or mentally unstable from getting a gun. It means they do not just give a gun to anyone old enough or with enough money to pay for it. Waiting periods allow for such background checks to take place.”

So what I STILL do not understand in your position is how does a background check and waiting period keep someone who is emotionally or mentally unstable from getting a gun? The “they” in your statement has no bountries so it is clear that the person can go to a black market dealer and with enough money buy a gun in-spite of all the laws.

My solution (the one I gave you originally) DOES stop the person from getting a gun.
Keep the person under CLOSE adult supervision. It is the only possible way.

Jeremy Leochner says:
“5: Gun control laws do not interfere with possession. They regulate when and how one can use a gun. Once one goes through the procedures to obtain a weapon its theirs and as long as they follow the laws regulating use it is still theirs.”

ALL the laws that are called “gun control” laws infringe upon the ability to exercise the right to keep (own/possess) and bear (carry) arms. Starting with the NFA that made it very expensive to buy a particular type of firearm. You can’t keep what you can’t afford to buy.

Jeremy Leochner: “The problem with the argument about laws preventing people from attacking others without cause is it can happen without intending it. People shoot at each other sometimes even if there is no threat.”

Thus the action of shooting someone is then judged. This does not interfere with the keeping and bearing of arms. Only the proper use of arms. Exactly what laws are supposed to be for.

Jeremy Leochner: “I support the laws I support out of a desire to ensure that if someone obtains a gun that person is capable of knowing when a gun should be used and when it shouldn’t.”

Can we have a law about voting using the same rules?

Last I checked there is no restriction on people in the 2nd Amendment. If a person mis uses a gun we don’t really worry about their knowing. We punish the mis-use. This is as it should be. Not knowing which laws you support beyond the 3 mentioned I can’t comment.

On the 3 you have mentioned none of them meet your requirement that the person is capable of knowing when a gun should be used and when it shouldn’t.

And even if they went thru all the training in self-defense you have suggested how can you know that a person is capable of knowing when a gun should be used and when it shouldn’t. Much more practical is punishing them when they don’t use a gun correctly.

Jeremy Leochner: “Because I believe that shooting someone who is not a threat or who can be beaten off without using a gun is wrong. Police do it and should be held accountable. But so should anyone who owns a gun if they do that. That is the bottom line for me. When is a gun a necessary defense. My only desire is for the people who carry guns to understand that before they get a gun.”

The laws that cover mis-use of guns already do everything that you ask. NONE of the laws you listed that infringe on possession has any effect on your only desire. Understanding is an individual thing and the only possible objective way to know is to see the actions of the person.

When someone walks into a movie theater (church or school) and mis-uses a gun do you want the rest of the people there to run like frightened rabbits or to properly use their guns to neutralize the threat?

HH:

The law you mentioned does not prevent you from possessing an an automatic weapon. You just have to get a license to. I have to have a license or permit to drive a car but that is not a violation of my rights, And why would you need to carry a gun into a school or church. School shootings happen but carrying guns into the school does not exactly stop that. And it does not send the right message to the kids. And a church. Who is going to shoot someone in a church. I do not consider restrictions on where you can carry a gun to be violations of a persons rights. I cannot shout fire in a crowded theater or even shout in a library but I hardly consider that violations of my right to free speech.

As for Chicago I am with you. In that case a person is not allowed to own a handgun at all. That is interference.

And yet another ignorant statement from Jeremy………. “And why would you need to carry a gun into a school or church”.

Why? Here’s why, you answered that with your next sentence…..

“(School shootings happen) but carrying guns into the school does not exactly stop that”.

Well it just might Jeremy! If these killers thought there would be someone in there to shoot back they may not attempt it in the first place!

“And it does not send the right message to the kids”.

How does me carrying a concealed weapon into school or church send the wrong message to kids? They won’t even know I have one. Kids get the wrong message from folks like you telling them that guns are evil, guns are not evil. A person with the intent to kill is evil not the gun. The gun is just a tool used for killing just as a bat or brick would be if it were used for killing.

“And a church. Who is going to shoot someone in a church”.

What rock have you been living under Jeremy? As a matter of FACT there have been 19 church shootings in the past 13 years with the last one in Florida on Sept 8th 2011.

http://www.ajc.com/news/nation-world/fla-church-shooting-suspect-1183590.html

That’s not counting the one last month in Aurora Colorado where the off duty police officer thwarted a mass killing spree by killing the gunman.

“I do not consider restrictions on where you can carry a gun to be violations of a persons rights”.

What’s the use in carrying if you’re restricted from carry in the places that are most often targeted by mass killers? OK Jeremy, let’s say that I’m in a school and a gunman enters and starts shooting but I can do NOTHING because by law I’m not allowed to carry in the school. I try to hide but the gunman finds me anyway and then it’s over for me and who ever else he may find to kill! If I had been able to carry there I may have been able to stop his killing spree!

For crying out loud Jeremy, use your brain!!!

Jeremy, when I was in high school we used to bring our guns into shop class to work on them, re-blue the barrel in the medal working class or build a new stock in the wood working class. We never had any school shooting back then! We even kept our guns on the gun rack in our pickup trucks in the parking lot during school hours!

It’s NOT the gun!!!

Years ago guns were for hunting and home protection that is why folks respected them. Now they are symbol of violence and settling scores. That is a major difference. Years ago you could go out drag racing and not bother a sole but today with increased populations you’d probably kill someone. Everything in life changes and today guns have a different meaning where everyone wants instant results. We have fewer fist fights and more mass shootings to achieve that goal.

eddie47d(ummie) is WAY off base again! Blinded by MSM and a fear of guns!

“Years ago guns were for hunting and home protection that is why folks respected them”.

That’s not ALL they were used for eddie, what was the Revolutionary War fought with? Guns? How about the Civil War? Guns? What about ANY war since guns have been invented? Guns are for KILLING, that’s what they were invented for! Responsible gun owners STILL RESPECT THEM!!!

“Now they are symbol of violence and settling scores”.

If you’re a gang member or and idiot sure. Law abiding citizens DO NOT settle scores with guns!

“Everything in life changes and today guns have a different meaning where everyone wants instant results”.

No eddie, guns have the same meaning today that they had 500 years ago, THEY ARE FOR KILLING! Responsible gun owners DO NOT want to kill any person. Responsible gun owners hunt AND KILL wild game with their guns. Responsible gun owners target practice with their guns so they can get good at shooting them. ONLY when a responsible gun owner is confronted with a deadly threat to their life, their family’s lives or even a helpless victim’s life would he/she even consider using a gun for killing another individual and EVEN THEN the use of a gun would be the ABSOLUTE LAST resort!

You still don’t get the picture do you eddie? The problem eddie is NOT the guns, as we’ve told you a million times, it’s with IRRESPONSIBLE gun owners! A RESPONSIBLE gun owner has respect for their weapons.

“CZ52. In your case yes perhaps a gun is warranted. I just do not believe it is necessary for all.”

Now another case for you Jeremy and this one really happened to me. My wife and I had stopped to visit our son in a large city. While we were waiting for him to come down and open the street level door to their apartment a rather agressive pan handler popped up out of nowhere and started trying to get us to give him money. We refused and he started showing an agressive attitude. I was just starting to reach for my handgun when he apparently saw some warning in my expression and beat a hasty retreat.