<p>I think hunting is fine. I just wish we could equip the deer so that they could fire back, and make it more “sporting”.</p>
<p>mixed feelings. I have been vegetarian at various times. I believe animals have souls and probably it is murder. I am more worried about cattle/slaughterhouses than deer/hunting.</p>
<p>I think that it’s an interesting notion, mini. </p>
<p>I used to feel differently about deer. Now, they drive me nuts. It doesn’t make me want to shoot them. But they drive me nuts.</p>
<p>I’m actually not aware of any proposal that’s ever been made in America to ban to possession of long guns for hunting. (I can’t claim to have researched that, but if it’s happened I didn’t notice it.)</p>
<p>Here’s another anecdote: I once had a client whose second wife was killed with a gun she kept under her pillow. According to the client, she kept the loaded gun here for safety, and one night she accidentally shot and killed herself in her sleep.</p>
<p>I was never 100% convinced of the truth of that story, but no charges were ever filed against anyone…</p>
<p>I have to say, I find it encouraging to read posts by people in rural areas discussing reasonable uses for guns, as well as frugaldoctors well-thought-out precautions against accidental misuse of his gun[s.] Guns are, after all, just tools.</p>
<p>Then I read again about George Zimmerman and his 12 gauge, his AR-15, his three handguns and his 105 rounds of ammo (which, by my lights, is roughly nine dozen more than he needs) and it reminds me of why the issue of gun possession by urban and suburban folks really should not be ignored.</p>
<p>Yeah, I can’t get with mini on the deer thing. They are annoying, tick-laden pests who will destroy the landscape if left to their own devices. Curse you, Bambi!</p>
<p>Some of those guns were his girlfriends. It was her house. Not that it means anything at all but it is the case.</p>
<p>Deer are also so dangerous on the roads. </p>
<p>I was just going with the idea of putting all the guns in an armory and checking them out when needed, as a concession to getting automatic weapons out of homes. mere fantasy.</p>
<p>Don’t ban guns. Whatever you do, don’t ban the guns! </p>
<p>I’ll most likely be getting a gun in the future. My siblings have them. Family members have them. When I have my family, there will be gun(s) in the home.</p>
<p>Why does your family want guns in the home?</p>
<p>I love deers and love seeing the deers in my yard at night. It has never crossed my mind to shoot one. But my neighbor is an avid hunter and wants to bow hunt the deer in my yard. I don’t understand the drive that hunters have to want to kill the animals. But I have to remind myself that the meat on my plate originated from an animal that was raised to be killed. </p>
<p>Regardless, IMHO our efforts need to be focused on those individuals who shouldn’t have the right to own weapons. The mentally ill, criminals, irresponsible people and of course GZ. You will rally the most most support for that goal. I am encouraged to learn that the CDC can finally study gun related deaths. But reasonable studies need to be conducted to determine the best way to keep the guns out of those who should have them.</p>
<p>I really think that we need to get guns out of the hands of people like GZ. </p>
<p>What I find really alarming about him is the fact that he has already killed somebody with a gun and he persists in having all of these weapons in close quarters and close at hand in normal day to day life.</p>
<p>It is really alarming we don’t have a mechanism to automatically take this right from someone who has used their weapon on a person. I mean, a police officer who shoots someone in the line of duty has to turn in his/her weapon and go through an investigation of their mental health etc… before it is returned.</p>
<p>It ought to be possible to be found not guilty of murder but still lose your right to bear arms. You can certainly lose your driver’s license this way.</p>
<p>@alh If you need to shoot someone, you can. </p>
<p>@frugal I don’t hunt myself. I’m not against hunting. (Will most likely go within the next two years…) But I think those who are avid hunters, such as your neighbor, don’t value the life of the animal they’re killing…Or at least value the thrill of hunting more than the animal’s life.</p>
<p>@poetgrl Hmm…interesting. How could you take away someone’s right to bear arms? You can take that right away. But you can’t stop them from getting their hands on a gun.</p>
<p>The problem with saying that everyone can have guns except the people the state deems dangerous is that there’s no real reliable test for who is dangerous and who isn’t. As I’ve stated above, I think that a pretty decent litmus test would be if your family objectively is in more danger of being hit by lightning than suffering a home invasion but you think you need a gun in your home for “security” anyway then you probably lack the basic emotional and mental maturity to handle a firearm. That would be my test, anyway. Somehow I think others here would disagree.</p>
<p>Niquii77, the problem isn’t that bad guys can get guns. The problem is that guns are everywhere, as is the mentality that shooting people is a good means of solving problems. And a guy who doesn’t hunt or target shoot but has a dozen weapons is making that statement loud and clear.</p>
<p>You misunderstood, kluge. I understand what the “problem” is. </p>
<p>
This made me laugh. </p>
<p>But you are right. I do disagree with you; especially with this:
I don’t think you’ve met enough sane people who have guns. Or perhaps, you’ve met sane people, but you don’t even know if they have guns! Meet my family and you would’ve never guessed it. Why? We never mention them, at least not around people who aren’t within the family/close friends.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You know, I don’t think I could shoot a person. This is one reason why I don’t have that kind of weapon, anyway, and why we keep it all locked up and separate. I know a shot gun is dangerous, but I don’t really think the GZ’s of the world are interested in our shotguns.</p>
<p>We have nothing else here.</p>
<p>I do have a rancher friend who has automatic weapons. But, when you have encountered more than one grizzly in your life? You can carry that kind of weapon with you. He’s only had to use it once.</p>
<p>Poetgrl, there are certain rules to remove weapons. One of my coworkers shot several rounds at an intruder earlier this year. The police eventually arrested the intruder but then confiscated all of the firearms in the house. It has been several months, but they won’t return the weapons until the court case is completed. I wasn’t aware of this but it made sense.</p>
<p>I would suspect at least one or more of the weapons found during this latest GZ incident will have to be confiscated. In my state, if the courts approve a restraining order, you lose your CCW permit and weapons temporarily. I believe other states have the same rule. Hopefully GZ’s girlfriend will get a restraining order.</p>
<p>Interesting enough, I had a conversation with a group of family members and close family friends about shooting in a high-stress situation and if you would shoot to kill. I cannot see myself shooting someone in the heart, head, torso and such. Others in the group said they would shoot that person in that area. </p>
<p>The scenario was something of this fashion:
*Your house in being broken into. Scary person breaks in. They find you. (You’re not in the position to call 911 or press a magical “panic button”). Fast forward through some rough and tumbling and they have a knife to your throat. You have a gun in your hand. Would you:
A) Shoot them in the head (or any other life-threatening location) to get them off of you.
B) Shoot them in the leg to get them off of you.
C) Nothing. **</p>
<p>*I understand that was a really poor scenario! My sibling came up with a better one. Can’t remember the details.</p>
<p>I would shoot someone in their knee cap/hand/foot. I would not and could not shoot someone in a life-threatening location. I don’t believe in taking someone’s life away.</p>
<p>A couple of anecdotes:</p>
<p>This is Chuck Yeager (the guy who broke the sound barrier, grew up in one of those rural West Virginia families who know how to handle guns…this would have been about 1927):
</p>
<p>[Chuck</a> Yeager Quotes - Quotes on Sound Barrier by Chuck Yaeger - Esquire](<a href=“http://www.esquire.com/features/what-ive-learned/chuck-yeager-quotes-0109]Chuck”>http://www.esquire.com/features/what-ive-learned/chuck-yeager-quotes-0109)</p>
<p>I personally know a guy (college professor) whose wife was a former policewoman and kept a gun. He cheated on her, they argued, he ended up shooting her, and was convicted of murder and sent to prison. If not for the handy gun, they would have gotten a divorce, and their kids would still have parents.</p>
<p>Niquii77, if someone was on top of me with a knife to my throat, I would shoot without worrying where the bullet landed.</p>
<p>
Or how about…if he knew how to control himself, the would have gotten a divorce, and their kids would have parents. :rolleyes:</p>
<p>Although, I do understand that guns make it a lot easier to kill people, to put all this blame on a gun is foolish. How do we know that he wouldn’t have stabbed her? Beat her? Killed her in some other fashion? </p>
<p>But I will say you are right. If the gun wasn’t there he wouldn’t have shot her. :)</p>
<p>Goldenpooch, yes, I’m pretty sure everyone would answer like that. It was a scenario in which you knew your life was in danger and you had the choice to kill or injure and if you didn’t do anything you would die.</p>
<p>I think if they are close enough to have a knife at your throat and you shoot a knee/leg etc. they are going to be in a position to continue attacking you. 70-80% of the people in our county jail are there on charges related to meth (per sheriff). It is the biggest problem in my county. These people are so high, they have previous charges, they have nothing to lose…they are going to keep going.</p>