From one of Hayden’s posts.
This was my EXACT physical response when an intruder broke in, except I almost lost my voice when I called 911 - I barely got the words out. Raise your hand if you want me in your house with a gun when someone breaks in.
Not just you, I also don’t want any of the “trained” posters on this site in my house with a gun. My ex-H thought he was trained, but he was really just another guy with a gun fetish who thought they made him manly. He also had a bad temper, as many other gun owners do. He was a bigger risk to me and perceived (but not real) threats from people at the door than any kind of protection for his family. And I think he is a very typical gun owner.
@intparent You seem to know quite a bit about gun owners, especially typical ones. Sounds like your ex was one of them.
Exactly what is that reason? As @intparent noted, the Revolution has been over for some years now, and I agree that the Founders would be horrified at what the Second Amendment has wrought. Or, if you’re going to trot out the “gummint tyranny” canard, let me just note that your handguns and automatics aren’t going to be much good against the gummint’s bombers, armored tank divisions, and bio/chem weapons.
@LasMa I hope you can understand that such a conflict would almost certainly be of a nature in which the “gummint’s bombers, armored tank divisions, and bio/chem weapons” would be of little use. I’m sure you’ve heard of them before; revolution, insurgency, insurrection, terrorist warfare.
There isn’t going to be an armed conflict of either kind between the federal government and the citizens. If they wanted to impose tyranny – whatever that is – they could have and would have done it long before this, or at least tried and been thwarted by the noble insurrectionists. It hasn’t happened and it’s not going to. I know this the favorite fantasy over at Black Helicopter/FEMA Camps/Jade Helm headquarters, but sorry, they’re just not interested.
Meanwhile we have 30000 of those citizens dying every year from these accursed guns. Did those citizens not have the right to live? Or does gun fetishism have primacy even over that?
@justonedad, I own guns, my ex-h owns 40 (!!!) guns, and I come from a hunting family. I also grew up in southeast Michigan, a haven these days for homegrown militia nut cases and the stomping grounds of Ted Nugent. I do know something about it, and think there is a paranoia and irrationality rampant in most of the gun owners of my acquaintance. It is in no way, shape, or form what our Founding Fathers had in mind. Too many men with too many incredibly dangerous weapons. Period. They are the risk to our country, not government tyrranny. As is sadly proven again and again. I personally can never get the image of those Sandy Hook first graders out of my mind. And don’t know how any of you fighting for “gun rights” can, either.
No one here or in politics, has yet proposed any gun control law that would have prevented any of these mass shootings. Everyone wants to stop these events. All of these people are mentally ill. No one wants the mentally ill to have access to guns. But how? None of these shooters were adjudicated mentally ill. Two, Aurora and Virginia Tech, had seen psychs. Should seeing a psych bar someone from owning a gun? I don’t think many would be in favor of that.
I do think CNN and the rest need to stop the 24/7 non stop talking about all of it. I think that only stirs up copycats.
Come on, @LasMa, Jade Helm and Son of Jade Helm are real threats to our nation’s freedom. Now that those Walmart tunnels are there and they have trained on them they’re waiting for us to let our guard down. This was just the next false flag event staged to try to take our guns away. Roseburg is on the front lines of defense and those people are true patriots for refusing to be drawn into the gun debate. The man who claims to be the shooters father is really a paid actor from California. :-B
No one can do anything to prevent all potential crises. We cannot stop all auto accidents despite speeding laws and seatbelt requirements. But implementing these laws reduces the frequency of accidents. That is the goal.
Students seeking mental health services has resulted in them getting required LOAs from campus and an inability to return without getting lots of medical documentation. Seems to me if students can get barred from campus for having some MH issues, there must be a way to limit access to guns for those with more serious MH issues. I posted the state by state regulations upthread.
Let’s not be overly dramatic. I’ve never met any of these kids, I never met their parents or families. I never met any of these teachers. I obviously consider it a horrible event but I can’t really be emotionally traumatized by the death of people I’ve never met or even heard of until after they’d died.
All that will end up happening is the most dangerous will simply not see a psychiatrist. Unless we think psychiatrists are of no value at all, this is a bad idea.
You are obviously not a parent Vlad. Images of those children are haunting to many parents.
@Vladenschlutte, correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that you are a young adult, and not a parent. I think those of us that are parents have the reaction to the Sandy Hook shooting that is expressed above.
Read this article this morning:
https://www.yahoo.com/politics/guns-congress-and-murphys-law-090049362.html
"This is where Murphy, a seventh-term congressman and clinical psychologist of 40 years, comes in. As a commander in the Navy Reserve, he still treats traumatized soldiers at Bethesda Naval Hospital.
After the shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary School in 2012, Murphy, who leads a subcommittee on government oversight and investigations, asked the Republican leadership if he could look into government programs that are supposed to address the most severe and violent kinds of mental illness. His investigation led him to write the Helping Families in Mental Health Crisis Act, known familiarly in the Capitol by its bill number, 2646.
Murphy’s sprawling bill would amend the existing federal privacy laws, so that in cases of serious mental illness (and only in those cases), a consulting doctor would have the ability to call the patient’s parent or caregiver and share information about medications and follow-up treatment. Not incidentally, that’s when a doctor might also learn something about guns in the home."
I have to agree. It reminds me of the debate we had about testing people at risk for AIDS. I think there we went with rspecting everyone’s civil liberty.
I do think we are fixated on gun control as solution. Does it really solve the problem? What dirves people to violence? Will they stop if they don’t find guns? Or will they make molotove cocktail bombs if they are angry enough?
Although that is a direct reversal over what you just said, I’m glad you agree. The bombers and tanks; just hyperbole, right?
Okay, so your expertise on what gun owners think extends to your ex and most of your acquaintances in SE Michigan?
And, of course, it extends to what the Founding Fathers were thinking, too, right?
And…to me too? Or is that the English plural form of “you”.
Ah, interesting comment. So, it sounds like we decided to accept some risk (and the expected loss it entails) and balance it off vs. something else with value?