<p>
</p>
<p>I think you’re not living in real life if you think that kind of thing only happens on TV. You’re actually denying that people break into other people’s houses. Unbelievable.</p>
<p>I really like Texas. Drove through it once and liked it a lot. We are thinking of retiring there.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Why didn’t you tell us this before? So you admit that guns hurt innocent people?</p>
<p>My husband, as a young boy, shot a neighbor woman with a gun that was lying around. They can laugh about it now - he picked up the gun, thought it was a toy, shot out his backyard, the bullet went through the lady’s 60’s style beehive hairdo and didn’t cause any harm - but can you imagine the consequences if he had really killed her? I shudder to think about it. </p>
<p>OTOH, I’ve done riflery and while it’s not my thing, I can certainly see how others might enjoy it.</p>
<p>I agree with Kluge’s Post #736 completely. I will stipulate that there are those who may have need for a gun, and maybe even more protection than a gun. We have the Secret Service for the POTUS for good reason. There are those who live in situations and areas where a gun might well be necessary. However, if you live in a situation where a semi automatic weapon is necessary, you need to really look at your life carefully. The truth of the matter, borne out by every statistic I have seen is that the vicitim of a gun is overwhelmingly the owner, his family, his friends, his neighbor. In the Sandy Hook shootings, the perp’s mother fell right into that statistic being the first to be killed by her guns, and her her son the last. Too bad he killed 28 people in between, including little children. That is a statistical anomoly, fortunately–for all the PR it doesn’t happen that way very often, though it does way too often.</p>
<p>The consttituion does give us right to bear arms. But not all weapons are permitted. We are not allowed to own bazookas and high powered automatics. I don’t see any problem in drawing the line under semi automatics of a certain number of repeats so that someone who has gone crazy can’t just slaughter a whole class of kids, an entire movie theatre or any other large gathering. Can’t eliminate it happening, but we can reduce the chances greatly. Ms Lanza would not likely have owned those weapons had they been illegal, and a lot of the shooters that obtained theirs, did so legally. Why on earth would anyone want the type of semii automatics that can so easily be converted to assault weapons? The fear that tightening the gun laws will eliminate them altogether makes no sense with the damage that is happening in terms of human lives, children’s lives.</p>
<p>Tex, I’m serious. You should be more worried. It all started in the Haight/Asbury for California. Now you guys have Austin (Keep Austin Weird) Great music in that city. … You just never know. ;)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I never said guns didn’t hurt innocent people, just like I don’t say cars don’t hurt innocent people. You however, refuse to admit they save people’s lives. I wasn’t shot by the way, I said I was shot at, meaning I was almost shot.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Where are you getting the idea that semi automatics are easily converted to fully automatics? The reason I ask this is because it’s completely false.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I saw your question up thread but wanted to read through before responding.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>A? gun. Are you suggesting only one? 2A says “…the right to keep and bear arms…” Plural.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You do realize that the US Constitution protects you from the government and not from other citizens, right? You do not have any protection of “due process” from another citizen (you are harming). In many places that other citizen has the right to repel your use of force with equal force up to and including deadly force. Many states have the Castle Doctrine or Stand Your Ground laws.</p>
<p>My husband served in Iraq. He is a physician. He is still active duty, and serves at a major Army medical center. The injuries caused by guns are not to be taken lightly. Anyone who has served in Iraq or Afghanistan, or any active duty family member who receives their medical care at a major military care facility has seen more injured young persons than most of the posters on this thread will ever see.</p>
<p>IEDs cause horrific injuries, but so do guns in combat zones.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So what’s your point exactly? I didn’t see anyone here claiming that guns aren’t dangerous.</p>
<p>Texas republicans are looking into selling Austin. It serves no purpose around here. :D</p>
<p>Watching big bang theory and Leonard got shot by his girlfriend (or was it himself?) at a gun range.</p>
<p>Geez, tough crowd. I came close to dying, and all I get is a sarcastic comment from texaspg, and everyone else ignores it? If I had said I’d had cancer, I’d get sympathy. But since I was shot and survived, no one seems to care? Or is my contribution to the statistics on the wrong side?</p>
<p>Stories like Hayden’s are why the statistics show that people who have guns are at a much greater risk of being shot and killed, or killing a family member, than those who don’t have guns. </p>
<p>According to the CDC study residents in homes with a gun faced a 2.7-fold greater risk of homicide. </p>
<p>They think they are safer if they have a gun but the stats don’t bear it out.</p>
<p>My husband had an incident of a gun deterring a crime but I’m not going to detail it for the anti-gunners to rip apart. </p>
<p>I will however post a link to a website that has tons of stories of self defense with a gun. </p>
<p>[True</a> Tales of Self Defense](<a href=“http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/forumdisplay.php?136-True-Tales-of-Self-Defense]True”>http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/forumdisplay.php?136-True-Tales-of-Self-Defense)</p>
<p>“sarcastic comment from texaspg”</p>
<p>Good for you Hayden sounded sarcastic? Sorry you felt that way but I did mean it.</p>
<p>Someone had the presence of mind to pull me from train tracks from an oncoming train 30+ years ago and I still feel that I am living on borrowed time.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Except once again, that’s not what the statistics show. Feel free to prove me wrong though, go ahead and bring your “statistics” in here so we can all see.</p>
<p>For all of our arguing, for all of the those who are saddened about what happened to those children at Sandy Hook School, I don’t believe for a moment that gun control laws are going to pass in the vast majority of the states in this country, and I don’t think federal control of this matter is going to fly either. Actually, the area where all of this happened is a haven of sorts for those who love to play with their semi automatics, doing target practice with the real things instead of the video versions. The highs people who love this sort of thing get will not be easily given up. There are target ranges booked for months in advance and because the laws are lax in the wooded areas, a lot of informal target practice areas are there. I don’t even know if banning those type of guns will pass in that area even after losing all of those little children, never mind Texas. So I don’t hold a lot of hope that this will happen. I do believe the NRA when they say they own the votes to prevents such a thing. So for all the discussion, all of the facts, all of the statistics, what it comes down to is that the power trip and false security of owning these weapons override the fact that someone who should not be shot will be before some "bad guy"will with those guns. That thought that the very, very small chance that the gun owner will be in a position to get his gun ready when an intruder strikes is worth the fact that the gun is more like to kill your child, your neighbors, friends, someone innocent. I am not disagreeing that there are times that owning a gun has protected someone. But the statistics are very clear, that those not intendended to be the target end up being shot more than the threats. I cannot understand why anyone intelligent would want to put their children, family, themselves at that kind of risk. The stats there are as clear as can be even using the very questionable numbers of reported “thwarts” achieved by someone owning a gun.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Lies, every one of those stories is a lie. </p>
<p>/sarcasm</p>
<p>Dragonfly, you missed the point of my question. What if you only THINK that I am threatening, and you take “due process” into your own hands and shoot me? I used the example of the private citizen who mis-read the intent of another person who was bent over Gabby Giffords after she had been shot. The armed citizen almost shot the person who was bent over Giffords. </p>
<p>Do you think you have the right to shoot and kill me because you THINK I am a threat, when I in fact may have only frightened you? </p>
<p>Do you get to determine who the "bad guy"is? Who does?</p>