<p>
</p>
<p>They did serve in a war zone, that’s generally what happens when you’re in the military. I thought this was self explanatory but I guess not. I have family members that served in WW1, WW2, the korean war, vietnam, iraq, and currently in afghanistan.</p>
<p>"What you’re saying is they’ve convinced you obama’s family is worth protecting, but ordinary citizens aren’t. "</p>
<p>Didn’t a law get passed recently to provide life time protection or is it only for daddy?</p>
<p>“Bl4ke360: Go do your homework, you are boring and not as clever as you think you are.”</p>
<p>Is that a way of saying go to your room because you can’t win an argument with your kid?</p>
<p>“You must have missed the news on the sandy hook shooting, because those children didn’t belong to the president and yet they were still targets of assassination.”</p>
<p>And I guess you don’t understand the word “likely,” or the concept of probability.</p>
<p>Bl4ke360, THEY have not convinced me. It’s very clear that presidents and their family need protection. If you can’t understand that, then you are not being reasonable. There are others who are also in the situation where they are safer WITH guns, than not. I am not arguing that. But Nancy Lanza, and many others who own those semi automatics do not own them for protection. By the time she got down to the basement where she stored those thing (and her bedroom is upstairs), unlocked the cabinets and loaded them, the chances of using them to ward off any possible intruder is very small. She owned those guns for sport and fun and the highs and power and joy she got in shooting them and bonding with her son in his delight in using them for target practice. And she fell right into the mainstream of statistics with how her guns were used. They were more like to kill her and him which they did, then they ever were to protect them. It’s really common sense and sheer numbers when you take the vitriole and emotion out of all of this. Why on earth would anyone want to have something that is more likely to harm self and loved ones, far, far more likely, on the much smaller chance that it would prevent such harm? It goes against every bit of risk control and protection. Absolutely, those who need guns for protection should have them, and the law allows this. But to encourage the population at large to own arsenals is really putting all of us at more risk than protection. If it were the other way around, I would not be arguing as I am. But the facts are quite clear.</p>
<p>I grew up around guns–they were part of my life, and I still believe this way because the facts are right there. I don’t keep any guns around my house, because what additional proteciton they might add—and I do not deny that they will add some proteciton, is negated by far by the likelihood that one of my children, family, their friends, neighbors will be harmed by them. I don’t believe for one moment that our family is an exception to those very clear statistics.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I cannot speak to the legal consequences that would have ensued if Nancy Lanza had lived, because I am not familiar with CT law. I am certain that even if there were no legal consequences, Nancy Lanza would have ended up living a miserable, tortured life, and honestly, that is enough for me.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>YES.
If I have a reasonable belief {I think} you are going to cause me death or great bodily harm I have the right to defend myself up to and including causing your death.<— That is the law in my state and many others. </p>
<p>A “reasonable” belief is usually what a similar person under similar circumstances would believe. </p>
<p>In the Gabby Giffords situation the armed citizen choose not to shoot.</p>
<p>Texas: Ha ha! No, “Go do your homework” is a nicer way of calling him a ■■■■■, who is here only to argue. And I blame myself for feeding him.</p>
<p>“They did serve in a war zone, that’s generally what happens when you’re in the military. I thought this was self explanatory but I guess not. I have family members that served in WW1, WW2, the korean war, vietnam, iraq, and currently in afghanistan.” </p>
<p>"Retired Gen. Stanley McChrystal came out in favor of gun control restrictions in a Tuesday morning appearance on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.”</p>
<p>“I spent a career carrying typically either a M16, and later a M4 carbine,” he said. “And a M4 carbine fires a .223 caliber round, which is 5.56 millimeters, at about 3,000 feet per second. When it hits a human body, the effects are devastating. It’s designed to do that. That’s what our soldiers ought to carry.”</p>
<p>Said McChrystal, “I personally don’t think there’s any need for that kind of weaponry on the streets and particularly around the schools in America. I believe that we’ve got to take a serious look – I understand everybody’s desire to have whatever they want – but we have to protect our children and our police and we have to protect our population. And I think we have to take a very mature look at that.”</p>
<p>McChrystal, though he resigned in disgrace in 2010 after a Rolling Stone article, is still revered by many as a top general, and his comments are significant for a former member of the military. If he does continue to advocate for gun control, he could be a significant voice in a movement whose opposition appeals to machismo.</p>
<p>“I think serious action is necessary. Sometimes we talk about very limited actions on the edges, and I just don’t think that’s enough,” he said.</p>
<p>[Stanley</a> McChrystal: Gun Control Requires ‘Serious Action’](<a href=“HuffPost - Breaking News, U.S. and World News | HuffPost”>Stanley McChrystal: Gun Control Requires 'Serious Action' | HuffPost Latest News)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And that’s based on what real-world observations? How many times has a president’s child been shot at school, compared to the amount of times a civilian’s child was shot at school? I have a feeling you don’t know much about probability after all.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t see your point, there are people in the military that have differing opinions, this shouldn’t be a shocker to you. Nevermind the fact that you changed the subject of personally knowing veterans, to citing a general that you obviously do not know personally.</p>
<p>I have a friend who has a permit to carry. And for good reason. But on two occasions, she was separated from her purse which carries the gun. Once at a gathering with hundreds of middle school boys. I found the bag, literally minutes before an announcement and search for it had to be made. Someone just accidently moved it when she put it down for a moment. </p>
<p>She doesn’t carry any more despite the risks, because she found out that one of her sons showed the gun to a friend–kid told his mom, mom called her. I think now that her kids are at that age where they have done some hare brained things, and one in the throngs of mental turmoil that the teen and young adult years bring with the testosterone surges, that she can very clearly see who is most likely to get shot with that gun. And she has reason, valid reason to carry, which in my state has to be pretty danged serious. But she’s a smart woman and she can see the situation for what it is, and she does love her kids very much. I don’t get it when someone owns racks of those weapons and has kids. The numbers are very clear who is most likely to get killed by those things.</p>
<p>“there are people in the military that have differing opinions”</p>
<p>gasbags who support your position are more quotable than the gasbags who don’t. facts of life.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Believe it or not, people don’t live their life by numbers. They live it by common sense. That’s why many gun owners have locking safes. Why don’t you tell me how likely it is that a kid is supposed to guess the combination to a safe and shoot himself.</p>
<p>bL4ke, do your truly believe that the president’s children and those around them are at less risk without armed Secret Service men protecting them? The children themselves, the POTUS himself, are not carrying weapons. These are trained professionals, a whole other story than some weekend target shooter who is far more likely to hit an innocent bystander than the target. And, yes, those who are carrying guns did not find them useful during the GIffords and Aurora movie theater shootings. Happened too fast and there were too many innocent people around to make relaliation with gun useful. That’s the problem when someone is carrying arms without the express job of watching for danger. By the time you realize there is a situation, it is too late by the time you get your weapon ready for use and the pandemonium makes it more harmful than useful to use it. That’s why it is statistically not useful to be carrying a gun around. Hiring someone who is very skilled and trained in protection and weaponry to make security his primary purpose is a whole other story. BUt the cost of having armed police officers at every school and day care center and other large gathering of people in our town would be prohibitive, and even then with all the windows and entry ways, one per building isn’t going to do much good. Adam Lanza did a lot of damage in very short time. A security guard would have likely been another body there. The chances of somene being able to stop an incident are not often very high at all, sadly.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Your friend is an irresponsible person. You NEVER set down a purse with a gun in it.</p>
<p>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>
<p>-People can’t liberally go around shooting others willy nilly. Unless you can prove that you were in a life or death situation, shooting someone will get you prison time.</p>
<p>
Hayden:
Wow - I’m sorry you were shot. I hope it wasn’t serious.</p>
<p>I’m curious - how did this person who grew up around guns accidentally shoot you?</p>
<p>I’ve been around firing guns quite a bit and as long as people follow a few basic safety practices it’s pretty much impossible to accidentally shoot someone. One of the basics is to never point a gun at someone else (unless you’re doing so because you might want to purposely shoot them). Another is that you never ‘assume’ the gun isn’t loaded, point it at a person (breaking rule number 1), and pull the trigger.</p>
<p>There are accidents but they’re almost always due to someone being negligent. Guns rarely point themselves at someone, take their safety off, and pull their trigger. There have been some hunting accidents where a hunter mistakes another hunter for a moose or bear or something but that’s negligence as well.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I keep seeing this kind of nonsense logic here, and I don’t know when it’s going to end. Tell me why all of the recent shootings occurred in gun-free zones. If armed civilians don’t pose a threat to shooters like you say, they wouldn’t have intentionally sought out these gun free zones to commit their shootings. I don’t know how more obvious it gets than that.</p>
<p>“Your friend is an irresponsible person. You NEVER set down a purse with a gun in it.” </p>
<p>Lots of gun owners are irresponsible, hence the problems. Of course, most never will admit it, so.</p>