Gun owners?

[Gawdzilla]

The militia was armed by the public, without their guns we would not have had a chance, there was no real central government to to supply arms.

They were still organized and - occasionally - trained although not really effectively.  The idea that some bunch of assholes came running with their hunting rifles and shotguns to defeat the British Army is Hollywood horseshit at its worst.   

The issue wasn't the British Army, it was the Native Americans. Regular Army units were sparse and locals had to have each other's back. So when the church bells started ringing like crazy you grabbed your rifle, the one you hunted deer with most likely, and ran to the rally point. 

Not much need for that any more.

[Cyberman]

I'm with those that think that handguns are pretty useless for anything except killing other people. There is no good reason for civilians to own handguns.
There are far too many instances of people with proper training being involved in accidental shootings. Humans are flawed. One small mistake, one moment of inattention, and someone is dead.

I've heard of very few accidental stabbings.

And that's with legally-owned guns. There's a guy called Dave Courtney, one of those celebrity ex-villains who now make more money from the memoirs and public speaking circuit than they ever did from the life of crime. In his former career he's been shot, stabbed etc and yet claims never to have carried or needed a weapon other than his fists and a knuckleduster - as lethal as it is legal but nowhere near as bad as a gun or knife. His argument, in essence, is: if you go out on a job tooled up, at some point you must be expecting to use it. One gunshot turns a post office raid into a major crime scene, destroys families and a potential five stretch becomes life. Or worse, you start shooting and the police shoot back and suddenly you never come home again. All because you chose to pick up a lethal weapon that morning.

[Neo-Scholastic]

There will always be a tradeoff between liberty and security. Those who argue against handgun ownership are saying that people do not have the right to protect themselves, their family or their property. Antigun people expect victims of crime to wait helplessly until the government rescues them. By then its usually too late.

[KUSA]

[Cyberman]

I've never needed a gun to protect myself and my loved ones. Nor has the big bad government ever offered to do it for me. Sometimes there's a middle ground between two extremes.

[Crossless2.0]

The U.S. came into existence when the victorious and newly independent colonies adopted a constitution (first the Articles of Confederation and then our current Constitution). Prior to that, there were 13 English colonies in rebellion. The leaders of that rebellion would have been hanged as traitors and the Declaration of Independence wouldn't have been worth the paper it was printed on if the war had been lost, a distinct possibility in 1776. The DOC, as significant a document as it has proven to be, was a piece of propaganda aimed at an international audience to justify the extraordinary steps the rebels had taken -- nothing more. It never had, nor does it have now, any force of law.

Anyway, who are the "we" you referred to?  I certainly had nothing to do with it and neither did you.  We are just the fortunate beneficiaries of that revolution.

The we is this country, the people who fought the war. I understand what you are saying, but the war was waged as a unit not 13 separate units.

GC

And I understand what you're saying.  It's worth noting, however, that the percentage of colonists who actively supported independence and the war might have been below 50%, and those who remained loyal to Great Britain were often cowed and persecuted through means that can only be described as domestic terrorism.

In any case, I'm done hijacking this thread.  Carry on with the OP, folks.

[Gawdzilla]

Ah, the old false dichotomy.

[Godscreated]

What do you guys think about mandatory gun safety courses for everyone living in a home where a gun is kept?
I'm not sure how hard it'd be to implement, but I feel like it's a good idea. Seems like many accidental shootings are done by people living in a home where a gun is kept who don't actually own the gun. Even small kids can be taught that guns are dangerous.

 We were taught by our fathers how to handle guns, parents use to take the time to be responsible and teach there children to keep them and others safe. We were to never and I mean never load a gun even a BB gun in the house, that's why to this day I do not keep a loaded gun in the house. I do keep a clip loaded to make my 22 ready quickly, just in case. We also were not allowed to have any gun in our possession without a parent knowing, if we didn't that was a good way to be restricted from our guns. Mandatory gun safety classes might be a good idea for those purchasing new guns, we do not allow people who have never driven to jump into a car and drive, they must be taught. Will it work, i'm not sure, would hope that trained trainers would be able to identify those who shouldn't have guns.

GC

[JesusHChrist]

New member. Curious as to how many of y'all own? And what your stance on the whole subject is.

Personally I am a former marine and currently enjoy gun smithing as a hobby. Would also love to get into competition shooting one day. But I am a strictly peaceful gun nut. I would never want to take another persons life. Especially that of another American. Even though I can carry in public I generally choose not to.

Long time shooter and owner of firearms. Pistols, rifles, and a lone shotgun. Nice shotguns are $$$$ and the funds always seem to go to something else. 

Frequently carry a pistol when going about my daily business. My GF and our kids go to the range several times a year. Everyone in our immediate family knows safety basics and how to handle, clear and operate typical firearms.

I wish I knew more about gun smithing. I've got a Ruger 10/22 that occasionally jams and even worse, an SKS, that fires twice with a single trigger pull. Never really liked the SKS too much, but it's now considered a "classic" I guess. Paid $60 for it at a gun show in California years ago. Russian manufacture so there is that.

[Aroura]

There will always be a tradeoff between liberty and security. Those who argue against handgun ownership are saying that people do not have the right to protect themselves, their family or their property. Antigun people expect victims of crime to wait helplessly until the government rescues them. By then its usually too late.

Or perhaps we are saying that hand guns give one a FALSE sense of protection, and are actually more likely to cause you and your family harm than to help you protect your family.
I mean, look at all those British people being constantly raped and murdered waymore than the overly armed Americans because they cannot own a handgun for protection....oh wait.

I know, facts suck.

The funny thing is, I know most gun owners know these things. They know that studies back up the FACT that a handgun in the house, statistically speaking, is far more likely to cause violent harm to come to the owners than to help protect the owners (I am not arguing that people never protect themselves with a gun, so don't straw man me with that).
It seems most handgun owners fall into that all too common human error of thinking the bad thing will never happen to THEM.  They are too....smart, well trained, careful, prepared, etc.  What is really fucked up is that this "Invulnerabilty Theory" is a form of Victim Blaming.  They are in fact tacitly saying that all the people that own handguns and had some sort of accidental discharge, or shot thier kid thinking they were a thief or whatever, made some error that they themselves will never make.