Comments on: The “Gun Nut” Gap http://themoderatevoice.com/20679/the-gun-nut-gap/ An Internet hub with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, indies, centrists, moderates, and right Wed, 15 Feb 2012 01:00:25 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.2 By: Rudi http://themoderatevoice.com/20679/the-gun-nut-gap/comment-page-1/#comment-125740 Rudi Sun, 29 Jun 2008 01:26:48 +0000 http://themoderatevoice.com/places/americas-n-s/america/usa/20679/the-gun-nut-gap/#comment-125740 Owning a hand gun in Canada is a difficult proposition. The guns per capita are mostly rifles and shotguns. And the gun ownership is more prevalent in isolated rural areas, I doubt if gun ownership is big in Toronto, Montreal, Windsor or Sarnia. Owning a hand gun in Canada is a difficult proposition. The guns per capita are mostly rifles and shotguns. And the gun ownership is more prevalent in isolated rural areas, I doubt if gun ownership is big in Toronto, Montreal, Windsor or Sarnia.

]]> By: Rudi http://themoderatevoice.com/20679/the-gun-nut-gap/comment-page-1/#comment-125745 Rudi Sun, 29 Jun 2008 01:26:48 +0000 http://themoderatevoice.com/places/americas-n-s/america/usa/20679/the-gun-nut-gap/#comment-125745 Owning a hand gun in Canada is a difficult proposition. The guns per capita are mostly rifles and shotguns. And the gun ownership is more prevalent in isolated rural areas, I doubt if gun ownership is big in Toronto, Montreal, Windsor or Sarnia. Owning a hand gun in Canada is a difficult proposition. The guns per capita are mostly rifles and shotguns. And the gun ownership is more prevalent in isolated rural areas, I doubt if gun ownership is big in Toronto, Montreal, Windsor or Sarnia.

]]> By: Rudi http://themoderatevoice.com/20679/the-gun-nut-gap/comment-page-1/#comment-125746 Rudi Sun, 29 Jun 2008 01:26:48 +0000 http://themoderatevoice.com/places/americas-n-s/america/usa/20679/the-gun-nut-gap/#comment-125746 Owning a hand gun in Canada is a difficult proposition. The guns per capita are mostly rifles and shotguns. And the gun ownership is more prevalent in isolated rural areas, I doubt if gun ownership is big in Toronto, Montreal, Windsor or Sarnia. Owning a hand gun in Canada is a difficult proposition. The guns per capita are mostly rifles and shotguns. And the gun ownership is more prevalent in isolated rural areas, I doubt if gun ownership is big in Toronto, Montreal, Windsor or Sarnia.

]]> By: runasim http://themoderatevoice.com/20679/the-gun-nut-gap/comment-page-1/#comment-125739 runasim Sat, 28 Jun 2008 19:43:23 +0000 http://themoderatevoice.com/places/americas-n-s/america/usa/20679/the-gun-nut-gap/#comment-125739 Jazz, <br>If you'd bother to read ALL of what I say, you'd know that I'm not against gun ownership. I'm against unrestricted gun ownership. <br>More than that, I'm opposed to your cheap-shot argument that anyone who doesn't agree with you is , by definition, arrogant. Arrogance is the failure to recognze that an issue can be seen and interpreted in more than one way.<br>In fact, this is exactly why I support Obama: his understanding that people of all viewpoints deserve to be heard and understood.<br><br>I understnad your viewpoint. <br>Do you understand anyhing except your viewpoint?<br><br>Do you understand how the mayor of Wahington, DC., concerned whith heavily armed kids in high-crime areas sees this ?<br>Do you understand that the environment one lives in can affect how gun ownership is viewed, and that living in a different enviornment may lead to different viewpoints?<br>Do you inderstand anything except what pertains to you and your circumstances?<br><br>If so, I'd like to hear about it. Jazz,
If you'd bother to read ALL of what I say, you'd know that I'm not against gun ownership. I'm against unrestricted gun ownership.
More than that, I'm opposed to your cheap-shot argument that anyone who doesn't agree with you is , by definition, arrogant. Arrogance is the failure to recognze that an issue can be seen and interpreted in more than one way.
In fact, this is exactly why I support Obama: his understanding that people of all viewpoints deserve to be heard and understood.

I understnad your viewpoint.
Do you understand anyhing except your viewpoint?

Do you understand how the mayor of Wahington, DC., concerned whith heavily armed kids in high-crime areas sees this ?
Do you understand that the environment one lives in can affect how gun ownership is viewed, and that living in a different enviornment may lead to different viewpoints?
Do you inderstand anything except what pertains to you and your circumstances?

If so, I'd like to hear about it.

]]> By: runasim http://themoderatevoice.com/20679/the-gun-nut-gap/comment-page-1/#comment-125741 runasim Sat, 28 Jun 2008 19:43:23 +0000 http://themoderatevoice.com/places/americas-n-s/america/usa/20679/the-gun-nut-gap/#comment-125741 Jazz, <br>If you'd bother to read ALL of what I say, you'd know that I'm not against gun ownership. I'm against unrestricted gun ownership. <br>More than that, I'm opposed to your cheap-shot argument that anyone who doesn't agree with you is , by definition, arrogant. Arrogance is the failure to recognze that an issue can be seen and interpreted in more than one way.<br>In fact, this is exactly why I support Obama: his understanding that people of all viewpoints deserve to be heard and understood.<br><br>I understnad your viewpoint. <br>Do you understand anyhing except your viewpoint?<br><br>Do you understand how the mayor of Wahington, DC., concerned whith heavily armed kids in high-crime areas sees this ?<br>Do you understand that the environment one lives in can affect how gun ownership is viewed, and that living in a different enviornment may lead to different viewpoints?<br>Do you inderstand anything except what pertains to you and your circumstances?<br><br>If so, I'd like to hear about it. Jazz,
If you'd bother to read ALL of what I say, you'd know that I'm not against gun ownership. I'm against unrestricted gun ownership.
More than that, I'm opposed to your cheap-shot argument that anyone who doesn't agree with you is , by definition, arrogant. Arrogance is the failure to recognze that an issue can be seen and interpreted in more than one way.
In fact, this is exactly why I support Obama: his understanding that people of all viewpoints deserve to be heard and understood.

I understnad your viewpoint.
Do you understand anyhing except your viewpoint?

Do you understand how the mayor of Wahington, DC., concerned whith heavily armed kids in high-crime areas sees this ?
Do you understand that the environment one lives in can affect how gun ownership is viewed, and that living in a different enviornment may lead to different viewpoints?
Do you inderstand anything except what pertains to you and your circumstances?

If so, I'd like to hear about it.

]]> By: runasim http://themoderatevoice.com/20679/the-gun-nut-gap/comment-page-1/#comment-125744 runasim Sat, 28 Jun 2008 19:43:23 +0000 http://themoderatevoice.com/places/americas-n-s/america/usa/20679/the-gun-nut-gap/#comment-125744 Jazz, <br>If you'd bother to read ALL of what I say, you'd know that I'm not against gun ownership. I'm against unrestricted gun ownership. <br>More than that, I'm opposed to your cheap-shot argument that anyone who doesn't agree with you is , by definition, arrogant. Arrogance is the failure to recognze that an issue can be seen and interpreted in more than one way.<br>In fact, this is exactly why I support Obama: his understanding that people of all viewpoints deserve to be heard and understood.<br><br>I understnad your viewpoint. <br>Do you understand anyhing except your viewpoint?<br><br>Do you understand how the mayor of Wahington, DC., concerned whith heavily armed kids in high-crime areas sees this ?<br>Do you understand that the environment one lives in can affect how gun ownership is viewed, and that living in a different enviornment may lead to different viewpoints?<br>Do you inderstand anything except what pertains to you and your circumstances?<br><br>If so, I'd like to hear about it. Jazz,
If you'd bother to read ALL of what I say, you'd know that I'm not against gun ownership. I'm against unrestricted gun ownership.
More than that, I'm opposed to your cheap-shot argument that anyone who doesn't agree with you is , by definition, arrogant. Arrogance is the failure to recognze that an issue can be seen and interpreted in more than one way.
In fact, this is exactly why I support Obama: his understanding that people of all viewpoints deserve to be heard and understood.

I understnad your viewpoint.
Do you understand anyhing except your viewpoint?

Do you understand how the mayor of Wahington, DC., concerned whith heavily armed kids in high-crime areas sees this ?
Do you understand that the environment one lives in can affect how gun ownership is viewed, and that living in a different enviornment may lead to different viewpoints?
Do you inderstand anything except what pertains to you and your circumstances?

If so, I'd like to hear about it.

]]> By: timr http://themoderatevoice.com/20679/the-gun-nut-gap/comment-page-1/#comment-125735 timr Sat, 28 Jun 2008 18:08:56 +0000 http://themoderatevoice.com/places/americas-n-s/america/usa/20679/the-gun-nut-gap/#comment-125735 Jazz, Excellent post! I have also noticed the smug attitude of the gun haters. But if the sheep think that the police will protect them from all the bad people, then so be it. Darwin, and natural selection will win out in the end. Jazz, Excellent post! I have also noticed the smug attitude of the gun haters. But if the sheep think that the police will protect them from all the bad people, then so be it. Darwin, and natural selection will win out in the end.

]]> By: timr http://themoderatevoice.com/20679/the-gun-nut-gap/comment-page-1/#comment-125737 timr Sat, 28 Jun 2008 18:08:56 +0000 http://themoderatevoice.com/places/americas-n-s/america/usa/20679/the-gun-nut-gap/#comment-125737 Jazz, Excellent post! I have also noticed the smug attitude of the gun haters. But if the sheep think that the police will protect them from all the bad people, then so be it. Darwin, and natural selection will win out in the end. Jazz, Excellent post! I have also noticed the smug attitude of the gun haters. But if the sheep think that the police will protect them from all the bad people, then so be it. Darwin, and natural selection will win out in the end.

]]> By: timr http://themoderatevoice.com/20679/the-gun-nut-gap/comment-page-1/#comment-125743 timr Sat, 28 Jun 2008 18:08:56 +0000 http://themoderatevoice.com/places/americas-n-s/america/usa/20679/the-gun-nut-gap/#comment-125743 Jazz, Excellent post! I have also noticed the smug attitude of the gun haters. But if the sheep think that the police will protect them from all the bad people, then so be it. Darwin, and natural selection will win out in the end. Jazz, Excellent post! I have also noticed the smug attitude of the gun haters. But if the sheep think that the police will protect them from all the bad people, then so be it. Darwin, and natural selection will win out in the end.

]]> By: timr http://themoderatevoice.com/20679/the-gun-nut-gap/comment-page-1/#comment-125731 timr Sat, 28 Jun 2008 18:04:56 +0000 http://themoderatevoice.com/places/americas-n-s/america/usa/20679/the-gun-nut-gap/#comment-125731 And you know that of the 39 million guns in this country, only about 1 in 3 people own or use them. And you know this how? I have lived in many states over my 60 years, and I never registered my guns(except when required when they were purchased), as I don't think that it is anybodys business but my own how many-or if any-guns I own. I now live in Texas where there is no registration requirement. Those who hate guns seem to have a sense that they are morally superior to gun owners-this has come out in several of the comments here-as does the total closed mind that the *superior* person also has. But to speak practically, if all guns that are legally owned were taken away(as you would so obviously like), then who would protect all of you sheep from the criminals? The police? Don't think so. Their job is not to protect you from a crime that has not yet happened, but to protect society from those who would break the laws that the society wants. If someone has broken into your home-because he knows that you have no means to defend yourself-and you call 911, then what do you do while waiting 5, 10, 15, 30 min for the police to show up? Also, it might just be a good idea for all of you handgun haters to go back to when you said that any state(34 that I know about) that issued concealed carry permits to anyone who legally could carry a handgun would have the streets running with blood very soon. Ahhh....didn't happen did it? However what did happen, and this is backed up by the FBI crime stats, is that muggings and car jackings went down. A college prof, from I think the U of Chicago, did a county by county study over several years and found that CC laws in that state made several catagories of crime go down. Hmmmm. Here in Texas, a law was passed that a homeowner can shoot anyone who breaks into his home or a neighbors home, or who breaks into his car. It is called down here, the castle doctrine, and guess what. Since it came into effect here on jan 1st 2008, home invasions have gone down. Cause and effect? NAH, that couldn't possibly be true. So, be a gun hater, and if someone breaks into your home be sure and inform them that you don't believe in guns, and that you have called the police, I am sure that you can then sit down with the home invader and have a stimulating conversation about how guns are bad until the police arrive to pick him up.<br> and runasim, just how does my having either 1 gun or a collection of 20 guns either help or hurt or even effect you? You say that my having guns infringes on your rights, but your kind of gun haters making laws that restrict what I can do in my own house and infringe on my rights are ok. Typical. Which is one reason why I moved to Texas. BTW, the PPO's that people go to court and get against a person that they think might attack them. Not worth the paper they are written on as the police will not enforce them. And I know this how you ask? In Co a woman called the police many times to say that her ex husband had violated her PPO, and she even told them where he was. Result. 12 hours later, after the police had declined to do anything, he crashed into the police station, with both his kids, who he had killed earlier. Mi. A woman was kidnapped, in her car, by a man that she had a PPO on, she was able to let a friend know what was happening, the police were called, they declined to do anything, and when the woman was found dead the next day, attempted to justify themselves by saying that the police do not involve themselves with PPO's. So, lots of luck on your sheep attitude, hope it works out for you.I, on the other hand, have had my apartment broken into while I was asleep when I was living in Sacremento Ca in the 70's. I woke up to find someone leaning over the bed with a baseball bat in his hands. I shot him with the handgun that I kept under my pillow. No harm no foul. No charges by the police as my door was broken off its hinges, and the man was standing over me with a weapon. Self defense. In WaDC, again in the 70's, a man broke into my hotel room while I was sleeping, and once more, I shot him. Now in those cases, what would you, the gun hater have done? 2 people that I did not know, 2 different times, in 2 different years, broke into my living space and threatened me. In neither case did the police jail me, or in fact even take me to the police station, nor did they confiscate my handgun. I should have just threatened them you say, not shot them. Well bubba, threats don't usually work, unless its a pump shotgun, and you have just put a shell in the chamber-pumpshotguns make a very distinctive sound, most people who are in the wrong place, will freeze when they hear it. And you know that of the 39 million guns in this country, only about 1 in 3 people own or use them. And you know this how? I have lived in many states over my 60 years, and I never registered my guns(except when required when they were purchased), as I don't think that it is anybodys business but my own how many-or if any-guns I own. I now live in Texas where there is no registration requirement. Those who hate guns seem to have a sense that they are morally superior to gun owners-this has come out in several of the comments here-as does the total closed mind that the *superior* person also has. But to speak practically, if all guns that are legally owned were taken away(as you would so obviously like), then who would protect all of you sheep from the criminals? The police? Don't think so. Their job is not to protect you from a crime that has not yet happened, but to protect society from those who would break the laws that the society wants. If someone has broken into your home-because he knows that you have no means to defend yourself-and you call 911, then what do you do while waiting 5, 10, 15, 30 min for the police to show up? Also, it might just be a good idea for all of you handgun haters to go back to when you said that any state(34 that I know about) that issued concealed carry permits to anyone who legally could carry a handgun would have the streets running with blood very soon. Ahhh….didn't happen did it? However what did happen, and this is backed up by the FBI crime stats, is that muggings and car jackings went down. A college prof, from I think the U of Chicago, did a county by county study over several years and found that CC laws in that state made several catagories of crime go down. Hmmmm. Here in Texas, a law was passed that a homeowner can shoot anyone who breaks into his home or a neighbors home, or who breaks into his car. It is called down here, the castle doctrine, and guess what. Since it came into effect here on jan 1st 2008, home invasions have gone down. Cause and effect? NAH, that couldn't possibly be true. So, be a gun hater, and if someone breaks into your home be sure and inform them that you don't believe in guns, and that you have called the police, I am sure that you can then sit down with the home invader and have a stimulating conversation about how guns are bad until the police arrive to pick him up.
and runasim, just how does my having either 1 gun or a collection of 20 guns either help or hurt or even effect you? You say that my having guns infringes on your rights, but your kind of gun haters making laws that restrict what I can do in my own house and infringe on my rights are ok. Typical. Which is one reason why I moved to Texas. BTW, the PPO's that people go to court and get against a person that they think might attack them. Not worth the paper they are written on as the police will not enforce them. And I know this how you ask? In Co a woman called the police many times to say that her ex husband had violated her PPO, and she even told them where he was. Result. 12 hours later, after the police had declined to do anything, he crashed into the police station, with both his kids, who he had killed earlier. Mi. A woman was kidnapped, in her car, by a man that she had a PPO on, she was able to let a friend know what was happening, the police were called, they declined to do anything, and when the woman was found dead the next day, attempted to justify themselves by saying that the police do not involve themselves with PPO's. So, lots of luck on your sheep attitude, hope it works out for you.I, on the other hand, have had my apartment broken into while I was asleep when I was living in Sacremento Ca in the 70's. I woke up to find someone leaning over the bed with a baseball bat in his hands. I shot him with the handgun that I kept under my pillow. No harm no foul. No charges by the police as my door was broken off its hinges, and the man was standing over me with a weapon. Self defense. In WaDC, again in the 70's, a man broke into my hotel room while I was sleeping, and once more, I shot him. Now in those cases, what would you, the gun hater have done? 2 people that I did not know, 2 different times, in 2 different years, broke into my living space and threatened me. In neither case did the police jail me, or in fact even take me to the police station, nor did they confiscate my handgun. I should have just threatened them you say, not shot them. Well bubba, threats don't usually work, unless its a pump shotgun, and you have just put a shell in the chamber-pumpshotguns make a very distinctive sound, most people who are in the wrong place, will freeze when they hear it.

]]> By: timr http://themoderatevoice.com/20679/the-gun-nut-gap/comment-page-1/#comment-125736 timr Sat, 28 Jun 2008 18:04:56 +0000 http://themoderatevoice.com/places/americas-n-s/america/usa/20679/the-gun-nut-gap/#comment-125736 And you know that of the 39 million guns in this country, only about 1 in 3 people own or use them. And you know this how? I have lived in many states over my 60 years, and I never registered my guns(except when required when they were purchased), as I don't think that it is anybodys business but my own how many-or if any-guns I own. I now live in Texas where there is no registration requirement. Those who hate guns seem to have a sense that they are morally superior to gun owners-this has come out in several of the comments here-as does the total closed mind that the *superior* person also has. But to speak practically, if all guns that are legally owned were taken away(as you would so obviously like), then who would protect all of you sheep from the criminals? The police? Don't think so. Their job is not to protect you from a crime that has not yet happened, but to protect society from those who would break the laws that the society wants. If someone has broken into your home-because he knows that you have no means to defend yourself-and you call 911, then what do you do while waiting 5, 10, 15, 30 min for the police to show up? Also, it might just be a good idea for all of you handgun haters to go back to when you said that any state(34 that I know about) that issued concealed carry permits to anyone who legally could carry a handgun would have the streets running with blood very soon. Ahhh....didn't happen did it? However what did happen, and this is backed up by the FBI crime stats, is that muggings and car jackings went down. A college prof, from I think the U of Chicago, did a county by county study over several years and found that CC laws in that state made several catagories of crime go down. Hmmmm. Here in Texas, a law was passed that a homeowner can shoot anyone who breaks into his home or a neighbors home, or who breaks into his car. It is called down here, the castle doctrine, and guess what. Since it came into effect here on jan 1st 2008, home invasions have gone down. Cause and effect? NAH, that couldn't possibly be true. So, be a gun hater, and if someone breaks into your home be sure and inform them that you don't believe in guns, and that you have called the police, I am sure that you can then sit down with the home invader and have a stimulating conversation about how guns are bad until the police arrive to pick him up.<br> and runasim, just how does my having either 1 gun or a collection of 20 guns either help or hurt or even effect you? You say that my having guns infringes on your rights, but your kind of gun haters making laws that restrict what I can do in my own house and infringe on my rights are ok. Typical. Which is one reason why I moved to Texas. BTW, the PPO's that people go to court and get against a person that they think might attack them. Not worth the paper they are written on as the police will not enforce them. And I know this how you ask? In Co a woman called the police many times to say that her ex husband had violated her PPO, and she even told them where he was. Result. 12 hours later, after the police had declined to do anything, he crashed into the police station, with both his kids, who he had killed earlier. Mi. A woman was kidnapped, in her car, by a man that she had a PPO on, she was able to let a friend know what was happening, the police were called, they declined to do anything, and when the woman was found dead the next day, attempted to justify themselves by saying that the police do not involve themselves with PPO's. So, lots of luck on your sheep attitude, hope it works out for you.I, on the other hand, have had my apartment broken into while I was asleep when I was living in Sacremento Ca in the 70's. I woke up to find someone leaning over the bed with a baseball bat in his hands. I shot him with the handgun that I kept under my pillow. No harm no foul. No charges by the police as my door was broken off its hinges, and the man was standing over me with a weapon. Self defense. In WaDC, again in the 70's, a man broke into my hotel room while I was sleeping, and once more, I shot him. Now in those cases, what would you, the gun hater have done? 2 people that I did not know, 2 different times, in 2 different years, broke into my living space and threatened me. In neither case did the police jail me, or in fact even take me to the police station, nor did they confiscate my handgun. I should have just threatened them you say, not shot them. Well bubba, threats don't usually work, unless its a pump shotgun, and you have just put a shell in the chamber-pumpshotguns make a very distinctive sound, most people who are in the wrong place, will freeze when they hear it. And you know that of the 39 million guns in this country, only about 1 in 3 people own or use them. And you know this how? I have lived in many states over my 60 years, and I never registered my guns(except when required when they were purchased), as I don't think that it is anybodys business but my own how many-or if any-guns I own. I now live in Texas where there is no registration requirement. Those who hate guns seem to have a sense that they are morally superior to gun owners-this has come out in several of the comments here-as does the total closed mind that the *superior* person also has. But to speak practically, if all guns that are legally owned were taken away(as you would so obviously like), then who would protect all of you sheep from the criminals? The police? Don't think so. Their job is not to protect you from a crime that has not yet happened, but to protect society from those who would break the laws that the society wants. If someone has broken into your home-because he knows that you have no means to defend yourself-and you call 911, then what do you do while waiting 5, 10, 15, 30 min for the police to show up? Also, it might just be a good idea for all of you handgun haters to go back to when you said that any state(34 that I know about) that issued concealed carry permits to anyone who legally could carry a handgun would have the streets running with blood very soon. Ahhh….didn't happen did it? However what did happen, and this is backed up by the FBI crime stats, is that muggings and car jackings went down. A college prof, from I think the U of Chicago, did a county by county study over several years and found that CC laws in that state made several catagories of crime go down. Hmmmm. Here in Texas, a law was passed that a homeowner can shoot anyone who breaks into his home or a neighbors home, or who breaks into his car. It is called down here, the castle doctrine, and guess what. Since it came into effect here on jan 1st 2008, home invasions have gone down. Cause and effect? NAH, that couldn't possibly be true. So, be a gun hater, and if someone breaks into your home be sure and inform them that you don't believe in guns, and that you have called the police, I am sure that you can then sit down with the home invader and have a stimulating conversation about how guns are bad until the police arrive to pick him up.
and runasim, just how does my having either 1 gun or a collection of 20 guns either help or hurt or even effect you? You say that my having guns infringes on your rights, but your kind of gun haters making laws that restrict what I can do in my own house and infringe on my rights are ok. Typical. Which is one reason why I moved to Texas. BTW, the PPO's that people go to court and get against a person that they think might attack them. Not worth the paper they are written on as the police will not enforce them. And I know this how you ask? In Co a woman called the police many times to say that her ex husband had violated her PPO, and she even told them where he was. Result. 12 hours later, after the police had declined to do anything, he crashed into the police station, with both his kids, who he had killed earlier. Mi. A woman was kidnapped, in her car, by a man that she had a PPO on, she was able to let a friend know what was happening, the police were called, they declined to do anything, and when the woman was found dead the next day, attempted to justify themselves by saying that the police do not involve themselves with PPO's. So, lots of luck on your sheep attitude, hope it works out for you.I, on the other hand, have had my apartment broken into while I was asleep when I was living in Sacremento Ca in the 70's. I woke up to find someone leaning over the bed with a baseball bat in his hands. I shot him with the handgun that I kept under my pillow. No harm no foul. No charges by the police as my door was broken off its hinges, and the man was standing over me with a weapon. Self defense. In WaDC, again in the 70's, a man broke into my hotel room while I was sleeping, and once more, I shot him. Now in those cases, what would you, the gun hater have done? 2 people that I did not know, 2 different times, in 2 different years, broke into my living space and threatened me. In neither case did the police jail me, or in fact even take me to the police station, nor did they confiscate my handgun. I should have just threatened them you say, not shot them. Well bubba, threats don't usually work, unless its a pump shotgun, and you have just put a shell in the chamber-pumpshotguns make a very distinctive sound, most people who are in the wrong place, will freeze when they hear it.

]]> By: timr http://themoderatevoice.com/20679/the-gun-nut-gap/comment-page-1/#comment-125738 timr Sat, 28 Jun 2008 18:04:56 +0000 http://themoderatevoice.com/places/americas-n-s/america/usa/20679/the-gun-nut-gap/#comment-125738 And you know that of the 39 million guns in this country, only about 1 in 3 people own or use them. And you know this how? I have lived in many states over my 60 years, and I never registered my guns(except when required when they were purchased), as I don't think that it is anybodys business but my own how many-or if any-guns I own. I now live in Texas where there is no registration requirement. Those who hate guns seem to have a sense that they are morally superior to gun owners-this has come out in several of the comments here-as does the total closed mind that the *superior* person also has. But to speak practically, if all guns that are legally owned were taken away(as you would so obviously like), then who would protect all of you sheep from the criminals? The police? Don't think so. Their job is not to protect you from a crime that has not yet happened, but to protect society from those who would break the laws that the society wants. If someone has broken into your home-because he knows that you have no means to defend yourself-and you call 911, then what do you do while waiting 5, 10, 15, 30 min for the police to show up? Also, it might just be a good idea for all of you handgun haters to go back to when you said that any state(34 that I know about) that issued concealed carry permits to anyone who legally could carry a handgun would have the streets running with blood very soon. Ahhh....didn't happen did it? However what did happen, and this is backed up by the FBI crime stats, is that muggings and car jackings went down. A college prof, from I think the U of Chicago, did a county by county study over several years and found that CC laws in that state made several catagories of crime go down. Hmmmm. Here in Texas, a law was passed that a homeowner can shoot anyone who breaks into his home or a neighbors home, or who breaks into his car. It is called down here, the castle doctrine, and guess what. Since it came into effect here on jan 1st 2008, home invasions have gone down. Cause and effect? NAH, that couldn't possibly be true. So, be a gun hater, and if someone breaks into your home be sure and inform them that you don't believe in guns, and that you have called the police, I am sure that you can then sit down with the home invader and have a stimulating conversation about how guns are bad until the police arrive to pick him up.<br> and runasim, just how does my having either 1 gun or a collection of 20 guns either help or hurt or even effect you? You say that my having guns infringes on your rights, but your kind of gun haters making laws that restrict what I can do in my own house and infringe on my rights are ok. Typical. Which is one reason why I moved to Texas. BTW, the PPO's that people go to court and get against a person that they think might attack them. Not worth the paper they are written on as the police will not enforce them. And I know this how you ask? In Co a woman called the police many times to say that her ex husband had violated her PPO, and she even told them where he was. Result. 12 hours later, after the police had declined to do anything, he crashed into the police station, with both his kids, who he had killed earlier. Mi. A woman was kidnapped, in her car, by a man that she had a PPO on, she was able to let a friend know what was happening, the police were called, they declined to do anything, and when the woman was found dead the next day, attempted to justify themselves by saying that the police do not involve themselves with PPO's. So, lots of luck on your sheep attitude, hope it works out for you.I, on the other hand, have had my apartment broken into while I was asleep when I was living in Sacremento Ca in the 70's. I woke up to find someone leaning over the bed with a baseball bat in his hands. I shot him with the handgun that I kept under my pillow. No harm no foul. No charges by the police as my door was broken off its hinges, and the man was standing over me with a weapon. Self defense. In WaDC, again in the 70's, a man broke into my hotel room while I was sleeping, and once more, I shot him. Now in those cases, what would you, the gun hater have done? 2 people that I did not know, 2 different times, in 2 different years, broke into my living space and threatened me. In neither case did the police jail me, or in fact even take me to the police station, nor did they confiscate my handgun. I should have just threatened them you say, not shot them. Well bubba, threats don't usually work, unless its a pump shotgun, and you have just put a shell in the chamber-pumpshotguns make a very distinctive sound, most people who are in the wrong place, will freeze when they hear it. And you know that of the 39 million guns in this country, only about 1 in 3 people own or use them. And you know this how? I have lived in many states over my 60 years, and I never registered my guns(except when required when they were purchased), as I don't think that it is anybodys business but my own how many-or if any-guns I own. I now live in Texas where there is no registration requirement. Those who hate guns seem to have a sense that they are morally superior to gun owners-this has come out in several of the comments here-as does the total closed mind that the *superior* person also has. But to speak practically, if all guns that are legally owned were taken away(as you would so obviously like), then who would protect all of you sheep from the criminals? The police? Don't think so. Their job is not to protect you from a crime that has not yet happened, but to protect society from those who would break the laws that the society wants. If someone has broken into your home-because he knows that you have no means to defend yourself-and you call 911, then what do you do while waiting 5, 10, 15, 30 min for the police to show up? Also, it might just be a good idea for all of you handgun haters to go back to when you said that any state(34 that I know about) that issued concealed carry permits to anyone who legally could carry a handgun would have the streets running with blood very soon. Ahhh….didn't happen did it? However what did happen, and this is backed up by the FBI crime stats, is that muggings and car jackings went down. A college prof, from I think the U of Chicago, did a county by county study over several years and found that CC laws in that state made several catagories of crime go down. Hmmmm. Here in Texas, a law was passed that a homeowner can shoot anyone who breaks into his home or a neighbors home, or who breaks into his car. It is called down here, the castle doctrine, and guess what. Since it came into effect here on jan 1st 2008, home invasions have gone down. Cause and effect? NAH, that couldn't possibly be true. So, be a gun hater, and if someone breaks into your home be sure and inform them that you don't believe in guns, and that you have called the police, I am sure that you can then sit down with the home invader and have a stimulating conversation about how guns are bad until the police arrive to pick him up.
and runasim, just how does my having either 1 gun or a collection of 20 guns either help or hurt or even effect you? You say that my having guns infringes on your rights, but your kind of gun haters making laws that restrict what I can do in my own house and infringe on my rights are ok. Typical. Which is one reason why I moved to Texas. BTW, the PPO's that people go to court and get against a person that they think might attack them. Not worth the paper they are written on as the police will not enforce them. And I know this how you ask? In Co a woman called the police many times to say that her ex husband had violated her PPO, and she even told them where he was. Result. 12 hours later, after the police had declined to do anything, he crashed into the police station, with both his kids, who he had killed earlier. Mi. A woman was kidnapped, in her car, by a man that she had a PPO on, she was able to let a friend know what was happening, the police were called, they declined to do anything, and when the woman was found dead the next day, attempted to justify themselves by saying that the police do not involve themselves with PPO's. So, lots of luck on your sheep attitude, hope it works out for you.I, on the other hand, have had my apartment broken into while I was asleep when I was living in Sacremento Ca in the 70's. I woke up to find someone leaning over the bed with a baseball bat in his hands. I shot him with the handgun that I kept under my pillow. No harm no foul. No charges by the police as my door was broken off its hinges, and the man was standing over me with a weapon. Self defense. In WaDC, again in the 70's, a man broke into my hotel room while I was sleeping, and once more, I shot him. Now in those cases, what would you, the gun hater have done? 2 people that I did not know, 2 different times, in 2 different years, broke into my living space and threatened me. In neither case did the police jail me, or in fact even take me to the police station, nor did they confiscate my handgun. I should have just threatened them you say, not shot them. Well bubba, threats don't usually work, unless its a pump shotgun, and you have just put a shell in the chamber-pumpshotguns make a very distinctive sound, most people who are in the wrong place, will freeze when they hear it.

]]> By: Jazz http://themoderatevoice.com/20679/the-gun-nut-gap/comment-page-1/#comment-125730 Jazz Sat, 28 Jun 2008 17:29:09 +0000 http://themoderatevoice.com/places/americas-n-s/america/usa/20679/the-gun-nut-gap/#comment-125730 Simply typing the two words 'False Argument" does nothing to document your point nor make it magically shift from opinion to fact. You don't like the knife or shovel analogy? Fine. I have a crossbow that could kill you from 100 yards if there's not much wind. If you're driving your car down the freeway at 65 mph and I drop a bowling ball through your windshield from an overpass, you're going to die. The examples are endless and eliminating guns does nothing but make it more difficult to do violence, not impossible or even improbably. So your argument, I'm afraid, is the one that is "false."<br><br>The "militia interpretation" such as it was never ruled out individual ownership, so there was no need to amend the 2nd unless you wanted all guns removed from society. And by the way, you are correct in one point. You do NOT live on an island alone. There are lots of other people on the island, some of whom will choose to have guns. It's the nature of the country you live in, as has now been once again affirmed by the Heller decision. Your next best option is to move to England. If we live in the same neighborhood and I lawfully own a gun and I don't shoot you with it or even bring it outside (in most cases) I'm not infringing on your rights. If I DO shoot you with it, then I'm a criminal and we're on to another entire conversation.<br><br>The arrogance of the anti-gun crowd thinking they should determine the rights of law abiding citizens around them is simply staggering. If you're just angry with the criminals, work for better law enforcement. Simply typing the two words 'False Argument” does nothing to document your point nor make it magically shift from opinion to fact. You don't like the knife or shovel analogy? Fine. I have a crossbow that could kill you from 100 yards if there's not much wind. If you're driving your car down the freeway at 65 mph and I drop a bowling ball through your windshield from an overpass, you're going to die. The examples are endless and eliminating guns does nothing but make it more difficult to do violence, not impossible or even improbably. So your argument, I'm afraid, is the one that is “false.”

The “militia interpretation” such as it was never ruled out individual ownership, so there was no need to amend the 2nd unless you wanted all guns removed from society. And by the way, you are correct in one point. You do NOT live on an island alone. There are lots of other people on the island, some of whom will choose to have guns. It's the nature of the country you live in, as has now been once again affirmed by the Heller decision. Your next best option is to move to England. If we live in the same neighborhood and I lawfully own a gun and I don't shoot you with it or even bring it outside (in most cases) I'm not infringing on your rights. If I DO shoot you with it, then I'm a criminal and we're on to another entire conversation.

The arrogance of the anti-gun crowd thinking they should determine the rights of law abiding citizens around them is simply staggering. If you're just angry with the criminals, work for better law enforcement.

]]> By: Jazz http://themoderatevoice.com/20679/the-gun-nut-gap/comment-page-1/#comment-125732 Jazz Sat, 28 Jun 2008 17:29:09 +0000 http://themoderatevoice.com/places/americas-n-s/america/usa/20679/the-gun-nut-gap/#comment-125732 Simply typing the two words 'False Argument" does nothing to document your point nor make it magically shift from opinion to fact. You don't like the knife or shovel analogy? Fine. I have a crossbow that could kill you from 100 yards if there's not much wind. If you're driving your car down the freeway at 65 mph and I drop a bowling ball through your windshield from an overpass, you're going to die. The examples are endless and eliminating guns does nothing but make it more difficult to do violence, not impossible or even improbably. So your argument, I'm afraid, is the one that is "false."<br><br>The "militia interpretation" such as it was never ruled out individual ownership, so there was no need to amend the 2nd unless you wanted all guns removed from society. And by the way, you are correct in one point. You do NOT live on an island alone. There are lots of other people on the island, some of whom will choose to have guns. It's the nature of the country you live in, as has now been once again affirmed by the Heller decision. Your next best option is to move to England. If we live in the same neighborhood and I lawfully own a gun and I don't shoot you with it or even bring it outside (in most cases) I'm not infringing on your rights. If I DO shoot you with it, then I'm a criminal and we're on to another entire conversation.<br><br>The arrogance of the anti-gun crowd thinking they should determine the rights of law abiding citizens around them is simply staggering. If you're just angry with the criminals, work for better law enforcement. Simply typing the two words 'False Argument” does nothing to document your point nor make it magically shift from opinion to fact. You don't like the knife or shovel analogy? Fine. I have a crossbow that could kill you from 100 yards if there's not much wind. If you're driving your car down the freeway at 65 mph and I drop a bowling ball through your windshield from an overpass, you're going to die. The examples are endless and eliminating guns does nothing but make it more difficult to do violence, not impossible or even improbably. So your argument, I'm afraid, is the one that is “false.”

The “militia interpretation” such as it was never ruled out individual ownership, so there was no need to amend the 2nd unless you wanted all guns removed from society. And by the way, you are correct in one point. You do NOT live on an island alone. There are lots of other people on the island, some of whom will choose to have guns. It's the nature of the country you live in, as has now been once again affirmed by the Heller decision. Your next best option is to move to England. If we live in the same neighborhood and I lawfully own a gun and I don't shoot you with it or even bring it outside (in most cases) I'm not infringing on your rights. If I DO shoot you with it, then I'm a criminal and we're on to another entire conversation.

The arrogance of the anti-gun crowd thinking they should determine the rights of law abiding citizens around them is simply staggering. If you're just angry with the criminals, work for better law enforcement.

]]> By: Jazz http://themoderatevoice.com/20679/the-gun-nut-gap/comment-page-1/#comment-125734 Jazz Sat, 28 Jun 2008 17:29:09 +0000 http://themoderatevoice.com/places/americas-n-s/america/usa/20679/the-gun-nut-gap/#comment-125734 Simply typing the two words 'False Argument" does nothing to document your point nor make it magically shift from opinion to fact. You don't like the knife or shovel analogy? Fine. I have a crossbow that could kill you from 100 yards if there's not much wind. If you're driving your car down the freeway at 65 mph and I drop a bowling ball through your windshield from an overpass, you're going to die. The examples are endless and eliminating guns does nothing but make it more difficult to do violence, not impossible or even improbably. So your argument, I'm afraid, is the one that is "false."<br><br>The "militia interpretation" such as it was never ruled out individual ownership, so there was no need to amend the 2nd unless you wanted all guns removed from society. And by the way, you are correct in one point. You do NOT live on an island alone. There are lots of other people on the island, some of whom will choose to have guns. It's the nature of the country you live in, as has now been once again affirmed by the Heller decision. Your next best option is to move to England. If we live in the same neighborhood and I lawfully own a gun and I don't shoot you with it or even bring it outside (in most cases) I'm not infringing on your rights. If I DO shoot you with it, then I'm a criminal and we're on to another entire conversation.<br><br>The arrogance of the anti-gun crowd thinking they should determine the rights of law abiding citizens around them is simply staggering. If you're just angry with the criminals, work for better law enforcement. Simply typing the two words 'False Argument” does nothing to document your point nor make it magically shift from opinion to fact. You don't like the knife or shovel analogy? Fine. I have a crossbow that could kill you from 100 yards if there's not much wind. If you're driving your car down the freeway at 65 mph and I drop a bowling ball through your windshield from an overpass, you're going to die. The examples are endless and eliminating guns does nothing but make it more difficult to do violence, not impossible or even improbably. So your argument, I'm afraid, is the one that is “false.”

The “militia interpretation” such as it was never ruled out individual ownership, so there was no need to amend the 2nd unless you wanted all guns removed from society. And by the way, you are correct in one point. You do NOT live on an island alone. There are lots of other people on the island, some of whom will choose to have guns. It's the nature of the country you live in, as has now been once again affirmed by the Heller decision. Your next best option is to move to England. If we live in the same neighborhood and I lawfully own a gun and I don't shoot you with it or even bring it outside (in most cases) I'm not infringing on your rights. If I DO shoot you with it, then I'm a criminal and we're on to another entire conversation.

The arrogance of the anti-gun crowd thinking they should determine the rights of law abiding citizens around them is simply staggering. If you're just angry with the criminals, work for better law enforcement.

]]> By: runasim http://themoderatevoice.com/20679/the-gun-nut-gap/comment-page-1/#comment-125725 runasim Sat, 28 Jun 2008 17:12:47 +0000 http://themoderatevoice.com/places/americas-n-s/america/usa/20679/the-gun-nut-gap/#comment-125725 bellisaurius,<br><br>Yours appeared to be an example of a very popular form of gimmicky argument: pick out what someone in the opposition gets wrong, and then interpolate from that to imply,or state outright, that everything the opposition believes is wrong. bellisaurius,

Yours appeared to be an example of a very popular form of gimmicky argument: pick out what someone in the opposition gets wrong, and then interpolate from that to imply,or state outright, that everything the opposition believes is wrong.

]]> By: runasim http://themoderatevoice.com/20679/the-gun-nut-gap/comment-page-1/#comment-125728 runasim Sat, 28 Jun 2008 17:12:47 +0000 http://themoderatevoice.com/places/americas-n-s/america/usa/20679/the-gun-nut-gap/#comment-125728 bellisaurius,<br><br>Yours appeared to be an example of a very popular form of gimmicky argument: pick out what someone in the opposition gets wrong, and then interpolate from that to imply,or state outright, that everything the opposition believes is wrong. bellisaurius,

Yours appeared to be an example of a very popular form of gimmicky argument: pick out what someone in the opposition gets wrong, and then interpolate from that to imply,or state outright, that everything the opposition believes is wrong.

]]> By: runasim http://themoderatevoice.com/20679/the-gun-nut-gap/comment-page-1/#comment-125733 runasim Sat, 28 Jun 2008 17:12:47 +0000 http://themoderatevoice.com/places/americas-n-s/america/usa/20679/the-gun-nut-gap/#comment-125733 bellisaurius,<br><br>Yours appeared to be an example of a very popular form of gimmicky argument: pick out what someone in the opposition gets wrong, and then interpolate from that to imply,or state outright, that everything the opposition believes is wrong. bellisaurius,

Yours appeared to be an example of a very popular form of gimmicky argument: pick out what someone in the opposition gets wrong, and then interpolate from that to imply,or state outright, that everything the opposition believes is wrong.

]]> By: runasim http://themoderatevoice.com/20679/the-gun-nut-gap/comment-page-1/#comment-125719 runasim Sat, 28 Jun 2008 17:02:22 +0000 http://themoderatevoice.com/places/americas-n-s/america/usa/20679/the-gun-nut-gap/#comment-125719 Another false argument:<br>If "somebody wanted to harm you they would use a knife or a baseball bat or a shovel."<br>Knives, baseball bats, and shovels require that the attacker be there, in person, close enough for the victim to have a chance to fight him off. Bystanders would not get hurt, unless they choose to join the fight. The approaaching knife wielder could be seen coming, and the intended victim could even avoid harm by simply running away.<br>A gun can be fired from a safe distance and indiscriminately. A gun can be used to pick off scores of victims, before anyone has figured out where the attacker is.<br><br>---------------------------------<br> Yet another false argument:<br>"If you don't like the Second Amendment, seek to get it repealed"<br><br>Prior to now, laws were based on another SC ruling, one stating that the 'militia' interpretation was correct, This ruling has been in effect for DECADES, yet the pro gun faction never sought to get the 2nd amendment repealed, amended or replaced. They had every chance to lead by example, but instead have always chosen to rely on getting an ideologically amenable court membership. Talk about calling the kettle balck!<br>______________________________<br><br>Like Jazz, I'm also torn between being amused and offended by "the only slightly veiled insults and condescending attitude" of, in this case, the pro gun group.<br>Mostly, I'm offended.,because of the vacuous nature of their arguments.<br>I'm sick and tired of the 'my rights' arguments on a whole host of issues.<br>No right is limitless, and if we were intellectually honest, we would debate where those limits should rightfully be set, instead of using this kind of absoluitst, ''me and my rights agaisnt the world' ' approach. <br>No man is an island. and few live on an island for only one. One man's rights affect another's. We would be better off discussing how to live together, in the same neighborhood, accomodating each other's rights as best as possible, rather than trying to impose ourselves, with our rights, on everyone else and their rights. Another false argument:
If “somebody wanted to harm you they would use a knife or a baseball bat or a shovel.”
Knives, baseball bats, and shovels require that the attacker be there, in person, close enough for the victim to have a chance to fight him off. Bystanders would not get hurt, unless they choose to join the fight. The approaaching knife wielder could be seen coming, and the intended victim could even avoid harm by simply running away.
A gun can be fired from a safe distance and indiscriminately. A gun can be used to pick off scores of victims, before anyone has figured out where the attacker is.

———————————
Yet another false argument:
“If you don't like the Second Amendment, seek to get it repealed”

Prior to now, laws were based on another SC ruling, one stating that the 'militia' interpretation was correct, This ruling has been in effect for DECADES, yet the pro gun faction never sought to get the 2nd amendment repealed, amended or replaced. They had every chance to lead by example, but instead have always chosen to rely on getting an ideologically amenable court membership. Talk about calling the kettle balck!
______________________________

Like Jazz, I'm also torn between being amused and offended by “the only slightly veiled insults and condescending attitude” of, in this case, the pro gun group.
Mostly, I'm offended.,because of the vacuous nature of their arguments.
I'm sick and tired of the 'my rights' arguments on a whole host of issues.
No right is limitless, and if we were intellectually honest, we would debate where those limits should rightfully be set, instead of using this kind of absoluitst, ''me and my rights agaisnt the world' ' approach.
No man is an island. and few live on an island for only one. One man's rights affect another's. We would be better off discussing how to live together, in the same neighborhood, accomodating each other's rights as best as possible, rather than trying to impose ourselves, with our rights, on everyone else and their rights.

]]> By: runasim http://themoderatevoice.com/20679/the-gun-nut-gap/comment-page-1/#comment-125727 runasim Sat, 28 Jun 2008 17:02:22 +0000 http://themoderatevoice.com/places/americas-n-s/america/usa/20679/the-gun-nut-gap/#comment-125727 Another false argument:<br>If "somebody wanted to harm you they would use a knife or a baseball bat or a shovel."<br>Knives, baseball bats, and shovels require that the attacker be there, in person, close enough for the victim to have a chance to fight him off. Bystanders would not get hurt, unless they choose to join the fight. The approaaching knife wielder could be seen coming, and the intended victim could even avoid harm by simply running away.<br>A gun can be fired from a safe distance and indiscriminately. A gun can be used to pick off scores of victims, before anyone has figured out where the attacker is.<br><br>---------------------------------<br> Yet another false argument:<br>"If you don't like the Second Amendment, seek to get it repealed"<br><br>Prior to now, laws were based on another SC ruling, one stating that the 'militia' interpretation was correct, This ruling has been in effect for DECADES, yet the pro gun faction never sought to get the 2nd amendment repealed, amended or replaced. They had every chance to lead by example, but instead have always chosen to rely on getting an ideologically amenable court membership. Talk about calling the kettle balck!<br>______________________________<br><br>Like Jazz, I'm also torn between being amused and offended by "the only slightly veiled insults and condescending attitude" of, in this case, the pro gun group.<br>Mostly, I'm offended.,because of the vacuous nature of their arguments.<br>I'm sick and tired of the 'my rights' arguments on a whole host of issues.<br>No right is limitless, and if we were intellectually honest, we would debate where those limits should rightfully be set, instead of using this kind of absoluitst, ''me and my rights agaisnt the world' ' approach. <br>No man is an island. and few live on an island for only one. One man's rights affect another's. We would be better off discussing how to live together, in the same neighborhood, accomodating each other's rights as best as possible, rather than trying to impose ourselves, with our rights, on everyone else and their rights. Another false argument:
If “somebody wanted to harm you they would use a knife or a baseball bat or a shovel.”
Knives, baseball bats, and shovels require that the attacker be there, in person, close enough for the victim to have a chance to fight him off. Bystanders would not get hurt, unless they choose to join the fight. The approaaching knife wielder could be seen coming, and the intended victim could even avoid harm by simply running away.
A gun can be fired from a safe distance and indiscriminately. A gun can be used to pick off scores of victims, before anyone has figured out where the attacker is.

———————————
Yet another false argument:
“If you don't like the Second Amendment, seek to get it repealed”

Prior to now, laws were based on another SC ruling, one stating that the 'militia' interpretation was correct, This ruling has been in effect for DECADES, yet the pro gun faction never sought to get the 2nd amendment repealed, amended or replaced. They had every chance to lead by example, but instead have always chosen to rely on getting an ideologically amenable court membership. Talk about calling the kettle balck!
______________________________

Like Jazz, I'm also torn between being amused and offended by “the only slightly veiled insults and condescending attitude” of, in this case, the pro gun group.
Mostly, I'm offended.,because of the vacuous nature of their arguments.
I'm sick and tired of the 'my rights' arguments on a whole host of issues.
No right is limitless, and if we were intellectually honest, we would debate where those limits should rightfully be set, instead of using this kind of absoluitst, ''me and my rights agaisnt the world' ' approach.
No man is an island. and few live on an island for only one. One man's rights affect another's. We would be better off discussing how to live together, in the same neighborhood, accomodating each other's rights as best as possible, rather than trying to impose ourselves, with our rights, on everyone else and their rights.

]]>