We will never change each other's minds on some things. As CFrance so perfectly explained, our attitudes toward these issues are formed for a variety of reasons. In Ohio where I grew up, people hunted game and my grandfather was a police officer for 37 years and never used his gun.


The only people I ever knew who had guns before moving here were people who hunted.


This is a new issue for many of us.


Many people who I respect here have guns.


I think how we feel about it personally rests a lot on our own history.

[quote=Cajulian;838483][quote=buggyone;838471]



"I do not know about Australian rules. I was on a recent cruise to Australia and several Australians that I spoke with were surprised to find out I could obtain a concealed carry permit with no testing of rules or skill but just by paying about $110.

I do not advocate banning guns. I advocate showing a legitimate need for carrying and not the b.s. about "it is my right" to carry. It is just ridiculous to think carrying a gun in The Villages is necessary.

I advocate "smart" guns so kids could not accidently shoot them"

Just to be clear ... the quote above attributed to me was made by Buggyone ...not me.

And btw I agree with you Cajulian... given the 2nd amendment, the right per se is not at issue. Being licensed, having the proper training, and having some level of smarts about what you do with your right is legitimate to discuss ... as long as those with anti-2nd amendment absolutist views don't drift into attempts to ban them because a few gunowners do stupid things ... and yes, with innocent victims sometimes involved. Like everything, this issue involves tradeoffs and a balancing of rights.

I also agree with several posters that our views are shaped by our experience in life. If you used firearms before, you have a different view than if you always viewed them as dangerous or uncomfortable to be around.

For those who want to learn however, there are two gun clubs in TV which offer training. I know one lady who never touched a weapon in her life two years ago. She later took the NRA courses, which heavily emphasize safety, and she learned she's good at it. She is now an instructor at the expert level, and she carries when she travels outside TV.

[quote=CFrance;838434]It's reasonable to say it's a common sense approach and I respect that. However, at least under the law at present, an Australian approach would be unconstitutional and that ...thankfully ... still matters.

I also note that with the "authorities" able to decide who gets to own a firearm and who does not, and given that self-defense is not a legitimate reason per the Aussies, that's completely unacceptable in the US. This is exacerbated by an erosion of trust in "the authorities" in recent years where for examples, statues passed by congress and signed by the president in to law are later changed seemingly on a whim to meet a political need. Why should we trust in that?

[quote=TexaninVA;838627]Frankly, I don't trust anybody on anything having to do with guns in the US. What I like about the Australian law is that it limits the kinds of guns--the kind that enable you to shoot many things/people at one time. And also that anyone with a mental problem cannot own a gun. I also like the 28-day waiting period, and the requirement to take gun safety training. I don't believe any of this would be unconstitutional in the US, except in the eyes of certain groups.

These laws came about after a couple of group massacres in the '90s. The government took action and succeeded.

[quote=CFrance;838693]Safety training, waiting periods etc are fine if done in a reasonable manner and, as mentioned earlier, I have no problem with that in a constitutional sense.

I have a big problem however if "the authorities" say one cannot own a firearm for self-defense. That's kind of like the whole point of owning a firearm isn't it ?

[quote=TexaninVA;838712]Although I am not a gun advocate or enthusiast, I have to agree with you on the self-defense issue. But the rest of their law appeals to me.

[quote=CFrance;838693]Power can be abused easily and has been repeatedly in US history. Black activists, for instance, were labeled paranoid schizophrenic. The people in power were after them and had enough power to do something about it. Very recently, the military labeled women who had been abused sexually by officers as people with difficult personalities. The Library of Congress had had a policy which may or may not still be in place of labeling problem employees mentally ill. This was according to a CBS News National report of around July 6, 1996 or thereabouts. I remember when I fought for my right to the pursuit of happiness through seeking employment after my contract with the University of Minnesota Law Library expired and was not being renewed, the Law Library Administration and maybe others in the Law School Administration started in a subtle manner putting my mental health in question over a nine month period of January through September of 1991. They were not trying to help me but were addressing my own problems with their resources available to survivors/victims of crimes. If an advocate does not like what the person is saying because it is true to the facts, unprincipled advocates will use attacks against the person rather than addressing the issue involved.

I do think you have to be very careful with labels like "mentally ill" and who gets to use these.

The CBS News National Report had reported that the Library of Congress's use of this tactic was something borrowed from behind the Iron Curtain. And, I do not mean the USSR of when the Berlin Wall fell but that of Stalin and his ilk. People like Stalin who trample all over human rights in the name of their usually very flawed view of Utopia.

The poor woman who had been a victim of the Library of Congress policy-- which they actually bragged was very effective-- had lost everything like her home and ability to earn a livelihood. Again, this was according to the CBS National News of around July 6, 1996. I would bet that she was quite messed up by this abuse of power.

GUN Control ?
 

Do you mean more government gun control , like FAST & FUROUS gun control, with no one held accountable when things go wrong, like when our own Border patrol agent got Murdered and nobody is man enough to step up and say they screwed up. yea that's are government in action, more controls HA.

[quote=buggyone;838489]Touchy, touchy!! Ok. So again, in your opinion, what would you consider "a legitimate NEED", for owning a gun?

I am not arguing for or against guns. I am just curious about your comment. Be polite now, I am being courteous to you. Thank you for your opinion.

[quote=Cajulian;838964]My opinion is that if that man did not have a loaded pistol unsecured in his house, his 8 year old nephew would still be alive. Ask the uncle, not me, what he now considers a legitimate need for having a loaded unsecured gun in the house. Ask the parents of the boy if the are in favor of having loaded unsecured guns in the house.

Ask them. Do not ask me.

Buggyone, some states do have a concealed carry permit system that requires a legitimate need in order to get a permit. These types of permits are also known as may issue and also discriminatory permits. One of these states was California, in which their discriminatory permit system was recently ruled unconstitutional. In many, many cases, these "legitimate need" based permits are only given to people who donate money to a certain political party, hollywood celebrities, relatives of the sheriff or mayor, people whose skin is a certain color, etc. Do you really believe that is what we want in America? Where only the elite and connected have rights that us commoners do not have?

That's interesting. Do you have any more information about this case in California? I certainly do not think that only the "ins" should have the privilege of carrying concealed weapons. Would hope that extensive safety training would be required as well as a thorough objective evaluation of temperament and the like. I am more afraid of hotheads getting access to concealed weapon permits-- like the retired police officer near Tampa who shot the moviegoer over getting hit in the face with popcorn-- than of mentally ill people getting them. If you look at the statistics it is the mentally ill who are usually the victims of violence and not the perpetrators. There are the very violent criminals who are mentally ill or use the appearance of being mentally ill to conduct their heinous plans and possibly get away with such actions. Probably like the Aurora movie shooter who in my mind knew exactly what he was doing and that it was evil. There are legitimate cases of what looks like a seemingly good person going bad because of some tumor or a chemical imbalance in the brain like Charles Whitman, the U of Texas tower shooter who had some kind of brain tumor. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Whitman http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_vio..._United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Aurora_shooting

Who would you rather have a gun-- the thugs who set some paranoid schizophrenic on fire for their amusement or the paranoid schizophrenic who more than probably not knows that he or she has mental problems and has probably worked hard for a cure? It is the thugs who probably try to act "normal" around others when they are not bullying people who cannot fight back. This link is for the UK but the same problem exists in the US-- http://www.nhs.uk/news/2012/02Februa...tack-risk.aspx

No, I think it is wonderful that states such as Floriduh gives any yahoo a permit to carry a concealed pistol. Look at the prime examples set by the retired police captain who kills because he was upset over texting and our star example of police wannabee George Zimmerman.

We also have Villagers who carry pistols when visiting "impoverished" communties like Leesburg and Wildwood. They also want to shoot pursesnatchers in the back.

Yes, us commoners need them concealed weapon permits like those high falootin Hollywood people got. ( read sarcasm in there)

It may soon be easy to carry a permitted concealed handgun in California, FOX News, Feb 13, 2014:
"Counties such as Los Angeles have only let a few hundred people get concealed handgun permits out of 7.5 million adults. In San Diego, only about 700 out of 2.4 million can carry. And in San Francisco, no one is granted a permit to carry a gun.
In Los Angeles and Orange Counties, the few lucky people getting permits are big donors to a sheriff’s re-election campaign or a sheriff’s personal friend. In other counties, such as Stanislaus County in northern California, the key to getting a permit seems to be either an influential politician or a prominent businessman.
Yet, in liberal California, the very people who need protection the most, poor blacks who live in high crime urban areas, have no chance of getting approved."

If they weren't able to change the gun laws after The Newton, CT tradegy, they never will.

I guess the NRA rules supreme!!!

Sadly, most murders happen between people who know each other. Scary!!!!!

Just ask Reeva. Oh wait she's dead, from Petorius bullets. :(

Gabrielle Giffords - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Not sure if things will not change with the gun laws. Stubborn very dedicated and connected people can work wonders, especially if they have a lot of help. ;)

Gabby Giffords and her husband are such a team and if they keep bugging Congress they might really get some where. The problem seems to be that the Gun lobby and its supporters often couch the 2nd Amendment as a God- given right to bear arms. The Founding Fathers were often very noble, well-read and intelligent men who lived during an era when they had had Native American and other attacks near their homes. The Founding Fathers were not Gods though or like Moses and the Ten Commandments.

Buggy

Ok, your feelings are clear on this topic. I have a couple of questions out of curiosity. I can't remember if you already provided this info so, my apologies in advance if so. If not, here are yy questions ...

1. Do you own any firearms at all?

2. Have you ever had any firearms training ...military, NRA or whatever?

3. Can you ever envision a scenario where you, personally, would need a firearm to defend either yourself or your family?

TexaninVa,

I need to warn you. It doesn't matter which side of the argument you favor, you will get a non-relevant answer to your questions. When people discuss serious topics with their emotions, they tend to get angry when asked about actual facts, generally because they can't support what they are saying.

Anyone who served our country and fought or died to protect our Constitution to enable the freedoms granted to all that live here, fully understand why it is utmost important to uphold the constitution and laws.

Our cities everywhere have become infested with crime and it has even crept into our smaller communities. For those naive enough to believe that crime can't happen to them, may someday be in for a rude awakening.

No SANE person with a license/permit to carry a firearm ever wants to use it to hurt another individual. The fastest growing population of concealed carry permits is now from women. I wonder why?

There are no winners in this discussion topic. There will never be agreement.

1. I own firearms.
2. I have 22 years military training.
3. Living in The Villages it seems Quite remote, but I am prepared via my qualification, far different from the average gun owner in this country.

I joined in here as I, like Buggy, am in full support of much stronger gun control.

Ok Golfingnut and thanks ... waiting for Buggy's reply.

Golfing nut, I commend you for your Military service.

The fact that you own firearms, are wise enough to ensure that you know how and when they should be used, and that you are indeed aware that crime can happen anywhere and you are prepared, tells us that you believe there is a need for the 2nd Amendment.

There are some states where gun control can definitely be improved and some laws are needed in those states, even a gun rights advocate can understand this.

Some states, like NY and California, impose overkill or redundant laws that statistically do nothing to reduce crime or prevent unintended tragedies.

When some individuals on here, based on emotions rather than facts, deny citizens the rights you and I fought to protect, then we would be remiss if we didn't work towards a common goal to educate and wisely produce legislation that actually makes sense rather than a ideological view.

Again Thank You for your service to our country.

Thank you for your kind words. YES we have need for the 2nd amendment. YES, some states have overkill will duplication of regulations, but I feel gun sale loopholes must be tightened. If the NRA would step up and be reasonable about enacting sensible gun control, they would be more credible to the general population. To block all attempts to try to get control on an out of control gun madness we live with now is not responsible nor to the betterment of anyone of us.

Reading the article for comprehension only!
 

Because of the point made by Bucco for one to read the entire article rather than just the headline, I did so to see what the “agenda” actually is from a comprehension point of view. Here are some quotes from it. My focus is on reading the actual article, as recommended by Bucco, and my understanding of the quotes.

“NRA News host Cam Edwards attacked laws to prevent children from accessing guns by positing that there should be no criminal penalty even when an admittedly careless adult allows a child access to a gun that the child then uses to kill themselves.”

Does this mean that the NRA believes there should be no legal penalty against a careless adult allowing a child to easily get hold of a gun and use it on himself or another person, possibly with a death resulting?

“Edwards responded to Watts' USA Today interview by suggesting that if "you are careless with a firearm and one of your own children accidentally kills themself" [sic] that the "horror" of the incident alone would be sufficient punishment for the adult.”

This seems to imply that living with the death of one's child—or possibly someone else’s child?—is sufficient punishment, in contrast to drunk driving laws that criminalize the death of someone resulting from drunk driving?

“Mocking Watts' comparison between a child access prevention law and a law that criminalizes killing someone while driving drunk, Edwards said, "We don't have a negligent storage law for alcohol," and, "We don't have a negligent storage law for automobiles, and so I'm not quite sure what she is talking about." ”

This seems to imply that the NRA representative equates carelessly leaving a loaded gun where a child can have easy access to it with the existence of automobiles and alcohol rather than the results of using the automobile or the alcohol carelessly.

“Edwards also attempted to distract from an epidemic of fatal gun accidents involving young children by highlighting unintentional deaths caused in children by suffocation and other methods. Even so, according to the Centers for Disease Control unintentional shootings remain a top ten cause of accidental death for children ages 1-4 and 10-14. (Firearm homicides are the top violence-related cause of death for children 5-9 and a top five violence-related cause of death for children of all ages.)

While NRA lobbying has prevented the CDC from studying gun violence for years, in 1997 the CDC found that children in the United States were nine times more likely to die in gun accidents compared to other high-income nations.”

This appears clear and revealing. The statistics, presuming the CDC is accurate, would appear to speak for themselves. Granted, statistics can be used to illustrate a specific point of view, but they are not focusing on any one sensationalized case (a common accusation). Why would the NRA lobby against the CDC studying gun violence? Are they concerned what might be a result of such a study? Could there be other reasons?

“The topic of accidental fatal shootings involving young children became national news in April 2013 following a tragedy where a 5-year-old boy unintentionally shot his 2-year-old sister with a rifle designed to be used by young children. Edwards responded to controversy over that shooting by attacking the media for covering the incident.”

This seems to imply that to the NRA, the accidental fatal shootings are not an issue, that the real issue is that they are reported in the media. While it is true that the media often have their own agenda, is the NRA implying that only the Second Amendment counts and not the First Amendment?

What am I missing? In no way am I expressing a personal view one way or the other. My interest here is not the content of the debate but rather our ability to comprehend an article that we’ve been encouraged to read.

Since you used me to make some point......

In your post above you used "SEEMS TO IMPLY" four times....DOES THIS MEAN and APPEARS also.

THAT is my problem with that article, and it would bother anyone with an interest in facts, instead of spin.

Bucco, I am sorry that you feel "used"; please accept that that was not my intention. Rather, I was using the point you made about not simply reading a headline and deciding what the article was going to say, rather than actually--and thoughtfully--reading the article.

We are in agreement about the problems with the article. What is unfortunate is that this is the person the NRA chose to represent it! He is as emotional in some of his comments as others are accused of being in responding to this issue, and he obfuscates it with unrelated points which, to me at least, come across as smokescreens rather than "sticking to the facts."

Again, my thoughts are about the presentation in the article, not the views of one side or the other of this debate. Thank you again for your suggestion to examine the article closely. An article like this would make a good class exercise for high school students.

The issue is now POLITICAL !!!! It needs to be allowed to be discussed by adults OUTSIDE THE POLITICAL ARENA and I am betting there would be great compromise and solutions.

Articles and headlines like the one we are discussing are maybe the most irritating thing to me today. If your only source is a source like the one used to present that article, you are very uninformed but do not even know it.

It indeed WOULD make a great presentation......it manifests our problems in politics and communications in this day. It manifests what folks THINK is journalism and the type that needs to be avoided if you have any integrity at all.

I do not know guns...that I admit....but I can very easily identify the misleading attempts by some to misinform and if they read things like this...it is just plain not telling the truth.

Note from a personal standpoint....I have, at times, when found to have presented something that was misleading or not true, come back to the thread and admitted it was an error. I mention this because folks DO make mistakes in presenting, but if it is just a mistake, you come back and apologize. Some present these things with no thought and could care less if it is wrong or right....just make sure it feeds their agenda.

Enough said on this......as I said early on in this thread, I never posted until this crap about NRA and stand your ground...an attempt once again to make it political and I find that offensive.

I believe we can solve so many problems if we just leave the D or the R out of the equation, stop listening to those folks on tv....read and allow professionals to do their job. Being informed on subjects sure makes it easier to understand what is happening in this world.

What was this thread about?

The complete truth is that an 8 year old boy is dead because his uncle left a loaded pistol unsecured in his house. If the gun had been secured or had "smart" technology, the boy would not have been killed that day.

Should the uncle be locked up? What good would that do?

Just a tragedy with no simple answer on how to prevent others.

You mean it had nothing to do with the NRA or Stand Your Ground.....what ????

As the OP, you presented a sad story......one that folks tried to twist !

Yes.
In many states this is unlawful.
It would compel others, with children in the household, to be a responsible firearms owner.

I am not sure that if they were not before this tragedy, they never will be. Please vote for more control and accountability.

I agree with this. It sounds like negligent homicide to me, or close to it. Maybe if we start holding the ignorant/arrogant/or just plain stupid gun owners responsible for leaving weapons around where people can get to them and kill others, it might wake some of them up.

Good solution.

If you have ever been a Guardian Ad Litem, you would recognize this issue as one entirely grounded in Poor Parenting. You want to fix that? Then be prepared to climb a mountain with no peak. Poor parenting is an epidemic in this country and at the root of most of society's ills.

You are absolutely correct, but with 38 % of children with only one parent! the future is not good.

I agree whole heartedly. I was actually wondering the other day if this generation of youth will raise their children with a firmer hand. I think it's somewhat natural to rebel against your parents and this generation of parents don't want to parent, they just want to be their kids friend.

At least that's my optimistic/wishful thinking. OK you can stop :1rotfl: at my naiveté now.