Well said, and deeply felt.

[quote=TexaninVA;838415]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.

[quote=buggyone;838471]:BigApplause::BigApplause:

[quote=buggyone;838471]
Just out of curiosity, in your opinion what would be "a legitimate reason for carrying a gun"? Particularly if you consider it b.s. "That it is your Right", per the 2nd Amendment of our a Constitution.

[quote=Cajulian;838483]Get your quotes right if you are going to quote someone. I said Legitimate NEED. Please play your semantics games with someone else. If you do not think I am right, so be it. 'Nuff said

Big sigh!!!! When will all this madness end?

[QUOTE=buggyone;838489]Ouch. That IS important. Especially when stating opposing views.

[quote=buggyone;838471]I support what you say here. I also apologize for hi jacking your thread, but I never posted until we leaped to "stand your ground" and condemnation of the NRA as a knee jerk reaction. There are laws governing what you are alarmed about and they should be enforced.

[quote=buggyone;838471]There are legitimate reasons why someone might be carrying a concealed weapon in the Villages. I had a stalker for maybe a school year @ 1989-1990- Gail P-- at the University of Minnesota Law Library while on the reference desk. She was well known to the U of MN police as she had chained herself to her previous fixation's desk. Her rights were emphasized though. She harassed my live- in girlfriend Jennifer V. at the time who was a year behind me in law school. (Class of 1990) My girlfriend complained to the Director of the Law Library M. Kathleen Price about it and to anyone else who would listen including me. This stalking kept on as her rights again were important. The last straw for the administration seemed to be her following me home one day. I, of course, complained about it. She seemed to have something quite off about her especially when judged by her previous behavior around the U of MN. And, I am no George Clooney.

I believe that others on TOTV have had these kind of experiences-- stalkers, angry ex-spouses, jilted lovers, cheating, etc.-- which can get even worse if for some reason bad choices in friendship and/or romances were made. I have also certainly made quite a lot of those especially in law school (U of MN- Class of 1989). You see what you want to see in some person and that person turns out far different from the image that you had of her.

A lot of reasons for carrying a concealed weapon would probably involve bad judgments within relationships.

Personally, I do not think I could ever shoot another human being and shudder at the idea of doing such a thing. But, I suppose if loved ones' lives were threatened then that is another matter.

I would like to see more arguments based on facts like some of these on this thread. I still see no need for many of the weapons on the US streets to be in the hands of law abided citizens. Of course, the criminals will still be able to get weapons because they never follow the laws that apply to citizens.

And, there might be a legitimate need for a loaded gun in a bedroom especially if domestic violence has been in that household and one of the parties is a lot stronger than the other. I do not see any easy answers.

I grew up in Reno, Nevada were guns in preteens hands was a common occurrence especially if you lived in more rural area of Reno. You did learn gun safety however and accidents caused by negligence, stupidity, or ill will still happened.

[quote=buggyone;838471]Let's focus on where we agree as a means to progress ...

1. I'm glad you don't advocate banning guns. That's a non-starter anyway.

2. The law permits people to carry hence assumes the need. However, I agree that making sure people are trained in the use of firearms is both reasonable and desirable.

3. I also agree that carrying concealed within the interior of TV is not needed at present ... however Leesburg and other impoverished places is another story. I would carry there for sure. You can also make a case to carry on the periphery ...ie recent robbery of an elderly woman in broad daylight just off 441.

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 ?