Thoughts on gun control?

[Slash003]

Saddam Hussain (no relation to B. Hussian Obama) opened up his amories to the general population. Ak-47's (30 dollar POS's) in the hands of average arabs killed more more sevicemen then the Army did. If they were raised in Americas "gun culture" and got there first BB gun at 5 yars old it would have been MUCH MUCH worse.

   Probably why there are more Jews in America then in Isreal or ALL of Europe. Why so few Jews in europe? Oh yea.......German gun control worked. In one ghetto where the jews got a few obsolete firearms the uprising required 2 combat divisions be pulled off the western front to quell it.

When the goverment lives in fear of the people thats liberty, when the people fear the government thats tyranny.

 

The most desired weapon the terrorist in Iraq wanted to get a hold of(besides the 50 cal) were American bolt action hunting rifles. Armed Americans stops many crimes every day, only media that reports this is www.theblaze.com. The newsite ignored by the common sheeple

People dont write reports on crimes stopped by armed civilians because it is isnt considered a hot topic since there was no collateral or death. Death and political issues being stirred up brings more people to view the stories and those people viewing the stories are money. So unless it is controversial many wont post it.

[stconquest]

People dont write reports on crimes stopped by armed civilians because it is isnt considered a hot topic since there was no collateral or death. Death and political issues being stirred up brings more people to view the stories and those people viewing the stories are money. So unless it is controversial many wont post it.

 

If said number of crimes stopped by armed civilians are not reported, how do you know about them?  I am just curious.

[Thunderpup]

It could have something to do with the 150,000 Iraqi soldiers they decommissioned early in the campaign.  Take that number with a grain of salt unless I can source it.  It is from memory.

 

More to the point:  Do you really see your government as capable of turning on it's own citizens?  (I actually do on a very small level).  Your small arms and IEDs would not stop the US government's military.  In reality, the population would suffer massive casualties, while the military would not.  Your best defense is training your military to think, to use intelligence.  Able to realize their purpose within a combat zone beyond what they are ordered to do.

 

A lot of US citizens need to stop thinking the US Government is after their guns, they are not.... but some people profit from convincing you that is the case.

 

Another example:  Here in Canada a guy retweeted some ISIS crap.  They arrested him, and eventually released him under 19 conditions... including not being able to access the internet.

Just 30 minutes from where I am (according to my cousin), a KKK element was freely handing out flyers in a public space without fear of persecution. 

 

Do you see the problem here?

 

I doubt the insurgency ever reached anywhere near 150k forces in a given year, but your statement actually points to something that I am eluding to.  it took coalition forces 23 days to crush the Iraqi army, but when it came to policing the country that's where things turned to shit. American forces are really good at conventional warfare, but not so good when things get unconventional.  If Iraq is any example try to expand that to the US which is much larger with a much larger population.  Things would be very bad all around.

 

 

Also yes I do believe it is possible for our government, or any for that matter, could turn on their citizens.  I imagine Germans never thought It could happen to them in the 1930s but little by little it did. Also you seem to be hung up on facism, but communism is pretty much the same as far as the way the people are treated.

 

Lastly people aren't merely paranoid about the Us government seizing folks guns.  The people who constantly talk about needing more gun control are often found saying that people shouldn't be allowed to own guns. They also cite examples abroad about the kind of action we need to take here and point to places like Australia. Which is a country who in addition to making it harder for folks to own firearms also confiscated a crap ton of them at the same time.

 

To put it another way if an well known anti-abortion politician says they want to pass common sense abortion regulations, but often talks about how abortions should be outlawed. Would people be rightfully leery of him when he says "no one is going to take away your right to abortions"

 

"In 2003, 597 insurgents were killed, according to the U.S. military.^[133] From January 2004 through December 2009 (not including May 2004 and March 2009), 23,984 insurgents were estimated to have been killed based on reports from Coalition soldiers on the frontlines"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War

 

If you want the greatest chance of survival during a break-in then you comply with the robbers demands.

People do not break into houses to kill people. They do it to steal your TV and other valuable possessions. That it's. The more you fight the more likely that you end up injured.

 

Are you going to fight a tank or bomb plane with your handgun?

 

And if you are going to bring up "but tanks have gotten destroyed with home made bombs before"... Yes it might have happened a few times but:

1) the US army has about 10,000 tanks and over 40,000 AFVs. Plus about 14,000 aircrafts. Taking down a handful of them won't help.

 

"if you want the greatest chance of survival during a break-in then you comply with the robbers demands."

Do you have any law enforcement experience that makes you a subject matter expert on such things?

 

"Are you going to fight a tank or bomb plane with your handgun?"

You assume that the soldiers and sailors that operate such things would be willing to fire on their own citizens.

 

"the US army has about 10,000 tanks and over 40,000 AFVs. Plus about 14,000 aircrafts. Taking down a handful of them won't help."

The federal government isn't the only form of government here in the states. State and local governments can be corrupt too.

The link below is from a movie, but the events it portrays actually happened here a few decades ago.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U5ut6yPrObw

[Guest trucker2]

People dont write reports on crimes stopped by armed civilians because it is isnt considered a hot topic since there was no collateral or death. Death and political issues being stirred up brings more people to view the stories and those people viewing the stories are money. So unless it is controversial many wont post it.

I believe the media have an agenda, a template. If a story supports a certain view it is reported. Another view and it is ignored. And the guests that are touted as experts are usually exposed as hacks in the new media. If the "craigslist killer" found his victims in the classified section of the NY Times  it would not be news.

[Slash003]

If said number of crimes stopped by armed civilians are not reported, how do you know about them?  I am just curious.

Because I have witnessed some. And I've searched all the keywords for that would most likely be blared in the headlines. Nothing. Not a single snippet. And that is because no one getting hurt doesnt make news. Its not much of a hot topic or stirs controversy. So is ignored.

[Slash003]

I believe the media have an agenda, a template. If a story supports a certain view it is reported. Another view and it is ignored. And the guests that are touted as experts are usually exposed as hacks in the new media. If the "craigslist killer" found his victims in the classified section of the NY Times  it would not be news.

Very true. Just look at FOX

[stconquest]

Because I have witnessed some. And I've searched all the keywords for that would most likely be blared in the headlines. Nothing. Not a single snippet. And that is because no one getting hurt doesnt make news. Its not much of a hot topic or stirs controversy. So is ignored.

 

Wow, you brought a stick to a modern theater of war.  Your personal experience in a (generous) dozen incidents brings very little credible evidence to the table, sorry.

[Slash003]

Wow, you brought a stick to a modern theater of war.  Your personal experience in a (generous) dozen incidents brings very little credible evidence to the table, sorry.

I figured it'd go for credit asmuch. Because all those other incidents nobody cares if someone says they witnessed it.

[Admire]

Im not going to participate but I love this thread. 

[Slash003]

Wow, you brought a stick to a modern theater of war.  Your personal experience in a (generous) dozen incidents brings very little credible evidence to the table, sorry.

And I never said It was 12. It was 3. Some does not  mean 12. 12 would just be a straight outrageous lie.

[Guest trucker2]

Very true. Just look at FOX

I can't handle Fox anymore. It's totally unwatchable. Thank goodness for AM radio and Newsmax TV and The Blaze TV and my fav youtube channel:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0MKErYtuRbU

With the lovely Jodi Miller

[stconquest]

I doubt the insurgency ever reached anywhere near 150k forces in a given year, but your statement actually points to something that I am eluding to.  it took coalition forces 23 days to crush the Iraqi army, but when it came to policing the country that's where things turned to shit. American forces are really good at conventional warfare, but not so good when things get unconventional.  If Iraq is any example try to expand that to the US which is much larger with a much larger population.  Things would be very bad all around.

 

 

Also yes I do believe it is possible for our government, or any for that matter, could turn on their citizens.  I imagine Germans never thought It could happen to them in the 1930s but little by little it did. Also you seem to be hung up on facism, but communism is pretty much the same as far as the way the people are treated.

 

Lastly people aren't merely paranoid about the Us government seizing folks guns.  The people who constantly talk about needing more gun control are often found saying that people shouldn't be allowed to own guns. They also cite examples abroad about the kind of action we need to take here and point to places like Australia. Which is a country who in addition to making it harder for folks to own firearms also confiscated a crap ton of them at the same time.

 

To put it another way if an well known anti-abortion politician says they want to pass common sense abortion regulations, but often talks about how abortions should be outlawed. Would people be rightfully leery of him when he says "no one is going to take away your right to abortions"

 

"In 2003, 597 insurgents were killed, according to the U.S. military.^[133] From January 2004 through December 2009 (not including May 2004 and March 2009), 23,984 insurgents were estimated to have been killed based on reports from Coalition soldiers on the frontlines"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War

 

 

The military policing situation of Iraq was the reason Americans were open to attack.  This was not a defensive war.  Americans were on the offensive.  The rebellion against US troops was a foregone conclusion as soon as the US attempted to police/control the population.  Troops did not want to be there, Iraqis did not want the troops there.  Iraqi civilians have no choice so they try to embrace the new military.  US military (and affiliates) eventually do bad shit, insurgencies gain support among the populace.  The occupation was a lost cause, they lost cultural support because of the dumber soldiers.  The US troops (and coalition) come out as the bad guys every time.

 

It happens on US soil in regards to policing poorer areas a lot of the time, it will only intensify in a war zone.

 

What I was asking is do you see it happening.  I know it is possible for a government to turn on it's citizens.  Do you see how fascism gains roots slowly:  Growing income disparity; abolishing abortion rights and the freedom to choose what you do with your body(citing religious reasons, in America???); bought and paid for legislature through lobbying/bribery of political groups; institutionalized prison system (private sector nonetheless), "illegal" international wars; the list can go on...

 

You can lump disarmament into the mix, but I do not see that happening in the near future.  You have to understand that violence is a business that is protected by politicians collecting a pretty penny for their efforts.  You don't have to start worrying about the government taking all your guns just yet... not until the money driving corruption in political spectrum is addressed and fixed.  Even then, I don't see it happening in the USA.  We can buy guns here in Canada, we just don't carry ARs into our local MacDonalds...I think you guys will be fine.

 

To address your idea of communism being evil... like WTF?  Fascism is directly related to systemic corruption in many facets of a nation:  Cultural, political, economical, intellectual.  Communism is not inherently corruption based.  It is those that are granted governing positions that corrupt a communist system, the same way a republic based on democracy can be corrupted.

 

... there might be more... 1 sec   Nah, I am done.

[LAwLz]

"if you want the greatest chance of survival during a break-in then you comply with the robbers demands."

Do you have any law enforcement experience that makes you a subject matter expert on such things?

I don't, but other people with law enforcement experience will say the same thing. For example Justin Freeman, a former officer will tell you this and so will the Bernalillo country sheriff's department and so will the metropolitan police.

 

Remember - cash and stock can be replaced. Your safety and the safety of other staff and customers come first every time. The target in a robbery is cash / stock not people, but this can change if people are perceived as an obstruction.

 

Robbers are not out to kill you. They just want your money. If they get that they have accomplished their goal.

 

 

 

"Are you going to fight a tank or bomb plane with your handgun?"

You assume that the soldiers and sailors that operate such things would be willing to fire on their own citizens.

And if they aren't willing to do that then other citizens won't need weapons since there would not be anything to fight.

 

 

 

"the US army has about 10,000 tanks and over 40,000 AFVs. Plus about 14,000 aircrafts. Taking down a handful of them won't help."

The federal government isn't the only form of government here in the states. State and local governments can be corrupt too.

The link below is from a movie, but the events it portrays actually happened here a few decades ago.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U5ut6yPrObw

I'll look at it later.

[CalebTheEternal]

First of all, driving is not a right it is a privileged so its a lot easier (legally at least) to remove a persons ability to do that then to own firearms.  My solution, get a DUI you don't get to go home and sleep in your bed you go to jail and hang there for a bit.  When you get out you never get to drive again and if you get caught driving without a license (most offenders keep driving even without a license) you go right back to jail.  As it is now its mostly fines and in some cases you can even keep a provisional license to drive to and from work.  How cute!

The only reason we gun supporters are getting bashed is because a gun is made to do damage, even though 99% of the word uses it for good. Cars are made to transport us, they have a lot more deaths and a lot more crimes in them, like DUI, and I don't see people freaking out about that.

[Thunderpup]

Im not going to participate but I love this thread. 

 

What anime is your avatar from?

 

The military policing situation of Iraq was the reason Americans were open to attack.  This was not a defensive war.  Americans were on the offensive.  The rebellion against US troops was a foregone conclusion as soon as the US attempted to police/control the population. 

 

What I was asking is do you see it happening.  I know it is possible for a government to turn on it's citizens.  Do you see how fascism gains roots slowly:  Growing income disparity; abolishing abortion rights and the freedom to choose what you do with your body(citing religious reasons, in America???); bought and paid for legislature through lobbying/bribery of political groups; institutionalized prison system (private sector nonetheless), "illegal" international wars; the list can go on...

 

Even then, I don't see it happening in the USA.  We can buy guns here in Canada, we just don't carry ARs into our local MacDonalds...I think you guys will be fine.

 

To address your idea of communism being evil... like WTF?  Fascism is directly related to systemic corruption in many facets of a nation:  Cultural, political, economical, intellectual.  Communism is not inherently corruption based.  It is those that are granted governing positions that corrupt a communist system, the same way a republic based on democracy can be corrupted.

 

 

 

We may have not had the support of the people in Iraq, but neither did the other side.  The point I was getting at is police actions, which is what would happen in the US should the government take over, aren't the forte of our military.  That actually goes for any military to be honest historically speaking so long as the military pulls its punches because of civilians the insurgents will always find ways to get the upper hand.  Syria, Afghanistan, Iran, Chechnya, Vietnam are all prime examples of smaller less armed people defeating a larger force through asymmetric warfare.

 

As far as whether I see it happening? Yes I see the seeds of such things being spouted by politicians as well as the electorate.  Neither side of the political isle is innocenet of it either.  You cite corporations bribing politicians but fail to cite unions and non-profits doing the same in sometimes greater numbers. Removing a person's right to do with their body what they want under religious pretexts is bad, but also suppressing people's freedom of speech under the pretext of not offending certain religions is also bad.

 

I'm more of a concealed carry person. I support open carry, and even understand it in certain situations, but when going out and about in public its not something I personally do. 

For instance when I worked at a gas station in a rough part of town, after I was robbed at gun point, I began open carrying while on shift (when I was alone) and even though we were robbed a few more times while I was there it was never on one of my shifts.

On the other hand someone sitting in a chipotle with an AR leaning against the booth might be a deterrent, or they might be the first person shot by a criminal.

 

As far as communism goes if you look at my original statement I said when it comes to the people communism and fascism is about the same.  Historically speaking fascist governments have treated their people very poorly. Historically speaking communist governments have treated their people very poorly.  Both are responsible for unspeakable acts against millions, and neither of them have ever ended poverty. They just either made it more pronounced (fascism) or they made everyone poor except for the elite (communism)

 

in the end communism would only really work for  robots.

 

 

 

 

I don't, but other people with law enforcement experience will say the same thing. For example Justin Freeman, a former officer will tell you this and so will the Bernalillo country sheriff's department and so will the metropolitan police.

 

 

Robbers are not out to kill you. They just want your money. If they get that they have accomplished their goal.

 

 

 

And if they aren't willing to do that then other citizens won't need weapons since there would not be anything to fight.

 

 

 

I'll look at it later.

 

"I don't, but other people with law enforcement experience will say the same thing."

 

"And other law enforcement has different views."

http://www.thebangswitch.com/another-self-defense-gun-use-that-never-happens/

 

"And if they aren't willing to do that then other citizens won't need weapons since there would not be anything to fight."

Yet another assumption.  My statement was to point out that at least in our military there would be many reluctant to turn their weapons against the people.

In reality should such a takeover occur those doing it would likely begin placing military leaders in key positions they can trust.  Ultimately though not everyone will fall in line.

Some will be on the government's side, and some won't be.

[Albatross]

I have to make this post short and quick, as I have to leave for a few hours (and I am dog tired), but here is my reply and I apologize in advance for grammar mistakes.

 

I didn't read the entire report so I might have missed that in the FBI report, but I did not see anything like the things you are claiming (higher chance of survival) in it. If it is in the there then please post the page number.

Please read my posts a bit more carefully. The FBI link, as stated previously, was posted for general statistics for the discussion and to acknowledge that the FBI has taken in account armed citizens helping in situations by reporting it themselves, which they did. So please read the entire report:
 
Page 21,
 

And in 6 other incidents, armed off-duty police officers, citizens, and security guards risked their lives to successfully end the threat. These actions likely saved the lives of students and others present. Recognizing the increased active shooter threat and the swiftness with which active shooter incidents unfold, these study results support the importance of training and exercises—not only for law enforcement but also for citizens. It is important, too, that training and exercises include not only an understanding of the threats faced but also the risks and options available in active shooter incidents.

Guns have above, coupled with my previous examples and videos, in the hands of the citizens helped in situations of shootings, robberies etc etc. Considering that not many people carry guns, or out in the open (many prefer them to remain at home, locked up safely), those that did possess a firearm was able to help in this situation when present. Is it common? No, certainly not, which is not what I said or wished to discuss/point out.

And just to be clear here, we're not talking about unarmed citizens being able to restrain a shooter or criminal, so it doesn't matter if you COULD restrain someone without a gun--we're discussing the benefits of guns being in the hands of civilians. Because without them it doesn't mean you always can if they have an assault rifle or there are more than one criminal present.
 

Well it doesn't really matter if you disagree because it's a fact. You can disagree that the sky is blue and water is wet as well but it doesn't make it any less true.
You can't just look at states with gun laws and then go "well it still happens there so therefore they are ineffective" because like I have said over and over, correlation does not imply causation. The average temperature on Earth has gone up at roughly the same pace as pirates has died out, but you can't claim the decline of pirates are causing global warming either.

 
Your statements doesn't prove anything and that's why I disagree. People aren't safer without guns because of a minority of events happen. You say we aren't safer because guns are accessible and propose, based on statistics (of two links, one of which is decades old), that we should get rid of them (entirely?) but I have given you multiple studies, cases, and statistics that show just how many lives they save or can save.

 

But yet your statistics and links are 100% fact and ours aren't?

 

You are just factually wrong when you say the unintentional deaths involving guns is in the minority because it is just factually wrong. Like the study I linked earlier proves, there are 4 times as many unintentional deaths in homes with guns as there are intentional deaths. Statistically speaking, you are 4 times as likely to get shot if you have a gun in your house as if you don't have one. The people killed unintentionally by guns is in the majority, not the minority.
Are you suppose to ignore the greater good for the minority of times where guns are helping?

 
You post two links, one of which is from 1998, and act like it is fact? Ridiculous.
 

The results are out of the millions of gun owners. Compared to those who own a gun and use it responsibly and safely? Yes, the accidents are in a minority. If you honestly believe that the safe and responsible usage of guns is the minority, I obviously can't help you as I have no idea what other way I could try to prove it or say it. I could say "Please use this CDC form to check the statistics in unintentional deaths from 1999 to 2013" but that probably wouldn't be accepted by you either. (I cannot post the url because the CDC website requires agreeing to terms to view the data, making it impossible to share the results via a URL.)

 

If you want the greatest chance of survival during a break-in then you comply with the robbers demands.
People do not break into houses to kill people. They do it to steal your TV and other valuable possessions. That it's. The more you fight the more likely that you end up injured.

 

True, true. But not all people who break into a house are looking to score a TV and do you know how many people get hurt or killed in a robbery, even by accident (with or without a weapon)? And I asked what am I supposed to do for each time of criminal? Am I supposed to comply to their demands too, in hopes that maybe I won't be raped or murdered? Or am I supposed to be defenseless because, statistically speaking, a robber is more likely to enter my house without the intent to kill or rape than a rapist? A gun is the only way I can protect myself against such threats.

 

You got to be joking. Either that or you are lying to yourself. Do you not understand that you can't compare historical revolutions against how the US looks today?
Having firearms in your home and then rally up a mob to fight against a corrupt government might have worked back in 1789 when both sides of such a fight had access to roughly the same firepower.

 

Did you not read the part where I said both past and modern?

 

There are many instances in recent years where a rebellion successfully happened against a government or leading power who had huge advantages in terms of money and weaponry (oh, and even in the past, it was possibly for one side to be advanced and the other not). It may not be common (thankfully in some places for certain reasons) but it is entirely possible, thus it isn't crazy.

 

Do you have a surface-to-air missile system in your backyard? If you don't then you are completely defenseless against the government if they did decide to attack you. You can't shoot down a drone with a pistol. They are literally so high up in the air that you can't even see them, and they could destroy your entire house in the blink of an eye if they wanted.
Are you going to fight a tank or bomb plane with your handgun?
 
Get real...
 
 
And if you are going to bring up "but tanks have gotten destroyed with home made bombs before"... Yes it might have happened a few times but:
1) the US army has about 10,000 tanks and over 40,000 AFVs. Plus about 14,000 aircrafts. Taking down a handful of them won't help.
2) Are you really going to advocate that people have home made bombs in their homes because some day the government might decide to attack you? Because you do realize that's what you are saying, right?

 

No, I don't, and the Lakota didn't either, but they managed to hold off our government, didn't they?

 

I just showed you the lack of advance weaponry or technology isn't going to completely make a rebellion unsuccessful* nor make the right to try and fight it any less sane. And as previously stated, guns in our hands will make the fight difficult for the government at the very least and will at least allow the people the chance to try and survive. But sure, because there's a chance we'd lose in such a situation, we shouldn't even bother to fight tyranny or the mass murder of people or even potential enslavement...

 

With a handgun? Certainly not, and that's why I'm against harsh gun control or gun banning, to improve our chances. I would like to be able to defend myself in any given situation, from another civilian to a government looking to kill me or put me in a camp etc etc.

 

Are you serious? That's not at all what I was saying. :lol:

 

*I am not restricting this to our government, but local power too.

[Bearded4Glory]

The only reason we gun supporters are getting bashed is because a gun is made to do damage, even though 99% of the word uses it for good. Cars are made to transport us, they have a lot more deaths and a lot more crimes in them, like DUI, and I don't see people freaking out about that.

 

I agree, well to add to that the media here pushes this agenda and it is all over the headlines.  You don't hear about any of the other ways to get killed very often in the news, generally unless it is a local story you wont see it on your local station.  Now if someone gets killed by a gun on the East Coast, I will hear about that on the West Coast before the body is cold.

[Camul]

I'm for it. Maybe we don't need to go straight to banning all guns outright, but the idea that most people have the ability to buy a gun and keep it in their home is unsettling.

[Albatross]

I'm for it. Maybe we don't need to go straight to banning all guns outright, but the idea that most people have the ability to buy a gun and keep it in their home is unsettling.

 

What would be the point in owning or even buying a gun if you can't even kept in your home then? Most people buy them to protect themselves, especially in their homes.

[LasleyMediaKentucky]

There should be more gun control, don't let criminals, mentally ill , under aged people have guns

What about us, the law-abiding citzens who have never killed a person? We have the right to bear arms. It is written in the 2nd ammendment of our constitution. We need less gun control, and just target the psychos.

[Camul]

What would be the point in owning or even buying a gun if you can't even kept in your home then? Most people buy them to protect themselves, especially in their homes.

 

There's only two good reasons to want to own a gun. Either it's a tool that's necessary for your job, or that you just like guns. I've never been convinced by the protection argument before though. What situation do you think you're going to be in where you're going to need a gun to protect yourself? It's just I've never known a person who was ever in a position where they needed a gun to protect themselves.

[Thunderpup]

There's only two good reasons to want to own a gun. Either it's a tool that's necessary for your job, or that you just like guns. I've never been convinced by the protection argument before though. What situation do you think you're going to be in where you're going to need a gun to protect yourself? It's just I've never known a person who was ever in a position where they needed a gun to protect themselves.

You forgot competitive shooting sports.

some of which are Olympic games.

 

Plus there is hunting.

[STRMfrmXMN]

It seems to me that most people who want stronger gun control live in countries where gun violence is far and few between. It also seems like many people who want weaker gun control own guns. 

 

I don't own any guns under my name but we have a gun in the house for emergencies. It's in a box, tucked away underneath many boxes within a dresser. It's out of the reach of young children who would likely use it in a negative way on accident. Obviously a kid of 6 years old should never be entrusted to protect the house under any circumstance.

 

I hate the argument that we should ban all guns because crazy people can have guns and therefor they are dangerous. By that logic we should destroy all cars because drunk drivers exist.

 

In the USA we are so past banning all guns or making it insanely hard to buy guns simply because we own a large number of them. I have nothing wrong with a mentally stable adult buying a gun. If they pass background checks and are mentally sane then they are to be trusted with one. You don't become insane when holding a gun.

[Camul]

You forgot competitive shooting sports.

some of which are Olympic games.

Plus there is hunting.

I would say that those would be covered by the reasons I gave.

[Thunderpup]

 

I don't own any guns under my name but we have a gun in the house for emergencies. It's in a box, tucked away underneath many boxes within a dresser. It's out of the reach of young children who would likely use it in a negative way on accident. Obviously a kid of 6 years old should never be entrusted to protect the house under any circumstance.

 

 

Question is the box you mentioned locked? Kids find hidden boxes all the time.

 

I would say that those would be covered by the reasons I gave.

Perhaps but you haven't stated why a person cannot keep their firearms at their own home.

 

where else would they store them?