Gun control.

This is a tough one. I’ don’t have a certain opinion on this controversy.

Here’s what I do think:

Having a gun for general self-protection seems more dangerous than effective.

For protection against home invasion the gun has to be easily accessible. Every day. For an event that is highly unlikely to ever happen. (hopefully)

And an invader is not going to give you much leeway. Where can you keep a gun for emergency access? On the night stand? Under your bed? To be useful in this situation, the gun’s always gotta be loaded.

As for personal protection:

I consider myself as having a “normal range temper”. There’s been occasions in my life when, if I had a gun on my person, I might have pulled it out. Situations that didn’t really warrant a gun.

In defense of private gun ownership:

1) Guns used in sport by an experienced user are a lot of fun.
2) If you don’t have a gun, you’re at the complete mercy of someone who does.

This is all my naive, poorly-informed opinion. I’d love to read other opinions on this.

oh boy.....

Not true at all. But I understand that kind of mentality. It usually comes from those who are paranoid, and weak.

Well you finally posted something you know about. Good show!

Leaving a gun loaded, unlocked, and easily accessible is irresponsible gun ownership. A child, or anyone for that matter, could pick it up and turn it on whoever they wish, maybe you. Which is much more likely to happen than you needing it for protection.

i think background checks need to include actual mental health checks as well. as in access to it.

I just sold all of my weapons from an....incident that left me pretty scared of myself.
So now i got a baseball bat. which is plenty.

other than that. whatever. people love their guns more than life itself half the time, at this point i really don't care. i've noticed the people who "need" a gun to "defend" themselves are typically just insecure and probably couldn't handle anybody in a fist fight(basically they're a bunch of george zimmermans)

let them have their guns so they can feel good about themselves.

que the angry responses....

Yes, I do know about it. So have you ever disarmed anyone holding a gun on you?

i know i haven't.

but there's so many scenario's involved with that.

it's all but impossible to disarm a guy unless he's(stupidly) holding a barrel directly touching any part of your body.

most stand back and aim.

You mean by shooting him first?

Home defense and having a gun goes hand in hand. Even with 10 kids in the house, it can be done safely while having you ready for action when needed. It is rather easy to defend the home.

On the streets is where it gets more difficult.

LOL Good one

Let's hear it, how do you do it?

I learned how to take a gun away from an assailant in a martial arts class once. There's just one problem. The assailant has to be within reach. How would you deal with someone pointing a gun at you when they are out of reach. Will you vomit on or urinate yourself like some liberals have recommended?

You carry it. I find a holster works best.

I have in-wall touch key lock boxes in the rooms where I keep guns. Next to my bed, in my office, and in my family room. Also have a gun safe.

Call me paranoid if you want, but the last thing I ever want to think to myself is "I wish I had my gun easily accessible" because odds are that would be your last thought.

It's almost ironic you posted this today.

I have a dog. He usually sleeps with my daughter, but she's gone for the week, so Dummy the dog is forced to sleep in my bed. (my wife works nights - leaves just after 10 pm, comes home at 7:05 am. Religiously.

Dummy the dog, in his just over 1 year of being here, has barked in the middle of the night exactly 3 times. 2 were when my wife came home early from work, which I knew about ahead of time, so when he barked on those occasions, I just laid in bed knowing who was here, hearing the garage door open. Of course, Dummy didn't know to expect someone at that time of the morning, so he did what a dog should do: Barked.

The 3rd time he barked in the middle of the night was Sunday morning, as my wife had gone to a concert in Detroit and she came home at 2 a.m. Again, that's an abnormal time for someone to be coming home. He barked until my wife got in the house. I did nothing because I knew what was going on.

Good dog.

However, last night, at about 3 a.m., he started barking, ran out of the bedroom and was barking and growling towards the door into the garage.

Hearing his very first bark, of course I woke up. I knew my wife wasn't supposed to be coming home at that time, I heard no garage door. And in the 3-5 seconds it took for me to realize "something must be up", I had a phone - but I knew I couldn't call 911 "because my dog barked", so I had to investigate. It was up to me. And investigate I did.

As I walked into the dark living room, following the growling towards the door, I also had one other item with me.

Keep in mind, prior to Dummy barking, I had heard nothing.

With him barking and growling at the door to the garage, I figured "issue is out there, in the garage". Turned the garage lights on from inside the house, then I opened the door, ready for anything.

Dummy ran into the garage. I was more or less crouched behind the wall, by the door opening.

Nothing. As I entered the garage, the doors were closed, locked...nothing had been disturbed. Peaked outside, nothing.

I don't know what made Dummy bark, but something did. As I've stated, he's not a barker for "no reason". Any time someone comes over, we know they've pulled in to our driveway before we hear a vehicle, because Dummy knows that "mom, dad, sis are all here, but I hear a vehicle, so I'm going to bark."

Good dog - all 16 1/2 pounds of him. He did his job, but, he's not stopping an intruder, even though I know he'd try.


I tell you that, to tell you this: I felt scared, not knowing what was out there. I live in the country. The last time (and ONLY time) I called 911 was at 4 a.m. with a drugged up loony beating on my front door. (this was "pre-dog") Took the deputy close to 20 minutes to get here. I can't fault the sheriff's office - they can only afford to have 2 deputies on duty for the whole county during the night hours.

My home protection is up to me. (and my dog makes it a lot easier.)

I have a gun safe. Locked at all times. I have a gun cabinet, locked, but it has glass doors. No ammo, no mags, no nothing in there that would make those shotguns and rifles anymore dangerous than a baseball bat.

I also have a handgun safe beneath my bed. When I'm not in bed, it's locked. So, my one handgun is either locked up or on me. All other guns are in safes, or the gun cabinet.

Very safe.

Not as safe as having no guns in the house. But very safe.

My wife doesn't even know where the keys are to the safe or cabinet.

Not trying to make light of the situation, but maybe you need to invest in one of these:


Just remember that you can't cross the streams.

Or you could just remember to do as the song says.

1-Good locks on all doors and windows. I know that good locks only keep out honest people but this is where you start. Telescopic door locks make the doors one solid piece and it will take a lot of effort to break down the door. Teach the kids how to unlock those locks in case of fire. Practice it with your family fire drills! You do have family fire drills don't you?

2-Make sure no one can get into your castle without making a hell of a racket! Noise will alert you that the swish has arrived!

3.You will jump up and get your bearings from all the noise! You will pull open your nightstand drawer to find your small gun safe that can only be opened by you! They have many kinds with different security systems from wearing a special ring to only opening with your personal hand! You will withdraw your fully loaded handgun and you will go from being a gutless sheep to the Manly Sheepdog, protector of the flock! That gun of yours can also be fitted with technology that make you the only person on the planet to be able to fire it.

4-You take up your defensive position at the top of the stairs, out of sight but watching. Your wife calls 911. NO STINKING LIGHTS! Lights make you feel safe but LIGHTS ARE FOR SISSIES! You don't want to back light yourself and provide the bad guy with a nice Silhouette to shoot at!

5-You are fighting a defensive battle, do not attack! Let him take your stuff while you wait for POPO!

6-You can yell down that you are a Conservative Christian and if the guy is a Liberal, he will pee and puke and slip as he runs for the exits!

I know you're jabbing me a bit, and that's fine. But, the crime rate here is escalating. It's nothing like city life, don't get me wrong.

Thefts, I should say.

Not too long ago, one of my neighbors - truck driver - went home at 7 am and found 3 people running out of his house. No vehicle in his driveway by the way. He's all of 5'6", 130 lbs, but he's not someone to mess with.......as the people ran through the field, he followed them while on the phone with 911. Yup, he drove through the field, saw them get in a car that was parked on the road. Followed them till the cops caught up.

They got busted.

So, my concerns about home safety ARE valid.

And what Dummy was barking at/about I have no idea, but he's not prone to just going ballistic in the middle of the night.

I don't understand why people have such a problem with people using firearms to protect their homes. I'm all for making sure the background checks that are in place become more efficient and effective, but to try to make a logical argument against a strong home security baffles me.

Not a jab, Arch. Trust me on that.

Most people have no clue how to protect their homes with a weapon. I wish people would take some room clearing training. How to stack on the wall, angles, etc.

But anyways, I'm all for protection in the home.

MY issue comes from the insecure losers who feel they need to be strapped up like Rambo out in PUBLIC. My kids still talk about that nonsense.

Living in the south and these guys walking around Wal mart with rifles. Looking like they couldn't win a fight AT ALL.

Around here, we call it "slice the pie".

That's why I prefer concealed carry. Nobody don't know nuttin.
Ain't no thang till its a thang.

Not locked. Not in sight. Not safe.

I keep my gun in a cardboard box, on my dresser, with huge letters saying "GUN!".

No one would ever think to look there.

She has her own safe then?

I keep mine in a file that says readme.txt

Selective "quoting". Perhaps you should read what I ACTUALLY wrote??? Here, I'll show you again: " a handgun safe beneath my bed. When I'm not in bed, it's locked

When I'm in bed, it's safe.

However, how does "not in sight" make it unsafe? That one baffles me.

If it's out of sight are you sure it's still there? And is it locked? No. Is it loaded? Yes. Is it safe? No.

What are you talking about? It's locked up if I'm not in bed.

When I AM in bed, it's fine. Safe, and fine.

Is it loaded? You tell me. If it is, it's in a holster. If it isn't, it's still in a holster and it takes literally 1 second to load it.

What is your experience with guns? Rifles, shotguns, pistols, handguns.

He once killed a Gofer with a stick.

Now I would have thought you'd have a gun in a hollowed out bible so you can read them their last rights!

No.

Not having a gun is stupid.

No, really it's not. It's simply a choice. Just like having one is a choice.

A gun is a TOOL like any tool if used properly it is safe to have. I am more afraid of the guy down the road and gets plastered and gets behind the wheel of his car or bike than I am of my neighbor who owns guns.

I shoot to wound, and then make them listen to me reading them the Bible. After a few hours, I call the police.

I'm all for guns, but the country really needs to be able to sit down and have a reasonable, fact-based, non-reactionary discussion about what is acceptable and what is unacceptable when it comes to guns and how they are utilized. Until both sides are ready to do that, nothing will change and these types of attacks will continue.

Nah. We already have laws in place and responsible, law abiding citizens can defend themselves without meetings.

All meetings did in the past was try to take away guns or list guns as assault weapons and such.

Never give the Libs the opening to talk about our second amendment rights.

Thanks for making my point for me.

quote above by arch:

"My home protection is up to me. (and my dog makes it a lot easier.)"

Having a gun for home protection - in conjunction with having a dog - seems to make this a feasible proposition.

Especially a dog smart enough to recognize (and make known) an unusual circumstance. (ie, not just the mailman)(at 3 am Sunday morning)(again)

That's not really true. Most home invasions are crimes of opportunity. Unless you are known to have something of particular value in your house, the average house thief is looking for the easiest target.

Good locks, keeping the exterior well lit, having a dog, a security system with a posted sign, all help in keeping out the average criminal who might be inclined to break into your home... and serve as an encouragement to go down the road and look for an easier target.

10 years of military service.

I'll go with that.

When my brother lived in a "tougher" part of DC, at a block watch meeting, the cop in charge said basically "having a dog - doesn't have to be big, but the bigger the better, is the best way to deter theft."

Now, theft is different than a drug induced "I don't care" thing.

But, as just happened to me - my dog alerted me to something. Neither he nor I are certain what it was, but it was out of the ordinary. As I stated before, my dog is not one that just barks to bark. When he barks and growls, there's a reason.

Ah.....so, apparently you would know what a "safe" gun is? It didn't show in your previous posts.

What branch? years served? Put in time in Iraq, or Afghanistan?

Well about 30 miles east of Cleveland just minutes ago there was a woman shot dead in her home and another shot shortly after on a walking/biking trail near by.

Sad tragic events.

It doesn't matter? You wouldn't believe me anyways. i know I can fight off a burglar and protect my family without a gun. Plus I don't need to worry that my weapons would be used in other crimes, because they can't be stolen.

Well thank you for your service Soldier!

And if the burglar has a gun?

My wife tapes throwing knifes under tables and chairs in the house, as we don't have young kids. My kids even know those are there. If someone breaks in when I'm not home, and they can't get to the gun, there are still hidden weapons about the house. There isn't a much better feeling knowing you have a hidden sgian-dubh.

I'm a deep sleeper and I sleep naked on top of the sheets. One morning I awoke to an armed burglar who was dead on the floor, having turned his gun on himself. Police never did figure that one out.

"My wife tapes throwing knifes under tables and chairs in the house"

Nooo.... No way... You're joking.

Do you practice? Do you tour with Cirque du Soleil in the off-season?

How do you know she has them there for intruders? Do you and your wife get along?

Questions... Many questions...

Okay, tough guy. Dude breaks in your house, holding a gun. Are you telling me you're going to take him out bare handed? Please. Dude puts a gun on you, you'd probably piddle.

It's great you don't need a gun. I must not be as skilled at combating armed intruders as you are.


Mine can't be stolen any easier than your car can be stolen, or your bat, or a shard of glass from your window, or your kitchen knives.


Here's something you obviously don't get. At night, my gun is under my control. It won't be stolen without me being dead.

And yeah, buddy, I have a list of the guns I own, with serial numbers included, in 3 different locations - one of which is the bank vault.

Actually, you sound like an easy victim. No guns? You think you could disarm a drunk or high criminal? You must have been "special ops" in the military. If you served.

I bought them for her on one of our anniversaries. We go out and throw them every now and then. She's pretty good at it.

If a male intruder breaks in during the day, chances are highly likely he's not there to steal, but to rape. Typically, they like to knock women about a little, so if she winds up on the floor near that furniture, she's getting back up with a good, balanced knife. So far, she's only had to pull her stiletto switchblade once outside the house, but that was before I bought her a gun.

I think anyone who owns a gun for home protection needs to stop watching so many movies.

And I think anyone that doesn't own a gun for home protection is either dumb, lives in a gated community, dumb, or is reliant on 15 to 20 minute police response times.

You know - get there just in time to take a report.......which more often than not results in
"suspect could not be found".

Guns, such a touchy topic. One that I use to really enjoy talking about and etc, however now... I usually avoid these conversations/debates. There's just too much.

If you're right, someone will indicate you're wrong. If you're wrong, someone will say you're right. Who can keep up with all the back and forth these days?

Yea, you're right.

We did that with the constitutional convention some 200 or so years ago.

The constitution does change.

That's why they're called amendments.

Yes, but the amendment in question was placed in the Constitution from the beginning. There has been no change or amendment for the 2nd. It still stands at 'shall not be infringed'. It should stay that way until the fall of the country. If they change or remove it, that will probably be the cause of the fall of the country.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State...

The first half seems to get dropped in a lot of conversations.

My guess: fewer than 10% of private gun owners belong to any militia... even a poorly-regulated one.

That's because the citizens of the new country were supposed to be the militia when needed. We are still expected to be the militia when needed.

xx

The first half is there to support to the second half, which indicates that the right to bear arms was an already established inalienable right. I don't see how there can be any other interpretation.

The beauty of the deal is you don't have to own one if you choose not to own one.

Swish on the other hand owned guns but came to the conclusion he probably best not own any for a while due to some personal issues. Good call on his part. Some day down the road he may get those issues sorted out and decide to own one again.

Everybody is different. Sane people make sane choices.

I have no problem with checks and they should include looks in to a persons mental stability. I don't want unstable person having a gun any more than I don't want criminals to have guns.

The fact of the matter is you can't disarm people if they want a gun, so the best you can do is to try to manage it in a sound way. Look at it in terms of immigration. Is it illegal immigration we want stopped or is it immigration all together?

It's a lot like a drunk drivers license.

Take it away because he is an alcoholic/habitual offender, but it doesn't stop him from driving if they want to.

Mental health screenings, regulations, etc. don't stop people from getting guns if they want to.

They give drunk drivers licenses now? Must one request it?

He'll find out very fast how it feels to have his own gun turned on him.

Mmmmm Hot, Manly talk!

I just hope you're fast enough to get to him before he starts shooting. Good luck.

And there was recently a rally/demonstration in Britain for "Stop the Knives, Save Lives".

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...ets-London.html


Some people just don't get it... the problem is PEOPLE.

It will be sporks next. After that they'll be bashing each other with bricks, and just about everything is made of bricks near London.

quoted for Truth.


Um.... Jules- we need you, grlfrnd....

j/c...

Came across this USA Today article earlier which fits with the current thread.

Honore: America's in denial about gun culture
Greg Hilburn, The (Lafayette, La.) Daily Advertiser 9:32 p.m. EDT July 27, 2015

Retired U.S. Army Gen. Russel Honore, Louisiana's most well-known 21st century military hero, said America is mired in a state of denial about its gun culture and that's harming the country.

"As a country we're in a state of denial because we've confused the right to bear arms with the right to carry arms all the time anywhere or anyplace you want," Honore told Gannett Louisiana on Monday. "We have to have a different kind of conversation in America and be prepared to speak about the politically unspeakable."

Honore said the string of recent mass gun murders — culminating with the tragic movie theater shooting in Lafayette Thursday in which two victims died — should provide a wake up call.

"It breaks my heart to see that happen in my home state or anywhere in America," he said. "We've got a problem in this country, and at some point the politicians have to get down into the community and find some answers to this problem."

Honore had considered running for governor this fall but decided against making the race earlier this summer.

The retired army general, best known for his role leading the Hurricane Katrina recovery in New Orleans, said during his time in the military soldiers "were required to clear their weapons and turn them in as soon as they came in from the field."

"The best place for weapons when you're not in the field is to be locked up in the garrison," Honore' said. "Our biggest problem before Desert Storm was (soldiers) accidentally firing their weapons, and they're trained.

"I've been around guns all my life, but when I was growing up they were locked in the cabinet unless you needed them for hunting."

Honore also said he disagrees with those advocating for military men and women at recruitment offices to be armed. Some armed civilians have taken it upon themselves to stand guard at recruitment locations since the mass shooting at a Tennessee office this summer.

One such civilian accidentally fired a round at an Ohio recruitment office last week. Nobody was injured.

"I don't think it's a good idea to arm military at the recruitment offices or to have civilians there with guns," Honore said. "That's the job of law enforcement. On our bases, yes, we guard our gates and our bases, but not at the recruitment offices."

Honore said he doesn't know what steps government should take tighten controls on carrying guns — "I'm not smart enough for that," he said — but he said mass shootings "are scarring our country."

"I've lived in Europe and Korea and all over the world," Honore' said. "They don't have the same level of gun violence in the United Kingdom or Germany or Italy or the same affection for guns other than for hunting."

Honore, a Point Coupee Parish native who lives in Baton Rouge, retired from the army in 2008 after 37 years. He leads his own consulting and public speaking company and has been an advocate for the environment.

"We've got to rethink and re-set our thoughts about guns," he said. "We have to focus less on ideology and more on practicality."

Article

Nah.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AUBTAdI7zuY

Great artcle.

Very convincing article by General Russel Honore. He's got my vote. Thanks Milk.

People that think they get it, is also a problem

I applaud General Honore for stepping forward and willingly pushing the subject (gun ownership)a step further down the field.

Yes, there is a gun problem in this country and yes, it is time for gun owners, like myself, to accept some of the responsibility for the present gun culture in the USA.

What can gun owners do to help?

the main thing i can think of personally would be to stop walking around Wal-Mart with an AR-15 slung around the back.

Kinda odd you don't want to shoot an armed burglar but you'd take the gun from him and now use a gun on an unarmed burglar?

All due respect to the general, he is operating from false premise.

"We've got a problem in this country, and at some point the politicians have to get down into the community and find some answers to this problem."

Any American who asks the politicians to fix a perceived problem in America is defeating his own argument. Who honestly thinks the government does anything efficiently? Who thinks the government actually works against its own interests in order to preserve the liberties of its citizenry?

"I've been around guns all my life, but when I was growing up they were locked in the cabinet unless you needed them for hunting."

Kudos to you General. Do you advocate all people act the same. I read the comments about soldiers being trained and accidentally discharging their firearms. What a real misleading statement that was. A veteran combat soldier would never do that. He did not mention that most soldiers rarely touch a loaded firearm when not in a combat zone. His statement could be used as an argument for having soldiers armed while on duty everywhere.

"That's the job of law enforcement. On our bases, yes, we guard our gates and our bases, but not at the recruitment offices."

Anyone who has dealt with law enforcement would be frightened by this statement. Soldiers are to be armed when on a base but are to be left unarmed when at recruiting offices? Perhaps moving the recruiting offices onto military bases is a solution?

"We've got to rethink and re-set our thoughts about guns," he said. "We have to focus less on ideology and more on practicality."

What thoughts about guns? Does he mean my Constitutional right to have one for whatever reason I wish to have one. I do not need to be a hunter to want a firearm. The problem is not the gun, it is the person using the gun. The comments made by the general concerning living in Europe and Korea where gun violence is not as common is also misguided. Individual liberties are not common in those nations. The practicality argument is frightening. It may be practical to silence your political opposition or to confiscate your neighbors property for the "common good". My god man, as a former soldier myself, I find that statement scary and has me doubting my military. If practicality is a reasoning over liberty, we are already lost as a nation.

Voleur

I would also like to ask if people are surprised that a former Army officer is wishing for citizens to have less arms.

i've come to a very blatantly obvious conclusion on these boards:

people care more about guns than they do treating people equally.

I mean i'm talking to a bunch of people who never shot somebody in their lives, arguing about the idea of getting to kill somebody one day.

man.....ok.

How could you possibly know if anyone on these boards ever shot anyone?

I have not seen a post yet where someone states they are looking for a chance to kill somebody.

I do however see someone who just pukes out accusations without having a clue.

ok...so who has shot somebody?

have you?

Wrong. In the simplest term I can say: Wrong. I treat people equally. I own guns - or maybe just "a" gun. How do I treat people differently based on that?


The idea "of getting to kill somebody"????? Really? You think that's what I, or others, want?

Let me let you in on an apparent secret: I never want to shoot someone. And I never will - unless my life or my families life is in danger. Period.

I can walk away from a fight if I'm allowed to.

Apparently 99% of the population can as well.

The murders in this country are predominately drug and/or gang related. They just don't make the news. They make the "stats", but not the news. I don't think you'd disagree with that.

Everybody who has ever had to live through the trauma of shooting another person line up and announce it on the Internet for Swish please!

I know PerfectSpiral once shot a look at someone, just before he removed the guys adams apple!

so why do people get so excited when talking about guns?

we literally got fools walking around with their rifles up in damn airports and department stores cause "my rights".

we got guys like Erik who think the solution to guns is.....more guns.

we got a bunch of people talking about how they shouldn't allow gay marriage even though the constitution allows them to get married as their no religious laws.... so some of you guys wanna disregard the constitution on that...but guns? nooooooooo. not my guns!!

It's awesome Arch that you would prefer to fight.

but i'm sorry, just reading this post, it's clear as day most people rather shoot. that power of a weapon gets their rocks off or something.

The fear mongering on this board is absolutely astounding. it's like watching a live taping of Fox News. there's danger lurking around every corner!!! do you have your CWW? is it obama's fault? nobody is safe!!

just fed up with it man.

What???

I get no "rocks off" by shooting someone. I never have, never will. What are you talking about?

I would never get a "thrill" out of shooting somebody. Ever.

And how did "guns" turn into "gay marriage" in your post?

You are way off base jumping to the conclusion that those of us who own guns are chomping at the bit to get to shoot someone. Nothing posted here sends that message.

The two biggest problems facing humanity today are hate and poverty... (not guns, or knives, or even nuclear weapons)

People who are willing to commit acts of violence for ideological reasons and people who feel they need to in order to survive...

There will always be special circumstances, there is no utopian solution.. but those two are the biggest part of it.

In a perfect world we wouldn't need em. I have a few, but only one is for "fun", my WW2 spec 1911. I just use it for target practice.

I have a double barrel 12ga that actually was bought by my great grandfather, and passed down to me by my dad, and his dad before him. It still works and I use it for pest control on my property. Damn Groundhogs.

I have a Mossberg 500 and Glock 23 that are for personal defense. The main reason I feel the need to have them is because I live with my wife and baby on over 5 acres of land, where the nearest neighbor is almost a half mile away. If something bad happens here I'd like at least a fighting chance. I hope to never have to use them for defense.

I think guns are a useful tool, but they do vary in their purpose. I don't think every gun is a hammer. Both sides (pro and anti gun control) sometimes think that way. What I mean by that is you run into some gun control proponents who believe all guns should be outlawed because every gun could be used to kill someone. Then you have anti gun control proponents who believe no guns should be outlawed because banning a full auto AK47 is an assault on our constitutional rights.

This has to be one of the more foolish things you've ever written on the board. I have a gun for self defense, and I hope I never have to use it for such purposes. I'd much rather shoot targets at a range than a person any day. The reason most people buy a gun is very simple. They want to be on equal or better footing than the bad guy if they find themselves in a bad situation.

Ding Ding Ding and what do we have for our winner Johnny?

Just because you don't feel mentally stable enough to own guns doesn't mean the rest of us aren't mentally stable. Now to other points in your post.

Gay marriage: The federal government should not be involved in marriage in any way, shape, or form. They only do it for tax purposes. It is not constitutional or unconstitutional as marriage is never mentioned in the Constitution.

Getting their rocks off: Some people do, not all. I have an acquaintance that shot himself in the butt in the first few hours he had the gun. The moron was playing quick draw in the mirror. A gun is a tool just like any other tool. You can kill with an axe, hatchet, saw, hammer, screwdriver, knives, or any other large number of tools.

Fear mongering: Is it fear mongering to report news? Fox news reports on the shootings in Chicago and other cities that other media ignores. I actually find the fear mongering mostly on the left, as they report 'another shooting of an unarmed black man by police' and their 'fear the police' agendas. More whites are shot by police than blacks every year. If you want to be safe, make yourself safe.

Open carry in department stores: Maybe if the feds would stop pushing gun control in every high profile shooting, and they would stop trying to pass legislation to take guns away, stop trying to regulate bullets through the EPA or HHS, and stop trying to regulate semi-auto rifles because they look scarier than others (the AR-15 for example), then maybe those people wouldn't carry their guns in protest.

Obama has been the best salesman of guns in this country's history, as he keep proposing new rules, regulations, executive orders, or laws to subvert the 2nd Amendment. Has anyone checked to see if he or his wife own stock in gun companies?

A massive, lifetime supply of denial by many around us all ....

Swish, I have seen people killed. It is not a pretty thing at all. It is not about treating others fairly. The fact that you think that makes me wonder what other liberties people should give up in the name of equality? Perhaps we should give up private property because one person may have more than another? I really dislike when an argument lends itself to generalities and obscurities to make its point such as "People care about guns more than equality". One cannot believe and care for both? Or obscuring the liberty which is to own a gun with public safety.

Voleur

of course you can believe in both.

but look at the responses in this thread compared to the ones where we talk about equality.

people that don't even normally post in EE came out the wood work when we talk about gun rights.

but when we talk about equality the majority always ends up being more or less "it's not that bad".

that's why i said i what i said. and the responses didn't disappoint in the least.

Part of that would be perception and which side of the issue one is on.

I have seen the equality threads get vehement on the side of those that feel things are not equal or even close.

On gun threads it's the gun owners who feel threatened.

It's like that with any debate, the more closely it hits home to someone, the more likely they get involved, the more vocal they will usually be.

When it comes to equality we see it through our eyes, and many of us don't live in urban areas, our view of it is from where we live, where things may appear, at least to us, more equal than that of someone living in the projects, harassed by cops daily, etc.

Guns is more black and white, pro-gun or anti-gun, and the few in between who don't care either way.

lol!

When you mention equality are you talking about gay marriage?

everything bro. religious equality, gays, race, all that.

I have to say, reading this thread today got me in the mood to start checking prices over at Cabela's, lol... found an ArmaLite .50 BMG for like $3,500.

Beats the snot out of the price of a Barrett!

Liberals hate us cuz they ain't us.
-40

I think every american should own a gun. A single shot shotgun. This will allow for defense of home and hunting. All other guns should be banned.

Nobody really seriously hunts with handguns. Nobody seriously hunts with assault rifles.

It's harder to go on a shooting spree with a single shot shotgun. It's harder to commit suicide with a single shot shotgun. It's harder to be a terrorist with a single shot shotgun.

I absolutely support the right to own guns. I also support the right for children to feel safe in school, for people to feel safe in a cinema and for people to feel safe on the street.

Law enforcement would not feel the need to keep up with potential threats if all that was available was single shot shotguns; we could end the police state arms race.

But those with mounted metal genitalia would lose the Napoleon Complex security blanket that they can't seem to breath without so any and all talk about real change in gun laws becomes moot. Sadly metal peckers rule, children die, crazies get guns and everyday people must live in fear... AND this is somehow preferable to gun regulation.

As long as there is only one home invader, your theory will work.
If there are two invaders you better get them both with that
single shot.

So, my .22 rifle for squirrels is "out" in your book?

My .223 Weatherby, bolt action, is "out" in your book?

Plinking in the back yard with my S&W 22A1 is a no no.

My other hand guns are "out".

Exactly what gauge shotgun would you allow someone to have? Perhaps a .410?

As much as he was talking about genitalia, I think anything with a pump action would do.

Before my daughter leaves my house she will have a handgun, shotgun and M-4 or Ak-47. A weapon for each job.

These statement are false. There are an awful lot of deer hunters that use handguns, even here in Ohio. If you consider the AR platform an "assault rifle" (nobody has actually defined what an assault rifle is), thousands of coyote hunters use them.

Problem is, too many people think the "AR" in "AR 15" stands for "assault rifle". Or "Automatic Rifle". It actually stands for "Armalite" the company that originated it.

This is my weapon, this is my gun...

I have a 22 pistol, that is strictly for protection.

I have shot this gun out at my brother's house. (he has a huge plot of land, and he shoots on it. His step kids can handle, responsibly, an AK, and can assemble and disassemble it) I was actually pretty good the 1st time I shot it. I did well the 1st time I shot it. My brother asked me where I learned to shoot, and to quote Marty McFly, I said "7-11".

If we start from the premise that this is true, it is in fact people that are the problem... and we've been told that people are the same all over... then why do countries like Japan, Sweden, Switzerland, Spain, Germany, Austria, China, Czech Republic all have less than 1 intentional homicide per 100,000 citizens in a year and the United States has 5 times that many?

Economically we are on par with any of those countries if not ahead of them... yet we kill each other at a significantly higher rate...

Our intentional homicide rate is on par with countries like Micronesia, Yemen, Niger, Thailand... and not too far ahead of North Korea and Argentina....

So there has to be something more to it than just "people" are the problem right? That simplistic of an answer seems like a bit of a cop out to me.

And while these stats are for all intentional homicides, not just gun violence... yes, we have more guns per capita than any other country (and I'm not sure if they guessed at the total number of guns or just the registered legal ones) but Switzerland has a lot of guns, so does Sweden and France... yet you are still 5x more likely to get killed in the United States than any of those countries....

So I ask a very simple question... what the hell is wrong with us?

So the gun black market will just disappear once that law is passed, correct?

What's wrong with us?

Gangs. Drugs. The whole "Oh, you dissed me so now I'm gonna shoot you, or whoever is there" mentality.'

That's what's wrong with "us". Take away gang violence - where does that put us?

I can almost guarantee that in Chicago this weekend, there will be 10 shootings (in a city that doesn't allow guns). NY, same. LA, same. Toledo will probably have 5 shootings between now and Sunday. Charlotte - probably the same. Tampa, Oakland, Dallas.........geez, name the city, shootings happen.

Why? Drugs. Gangs. Money.

Keep that crap away from me. It'd be nice if we could keep that crap away from them also.

My question to you would be, would you rather live in one of those other counties or the USA?

USA of course.

But let me mention something about "statistics".

5 times more than 1 out of 100,000 is 5 out of 100,000. The numbers are so minuscule that it's not a relevant fact.

5 out of a 1,000 is still pretty small.

5 out of a 100 is becoming relevant

The answer will be shorter if you ask what the hell is right with us.

J/C

I'm planning on getting a shotgun in the near future for home defense. That way, my wife and I could both shoot to defend without worrying about pinpoint accuracy, especially if there's an intruder in the night when our lights are off. Any suggestions for a good one? I'm not looking to spend thousands of dollars, I just want something that will get the job done and is reliable.

I'm going to say culture is the difference. Which goes back to people being the biggest problem.
All those countries hold self-responsibility to a much higher regard than in America, actually I would say when it comes to self-responsibility, America is a laughing stock.

I have a Mossburg 500 Tactical 12 gage for home defense, cost around 500 if I recall correctly. You'll want the shortest barrel that is legal where you live, normally 18" though I believe some states allow 14". 00 buckshot is the normal preference for home defense as far as shells go, but the opinions do vary wildly on this.

Have you paid much attention to the America culture?
We're a self-centered, violence-glorifying culture. In all of our entertainment, the characters settle differences with dramatics, stupidity, and violence (watch Sons of Anarchy... it doesn't get much clearer, lol!).

Beyond that, we just apparently have more than our fair share of whack jobs - and that could easily be attributable to our culture, diets, etc...

KelTec KSG

It's a bullpup shotgun that has two magazines and is pump action. It will hold 12, 3" shells or 14, 2 and 3/4" shells, if you use the mini shot shells it will hold 24. The beauty of it for home protection is it's overall length, 26 inches. You can maneuver this shotgun in the smallest of hallways easily. It has a picatinny rail on bottom for a forward grip or light and one on top for whatever kind of sight you like. You can find them from $750 to $800 right now.

Tell that to the 4 additional families who have a loved one murdered ever year... that the death of their family member is not statistically relevant.


So we have to get to a point where 5% of the population is murdered every year before it becomes relevant? You get that 5% of the population is 16 million people right? For the love of...

You do realize that would be 30 kids from an average elementary school, 80 kids from a decent size high school... murdered EVERY YEAR... and THAT is when you think it would START to become relevant?

I mean I get 5 out of 1000.. that's only 2 or 3 kids from every elementary school in the country being killed every year.. I guess that is too small to even worry about it..

I highly recommend this gun and it ranges between 300 and 400 dollars.

It also comes with a pistol grip option making it far shorter.

A Mossburg 500 Tactical 12 gage could go a long way in solving
that little ditty.

I never understood the equality argument Swish. We are all equal under the Constitution. It is when the government interferes with the social order that you create division and "equality". Equality is an illusion. I could no more play QB for the Cleveland Browns than you could. We are equally unequal. However, I a certain you have skills, characteristics, resources that others do not have. Equality has always been a construct of the weak to explain their failures.

Failure is not bad. We often learn how to be a success by first failing. Gay couples in America have the same Constitutional rights that I or any other American have. It is attempt to create equality that one claims a right where there is none. The government has no authority to deny a gay couple from marrying. They also have no authority to force another citizen to marry them or accept their marriage. The problem in America society as I see it now is not the people as much as it is the government intervention into individual social compacts. The idea that I can force another to accept anything I want through the force of the government in the name of equality is another way of saying tyranny.

the reason government feels the need to get involved with social issues is because we THE people already screwed it up. over and over again.

People want to claim this country is the greatest because Freedom. but there's other countries with the same freedoms as us. depending on which countries we choose to compare, some would say they might have more.

DC had said something that has stuck with me: Government get involved with the citizens prove they can't be trusted, or something of the sort. basically government has to drop the hammer when we show Dad that we are irresponsible.

yes, we are equal under the constitution.

but that's where the equality ends.

I think what you are referring to was a conversation about gun control.. that if the NRA and the gun enthusiasts don't start participating to come up with some real plans to curb gun violence then the government is going to do it for them. But I've used that same sentiment on other topics, when the people prove they can't police themselves, that is when the government has no choice but to do it for them.

I'm from the gov't, and I'm here to help. I think that was reagan.

Let me tell you this: Small town Ohio. There's an intersection in town - 2 st. rts. Trucks never had a problem making a right hand turn or left hand turn. Until the town re-did the pavement a few years ago. Then the town wanted to add fancy "old school" street lights that looked like old gas lanterns.

Pretty as can be. Problem was though, they put them too close to the corner, and trucks were hitting them when turning right, or left. (one st. rt. T's into the other)

Solution? Town said "hey, let's put bollards up to protect the street lights". more money spent. Solved exactly 0 problems.

Now, keep in mind, before the misplaced streetlights got installed, there were no problems for semi's making turns, ok?

So, street lights misplaced. Then we had to pay for bollards to protect the street lights.

Then, discussion of changing the st. rt. to a county rd outside of town, there by having the trucks routed away from town. Pay for an "evaluation".......didn't like that one, so pay for another one. Presto! Second evaluation said "oh, yeah, that would be good to get trucks out of town, and it will increase jobs by about 50 downtown." (again, small time Ohio town)

In the mean time, the town bought one of the buildings on the corner that was causing a problem ever since the new street lights. $80,000. They tore it down. (paid $10,000 for the estimate - and it was estimated to cost $50,000 to tear the building down.) Turns out, it only cost $25,000. (so the town spent almost half of what it cost to tear down the building trying to find out how much it would cost to tear down the building)

So, now we're trying to spend money to re-route trucks somewhere else, but we spent well over 115,000 to buy a building and tear it down.

And the bollards and street lights are still exactly where they were. And the town is still (town gov't.) trying to get traffic out of town by changing the st. rt. to outsided of town.

Hey - maybe just eliminate the bollards, and move the street lights back to where they were? Oh, hell no.


Yeah - I'm from the gov't. and I'm here to help.

Govt isn't perfect at it either. Jim Crow laws and all.

definitely not perfect.

the government doesn't do crap for the people. the people don't do crap for the government.

the politicians are at each others throats. the people are at each others throats.

we got two different worlds in the same country. we only seem to want to "unite" when outside sources talk trash.

Yup and it's why the people need to be armed. It's too easy for the government to legislate away the peoples freedoms otherwise.

I wouldn't mind looking at say France, which requires a license to own firearms much like one would consider a drivers license. I know some folks here in the states pull the tyranny card (If the govt knows about my guns they can take them) but the govt knows about most of your guns anyway. And if the govt is truly going door to door taking your guns, then you have a choice: either defend them with your life or submit. At that point we'd probably be under some sort of military coup...

Not my daddy. Politicians are hired to vote the will of their constituents, not to play a father figure for the poor, ignorant masses.

We are supposed to be equal under the law, but we are not supposed to be equal in everything.

social compact

Word Origin
Social Compact:

noun
1.
the voluntary agreement among individuals by which, according to any of various theories, as of Hobbes, Locke, or Rousseau, organized society is brought into being and invested with the right to secure mutual protection and welfare or to regulate the relations among its members.
2.
an agreement for mutual benefit between an individual or group and the government or community as a whole.

Nowhere do I see government? A social compact is how a society operates. When the government acts as an individual and attempts to create a social compact with its citizenry, it is a failure. First, when the government acts it never allows VOLUNTARY adherence by its citizenry. Secondly, it does not act to secure the mutual protection and welfare of its citizenry. It acts to protect its own authority over its citizenry. Thirdly, in a social compact both sides need to agree for the mutual benefit of each side. The government acts always on one side of an agreement. I believe that what you stated about the government coming in to fix what the citizenry has broken proves my point. The problem is that with the advent of the government being the giver of rights, (Civil Rights, Women's Rights, Gay Rights, etc...) they no longer serve the citizenry as a protector of all citizens rights. The government is the problem not the solution. It may sound radical but when was the last time the government ever solved a problem it did not first create?

Voleur

But the government isn't entirely composed of those who are elected. And why do you believe the minority is poor and ignorant? They definitely aren't the majority because otherwise they would just vote in their politicians, right?

Where do you get this 'minority/majority' crap from what I said? Politicians are supposed to enact the will of their constituents, not to protect us from ourselves. That should be rather easy to understand.

Correct, some of the more important positions are appointed by those who are elected.


Isn't that what they have been doing? The corporations vote in enough of their people to keep getting the breaks and the free stuff they want... the lower classes seem to be voting in enough people to get the free stuff they want... and the middle class must not have voted in anybody because we keep getting crap on a stick.

A lot of "the free stuff" people talk about are given to keep some resemblance of peace. The ultra rich do not want a total implosion of our nation and dole out just enough to appease. It's not all together a liberal thing.

Chicago allows guns, although under strict regulations.

Chicago has historically had strict gun laws, laws in the surrounding parts of Illinois were much laxer — enabling middlemen to supply the criminals in Chicago with guns they purchased elsewhere. Forty three percent of the guns seized by law enforcement in Chicago were originally purchased in other parts of Illinois. And even if the state had stricter gun laws, Illinois is not an island either. The remaining fifty seven percent of Chicago guns all came from out of state, most significantly from nearby Indiana and distant Mississippi — neither of which are known for strict gun laws.

Proving yet again that stricter gun laws do not work.

What yet again? It's proving that area's that don't have strict gun laws in the U.S. are supplying guns to criminals in area's of the U.S. that do. Comprendo Amigo?

According to this website the top 15 most dangerous cities to live in 2014 were...

15. Wilmington, DE
14. Memphis, TN
13. Atlantic City, NJ
12. St. Louis, MO
11. Chelsea, MA
10. Newburgh, NY
9. Oakland, CA
8. Chester, PA
7. Bessemer, AL
6. Detroit, MI
5. Saginaw MI
4. West Mephis, AR
3. Camden, NJ
2. Flint, MI
1. East St. Louis, IL

What that tells me, other than don't move to Michigan, is that there are a wide variety of stances on gun control laws there... maybe, just maybe, gun laws are only a part of it..

I think you meant 'entiendes amigo?'

I guess you'd rely on the porous southern border to stop guns if they outlaw them in the US? I guess you can't see that people will still bring in guns illegally, no matter what the laws are. Dtuigeann tú cara?

So if we can't have a perfect system we should have no system? Yo no hablo.

We have a system. See the thread title.

Who said anything about outlawing guns? You're making false statements that don't apply to the discussion.

"It's proving that area's that don't have strict gun laws in the U.S. are supplying guns to criminals in area's of the U.S. that do."

So, what prevents another country without strict gun laws supplying guns to criminals? We can't even keep people, drugs, or other contraband out.

How could you possibly know the system..You seem oblivious that Chicago allows guns but not sales.


Step to own a firearm in Chicago....

1. Send for a Firearm Owners Identification Card.
You can’t get into a bar without ID and you can’t get a gun without an Illinois State Police–issued FOID. Fill out the application and tape on a head shot that doesn’t make you look like a maniac.
Cost $10
Wait time Up to 30 days

2. Complete a firearms safety course.
State-certified instructors (most gun ranges offer the class) teach the basics, from the safest direction to point a gun (yes, there is one) to proper aim.
Cost $125–$135 (includes course, gun rental and ammunition)
Wait time Four hours of class; one hour at a range

3. Apply for a Chicago Firearms Permit.
Along with the signed affidavit from the firearms instructor, submit the yellow CFP application (available at chicagopolice.org) at the police records division, 4770 South Kedzie Avenue. Afterward, grab some Crazy Bread from the Little Caesars in the same strip mall.
Cost $100
Wait time Up to 30 days

4. Purchase a gun.
Once the CFP arrives, it’s time to go shop-ping! Gun sales are banned in the city, so a trip to the ’burbs is necessary.
Cost $300–$400 for used guns; $5 background check
Wait time 72 hours

5. Register the firearm.
Very important: A new gun must be registered within five business days of purchase. Miss that deadline and your brand-new firearm is deemed unregisterable. Fill out the form (available at chicagopolice.org) with details like serial number, barrel length and when you carried it into the city, and file it at the 4770 South Kedzie Avenue building (but leave the gun at home, Yosemite Sam). You can’t travel with the gun until you receive the registration, but you can keep it in your home.
Cost $15
Wait time Up to 30 days for the registration to turn up in your mailbox.

Guess what? Guns are being smuggled into Mexico and other countries from the U.S. not the other way around.

the second amendment is not a "system"...

So, you're for guns for the rich only? That's an extra $260 just for the right to have it? No wonder people go elsewhere. I'd much rather use $50 in gas to go elsewhere. Good thing those gun laws stop all the shootings in Chicago, huh?

And you don't think that would change overnight if the US imposed very strict gun laws? I'd have figured "Just say no" would have taught you something.

So then you are in favor of legalizing all types of drugs as well?

Nope. Most guns come from the U.S.. Most drugs come from other countries like Mexico. Guns are smuggled out, drugs are smuggled in. Your scenario is a huge reach.

That depends, are you for legal importation of automatic firearms?

I think addictive drugs, cocaine, heroin, opiates, etc, should not be legal for transport across our country's borders.

I agree, I think we should keep the all for ourselves!

I wish Columbia and Afghanistan did.

quick story: they had soldiers guarding poppy fields in afghanistan. worst mission. ever.

No doubt. If we aren't loosing our youth to drugs we loose them to the never ending and useless wars we involve ourselves in.

No, it doesn't really depend on anything. Are you in favor of legalizing all types of drugs?

Are you saying that if we can grow it here and produce it here, that you think it should be legal for use here.. but that we should neither be able to import or export it?

Under your premise about Chicago, you said that due to the restrictive gun laws in Chicago, people bring in guns from other areas of the US. Yes. It seems like you are pushing for Chicago's restrictive gun laws to be used everywhere, so people won't be able to get guns easier and bring them to Chicago. My point was, if you put the same restrictive laws everywhere, people will find another way to get guns. The drug cartels that currently bring in drugs will start running guns too. After that, only criminals will be able to get guns, or those people that can pay criminals to get guns. I don't see why that is so hard to grasp.

I can depend on anything I want it to. Since when did you become the royal grand inquisitor?

As for the drug issue, I already answered that. Guns are a tool that can be used for good or evil. Highly addictive drugs are little more than destructive, sometimes even when used in a medical setting. Last time I checked, guns are not addictive.

I read something in your post I must have inferred incorrectly then. I thought when you meant father figure for the poor/ignorant masses, you placed them at odds with the constituents.

Either way, if the constituents want minimum wage of $200/hr in their district, do you believe the politician has the legal duty to make that happen? What if the constituents want to ban black people from entering their township via any outlying roads?

I can think of a number of cases where the majority action was taken that we later realize was the wrong thing to do. The mark of a wise lawmaker is one who can balance their constituents wants from their needs. This mark is in very short supply in this era of governance. Part of the reason we vote in lawmakers in the first place is because most constituents aren't well versed enough in the actions of lawmaking to be effective. If all that was required of lawmaking was just polling the public and enacting whatever had a 51% majority, we wouldn't need congresspeople period.

“Majority rule only works if you're also considering individual rights. Because you can't have five wolves and one sheep voting on what to have for supper.”

Larry Flynt quote

guns aren't addictive?

do you actually live in the U.S.?

we have people that buy guns jus to collect.

there's guys...was a story a while back, that said he'd divorce his wife before he gave up his guns.

some vets can't function without weapons on them.

a gun can be addictive the same way people can get addicted to playing games like World of Warcraft.

Guns are not addictive.

I have a few guns. I can go a week, a month, 6 months - without shooting.

Guns are not addictive.

just because YOU are fine, doesn't mean the next person is.

i tried cocaine. i didn't get addicted. does that mean cocaine isn't addictive?

you'll lose this argument real quick:

here's a guy talking about it. doesn't it sound like the same rationale drug addicts and gambling addicts use?





oh yea, by the way, i forgot about gambling. if you can get addicted to gambling, than you can surely get addicted to guns.

here's an article by forbes about it:

Addicted To Bang: The Neuroscience of the Gun

http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevenkotler/2012/12/18/addicted-to-bang-the-neuroscience-of-the-gun/

here's a forum of different people talking about the issue, all gun owners:

http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=481202

that right there says you're wrong.

and one more time:

Welcome to My Addiction

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2012/09/daniel-zimmerman/welcome-to-my-addiction/

the first step is admitting there's a massive problem with gun culture. some people are absolutely addicted.

Nah, I don't think I "lost" the argument about guns being addictive in comparison to drugs.

However, if you seem to feel guns are physically addictive, that's your choice.

I respect you enough to not disclose our last phone conversation - but I would caution you. You DO seem to have an addiction to weed. That's just to me, based on your posts, and your frequency of use. And that comment is 100% based on what you've shared on this board.

Yet, you're not addicted? It "just works better than the pills"? PTSD can be a killer. And again, YOU have stated you have ptsd.

No, guns are not "addictive" like drugs. JMO.

sure they can.

the same rationale and feelings of euphoria people have with guns is the same people can feel with drugs.

i could very well be addicted to weed. lot better than pills though.

so i'm not claiming any moral high ground here. but i provided proof and discussions from gun owners that you're statement that guns can't be addictive is well, wrong.

I've never heard of a person having seizures due to "not having their gun". I've never heard of a person so addicted to a gun that they will rob, steal, or commit other crimes to get a gun.

I've never heard of "gun rehab".

Dude, you're barking up the wrong tree here. Guns are not addictive like drugs are. Just stop.

why stop? you just don't like what i'm saying.

i provided links and a forum of actual gun owners saying they have a gun addiction.

we can debate this all day, but the proof day.

Stop because you're looking foolish.

You DO realize you links about "gun addiction" were just people saying they like guns? Don't you?

I didn't see anyone that was losing their job, or their home, or their family due to guns. You, yourself, have said you smoke pot in the morning, in the evening. In essence, you use "getting high" as a means to deal with life. That's pot. I didn't see anyone saying "I have to have a gun to deal with life". I haven't seen anyone say "I lost my job because of my 'addiction' to guns".

Dude, you like to get high. I get it. You use pot instead of prescribed meds. I get.

I like to shoot guns. I can easily do without. No problem. You try going 1 week without pot. Deal?

And don't blame it on PTSD. My wife has that - but she doesn't do drugs.

PTSD can be a bad thing - but I highly doubt your doc has prescribed pot as the answer. It may make you feel better, when you're high. But is it helping you in your life?

i've noticed that every time you get defensive you start trying to throw my PTSD in my face.

it's amusing. i make a audible chuckle reading your post. i know i put the information out on my own accord. that's because it doesn't bother me enough to get upset about it.

but maybe i should post your nasty PM's about me and my problems? dunno, not sure if i'm feeling petty today or not. gimme a few minutes.

you're the one looking foolish. sounding just like the guys who swear up and down they don't have a problem.

maybe you do, maybe you don't. i've gone months without weed. it's not hard. but maybe i'm still an addict? who knows? what i do know is you constantly bringing it up like a weapon doesn't hurt, it's just comical.

anyways, like i said i laid out my evidence. you're doing nothing but denying that yes, people can get addicted to guns, just like they can get addicted to playing MMO's(Massive multiplayer online), gambling, and a host of other things that AREN'T drugs.

you get that right? gambling and such isn't a drug, yet it's a real addiction.

lol....but anyway, carry on with your pop shots about my PTSD. i'll smoke a bowl and laugh at it like i always do.

You just said enough. Point proven. But if you DO want to get into the pm's, go ahead. I apologized. But, knowing what I know now - hey man, have at it if you wish.

you never made a point in the first place.

Gambling and gaming addictions are mainly the same psychological addiction as a Skinner box.
Drug addiction is physical.

What is the mechanism for a "gun addiction".

I mostly see it as a hobby. Hobbies aren't addictions.

the forbes link i posted explains part of the thought process behind it.

BAN ALL SHOVELS people don't kill people shovels do

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EBRbAi6Fs6M