[bid_em_up]

Winstonm, on Apr 19 2007, 10:45 PM, said:

On a related theme of tyranny: a number of years ago a housewife was subjected to the tyranny of her abusive husband, who beat her visciously many times over a period of many years. Eventualy, this woman waited until her husband was asleep, poured gasoline over him and set his bed on fire, killing him.

In her trial, her claim was self-defense - the original "battered wife" defense.

In your opinion, was this a justified act based upon the tyranny to which she was subjected?

I think I would have rather died by gunshot.

[bid_em_up]

hrothgar, on Apr 20 2007, 10:07 AM, said:

mike777, on Apr 19 2007, 01:42 AM, said:

I should add that fighting Indians well into the 1800's created a gun culture in our country. Call it genocide, wrong or whatever but expanding the country from ocean to ocean was seen as a divine right by arriving Europeans and their children.

For the record:

There have been some good extensive studies tracking gun ownership over time in the United States.

1) During much of the early history of the US guns were extremely expensive.
2) A gun was an incredibly valuable piece of property.
3) Not many people could afford to own them.
4) Those who could had good records.
5) For example, many wills in the late 18th and 19th century described the disposition of people's gun after their death.

Here's the simple version of the results:

6. American gun culture didn't have all that much to protection against Indians or hunting.

7. American gun culture has lots to do with the American Civil War. More specifically, when the Civil ended, the US had a bunch of big factories designed to produce lots of weapons. The price of weapons dropped enormously. Equally significantly, the owners of said factories started looking for ways to encourage folks to buy lots of guns.

Funny, that's not the same U.S. History that I learned.

1) True, but there were other methods of payment besides cash.
2) True, but not necessarily in a monetary sense. They were essential to survival and the protection of personal property vs. both man and beast. You do remember, bears, wolves, coyotes, and other animals that used to wander the U.S. unchecked. don't ya?
3) Absolutely false. Where the heck do you think the Revolutionaries got their weapons from? The govenment? No. They fought using their own personal weapons. Those that could not pay in cash, would use some other form of payment. Grains, sugar, furs, meat (and many other things) were all exchanged for guns, bullets, gunpoweder. It was not strictly cash and carry then. There was a lot of barter and trade.
4) Yea, sure. In most cases, at that point in time, a "good" person was thought to be someone who owned property. If they could afford to own property, they also had a gun to protect such property. But what about stage coach robbers? (Before the civil war). Remember the Alamo? Before the Civil War. Defended by regular people who certainly weren't wealthy and yet took their own weapons. The French-Indian war? Trail of Tears? Little Big Horn? and many others.
5) True.
6) Bullcrap. If you were to say "modern gun culture" doesn't have all that much to do with Indians or hunting, I would agree. But from the 1600's to the late 1800's, it had a LOT to do with it. They were almost essential to survival if you were not living in a city or if you were travelling anywhere.
7) Somewhat true. They had to have a market or their product would have no use other than to sell to the government, and the government wasn't buying as much after the end of the Civil War.

The founding fathers originally wrote the Right to Bear Arms into the U.S. Constitution to assure that the USA would be able to protect itself from further invasion. So that at any point in time, a militia (or army) could be called together to protect and defend the USA from England, France, Spain or whatever other EUROPEAN nation (with their own guns) from attempting to resieze the land that the founding fathers had just fought for and won.

Now, there is no way in hell they could have anticipated things like semi-automatic 9MM handguns, or AK47's, or M-16's being available for use by the average citizen 230 years later. They used single shot muskets that took a good 30 seconds to a minute (or longer) to reload for each shot. Machine guns were unheard of.

I have no problem with banning the sale of AK-47's, or M-16s. No civilian needs that kind of firepower at their disposal. I don't think anyone outside of possibly the police force really has a need for a semi-automatic pistol, either. I could tolerate a ban or restriction of sales on those, as well.

But plain shot pistols, where you have to pull the trigger each time in order for it to fire? No. Do I own one? Not currently. Will I own one again? Only if one of two things should occur, either 1) my current living situation were to change in such a manner that I believe that I need one to protect myself, or 2) the government, along with the gun-control nutcases were to attempt to totally ban legal sales of such weapons.

Now since I don't currently feel I need one to protect myself, I don't own one currently. However, I also recognize that there are people living in situations where they may need one, and I would not tell them that they couldn't.

It is neither my business, nor my place to do so.

[jdonn]

Gunman opened fire at NASA building, police say
POSTED: 4:42 p.m. EDT, April 20, 2007

....

Space Center Intermediate School, less than a mile south of building 44, has been locked down, said Karen Permetti, spokeswoman for Clear Creek Independent School District.

The school has about 1,200 students, according to the school district.

....


I'm sure the 2400 parents aren't bothered, they must be more worried that a madman will drop a nuke on the school.

[pbleighton]

Quote

'm sure the 2400 parents aren't bothered, they must be more worried that a madman will drop a nuke on the school.

You're clearly off your rocker.

In fact, this guy is making me feel a LOT safer. It's heroes like him who keep this country safe from the U.N.'s black helicopters, which otherwise would come in and let the Trilateral Commission fluoridate our drinking water, which would drain our young men of their precious bodily fluids....

Peter

[helene_t]

mike777, on Apr 20 2007, 02:38 PM, said:

In europe the homeguard have their weapons broken up and stored and in the USA we have our own private bombers, tanks, etc. This leads many (me) to wonder just how much pacifism has taken over Western not Eastern Europe.

Not much pacifism over here. Our soldiers carry arms when going on missions abroad, even if it's only peace-guarding missions where they hope not to have to shoot at the enemy even if they encounter him. Our police carry weapons most of the time. The homeguard will assemble their weapons in case they get called to fight.

It's just that the homeguard has nothing to use their weapons for in peacetime (other than practicing). The case for giving them ready-to-use firearms was
1) The Russians may arrive overnight. The home-guardians might not have the time the collect spare parts from different deposits (and download an assembly manual from an American website, just in case they don't remember in which kitchen shelf they hid the hard-copy). But this is old-fashioned philosophy. Even in the worst possible scenario for Russian politics, it will take years before they get to electing a government that would start a war on us.
2) The logistic related to their yearly shooting exercise would be smoother if they had ready-to-use weapons permanently. This concern was deemed less important than a handful of people per year getting killed with home-guard weapons.

It's possible that the home-guard has ready-to-use weapons again. This story is some fifteen years old.

[luke warm]

Gerben42, on Apr 18 2007, 01:48 PM, said:

I seem to have underestimated the difference between old Europe and the USA once more. I don't think I would want to live in the USA, the mentality is just way too different for me.

this is actually the whole thing in a nutshell... but to be fair gerben, living in europe isn't a prerequisite for not understanding the 2nd ammendment

all posts i've read so far have focused on gun ownership as it pertains to us as individuals, but that wasn't the reason the founders thought of it as the 2nd in a list of 10 rights not ot be infringed upon... the founders, rightly in my view, feared the tyranny of domestic government more than foreign, or more than individual citizens of the country... the purpose of the ammendment was to insure freedom from the potential tyranny of the very gov't they had established... the entire constitution, with emphasis on the bill of rights, was framed for that very reason

it isn't remarkable that europeans don't follow that particular logic... it isn't even remarkable that some americans don't...

[luke warm]

mike777, on Apr 18 2007, 05:54 PM, said:

"Mike, the gun homicide rate in the US is at least 3-4 times as high than in other industrialized nations. What is so hard to understand about that?

If you are proud that the US has less gun mass killings than Brazil or Ruanda - don't you think as an industrialized democracy this country could aim for a little more? "


Excellent question, so far the answer for decades seems to be no.

Perhaps technology will reduce/improve this issue the next 50 years.

We have reduced lynchings and scalpings which we had much more of than the other industrialized countries. I do have faith we can reduce homicides by guns perhaps with the help of immigrants such as yourself.

you're an amazing guy, mike (compliment, not sarcasm)

[helene_t]

luke warm, on Apr 21 2007, 03:35 PM, said:

the founders, rightly in my view, feared the tyranny of domestic government more than foreign, or more than individual citizens of the country... the purpose of the ammendment was to insure freedom from the potential tyranny of the very gov't they had established... the entire constitution, with emphasis on the bill of rights, was framed for that very reason

I've heard that argument before. Not sure if my problem is that I don't understand it, or if I just disagree, or if it's because times have changed since the constitution was written.

It seems to me that each citizens' right to writing his own blog without fear of government censorship is essential to avoiding governement tyrany. OTOH, I don't see how gun ownership could contribute. At least the present government meets more resistance from blogs than from guns. So will the next government, no matter if it's democrat, republican or whatever.

How are citizens supposed to use their guns to control government tyranny? By shooting policemen, tax collectors, judges and politicians? By shooting those criminals that don't get punished hard enough by the government? Suppose (well, "suppose") the government commits election fraud and illegal wiretapping, apoints AGs on the basis of political qualifications, and bans peace-marche participants from boarding flights. How would guns help citizens to fight back in that case?

[Winstonm]

Quote

Anyway, I find it doubtful if you base your reasoning just on leveling comparative strengths, when 1. this does not happen in practice (85% of gun owners are male), and 2. it doesn't help the weaker one to become safer. I would argue that the weak ones in fact become less safe,

Arend:

This is a different debate. More than likely there are hundreds of reasons that a gun would be a problem - being stolen, imbalance of skills, willingness to use, etc., etc. There is no doubt than guns are dangerous. The ultimate debate is about rights, are which group's rights should be preeminent.

First, to debate gun ownership versus banning guns, one must first ask: what is the nature of a gun - what does it do?

One thing a gun does is give the 96-pound weakling, through use of force, the option of preventing the 200-pound bully from kicking sand in his face. The only thing that changes the power structure between the two is the gun. Guns alter the holder's comparative strength. That is a gun's nature.

Please, do not get sidetracked by moral choices of the 96-pound weakling and his other options of running, not going to the beach, or bringing a Soviet women's team weight lifter as his date. I am simply trying to show the ultimate power of a firearm - it's nature - and why some would want the choice to own one.

The debate is not simply about risk of injury by gun, number of deaths by gun, or accidental shootings - the heart of the debate is whether or not a person should have the right if he so wishes to increase his personal strength by using the power inherent in a gun.

In my pyramid of rights, I believe personal rights should sit at the apex, the rights of society are of next importance, and government rights should only be those that are granted to them by the governed. Therefore, I believe an individual should have to right to own a gun, but society has the right to restrict types of guns that are available, how many guns can be owned, an age limit on gun ownership, and the type mental capablity proof required, and government may be given the right to enforce these choices and has the further responsibility to made sure that the rights of first two groups are not infringed.

[cherdano]

Winston, I understand your point, what we disagree about is which is the relevant debate.

Anyway, I am not so far away from your conclusions. I suppose we agree that someone who has been determined by court to be suicidal should not be able to buy a handgun.

[Winstonm]

helene_t, on Apr 20 2007, 03:15 AM, said:

Winstonm, on Apr 20 2007, 05:45 AM, said:

Yes, in practical application it is wrong.  I agree with you. But I am not speaking of a practical application, but theoretical, and I am not trying to measure what you are trying to measure.  You seem to be speaking of potential for injury - and I am not disputing that risk; I simply am not addressing it.

Therefore, based on my comparison standards, the conceptual comparison is valid.  I am not measuring the risk of potential injury.  Nor am I trying to measure the risk of conflict with weaponry compared to without weaponry. What I am showing is how the comparative strengths of antagonists alters risk in case of conflict.

I don't get it. The only sense I can make of this is that you focus on the comparative strength in isolation, i.e. other variables kept constant, in particular the value of a preemptive strike being kept constant, and the destructiveness of the weapons possessed being kept constant. As others have noted, free access to guns probably means less balance for a number of reasons, such as males being more likely to own guns than females.

Then your point seems to be that a balance of power reduces risk. I'll have to disagree with this. If violence was an aim in itself, you'd be right. In case of non-balance, the strong would use his power to destroy the weak. In case of balance, one might hope that both parties would stay peaceful out of fear of loosing.

But violence is not an aim in itself. In case of non-balance, the strong will prefer to get his will just by threat of using violence. This is why most of us believe in strong police versus weak citizens. Pax Romana. Of course, whether Pax Romana is a good thing depends whether one thinks that the police will use its power for a just course. But that's a justice issue or a justice-versus-security issue, it's not a security issue. Iraq, South Africa, Afganistan and Russia were safer during the Baat-, Apartheid-, Taliban- and Communist rule than those countries are today. Whether you'd rather live in either of those countries today than before is a different issue. If I lived in a Columbian village that was frequently raided by paramilitaries or rebels who could just take all our money, lifestock, children without fireing a single shot, I would have sympathy for those villageres who argued in favor of getting us armed to protect usselves, even if the likely cost would be more people getting killed in the conflicts with the raiders. Maybe the raiders would prefer to raid some other village if we had a reputation of killing strangers.

Balance of power is dangerous. Both parties will constantly be asking themselves the question: could we win the conflict by a preemptive strike? Of course, if the costs of a preemptive strike (even if successful) is high, both parties might prefer not to engage in armed conflict, even if that means that they have to live with an, in their eyes, slightly unjust peace. But if the alternative to committing a preemptive strike yourself might be to suffer a preemptive strike from the enemy ....... I'd argue that we avoided a WW III in spite of the balance of power, not because of the balance of power.

Anyway, I think the issue of gun control should be addressed as a practical one. I don't care if legislation is "right" according to some abstract philosophy, especially if I don't personally subscribe to that philosophy, even at the abstract level. What I care about is
1: Real security (what's the probability that I get shot)
2: Economical efficiency (how much money does it cost to maintain security)
3: Justice (does the armed police use its power to prevent crime, or to secure their own economic privileges)

I'd be prepared to accept practical arguments for a liberal weapon ownership legislation under certain conditions. In the U.S., there was a ban on alcohol in the fifties. Many people say that while there would be no alcohol in a perfect World, the costs of the alcohol ban in terms of creating a black market with all its associated violence and corruption was not worth paying. I don't know if I agree in that particular case, but I'm open to the argument. Just like I'm open to arguments from people who favor a liberal legislation with respect to heroine, prostitution and abortion even if they would prefer those things not to exist. It's possible that similar arguments could be given in favor of a liberal firearm legislation.

Helene:

I always enjoy reading your posts - your intelligence is obvious yet you show a levelheadedness and lack of arrogance that is sometimes the bane of the highly scholared.

You are right in that what I have been trying to estabish (as in the post above to Arend) is a definition of the nature of a gun. What does it do? In a sense, I have been talking this through outloud and think now I stated incorrectly what I believed to be a gun's nature - I would now alter that to say that a gun's nature is to cause harm beyond personal means, and is thus an increase in personal strength.

Where you and I personally disagree in on the heirarchy of rights; I place individual rights uppermost while you seem to place societal/governmental rights above the individual.

One thing you seem to misunderstand about my personal position though, is that I do not advocate nor do I believe in a totally free market for guns. As I said above, I believe society has the right to establish rules of ownership, but as long as soceity agrees that an individual can be a responsible gun owner, government should have no right to supercede that decision, while society does not have the right to suppress all gun ownership as that violates the individual rights of the responsible owner, whose individual rights should supercede societal rights.

[Winstonm]

cherdano, on Apr 21 2007, 10:09 AM, said:

Winston, I understand your point, what we disagree about is which is the relevant debate.

Anyway, I am not so far away from your conclusions. I suppose we agree that someone who has been determined by court to be suicidal should not be able to buy a handgun.

Arend:

I 100% agree. I do not advocate a totally free access to guns - after all, even here in the U.S. it is a right and not a privalege. I believe societies have a right to establish restrictions on ownership, but neither society nor government has the right to trump individual rights without legitimate cause. I don't have a problem with fairly strict restrictions, either - I have a problem with blanket rules, laws, and restrictions.

I extend this past gun ownerhip, too, as I find current management trends, probably caused by judicial rulings, to have the same inherent problem of using blanket, one-size-fits-all rules to solve complex problems.

[helene_t]

Winstonm, on Apr 21 2007, 05:17 PM, said:

Where you and I personally disagree in on the heirarchy of rights; I place individual rights uppermost while you seem to place societal/governmental rights above the individual.
[.....]
One thing you seem to misunderstand about my personal position though, is that I do not advocate nor do I believe in a totally free market for guns. As I said above, I believe society has the right to establish rules of ownership, but as long as soceity agrees that an individual can be a responsible gun owner, government should have no right to supercede that decision, while society does not have the right to suppress all gun ownership as that violates the individual rights of the responsible owner, whose individual rights should supercede societal rights.

Actually, I think of myself as a libertarian. I would not go so far as Todd but I would generally go a long way in order to protect individual freedom.

The dilemma arises when individuals, when allowed to exercise their freedom, cause harm or risk to others. For example:
- By building a house with a straw roof, I expose the neighborhood to the risk of a fire that might spread to neighboring houses.
- By playing loud music I expose the neighbors to it.
- By bringing my sick pet into the country I expose other animals to a risk of infection.

How such dilemmas should be resolved depends on risk assessment versus the value one attributes to each individual freedom. The fact that I happen to like pets and dislike loud music may cause me to be liberal with respect to some dilemmas and restrictive with respect to others. I don't think a reasonable person could take the extreme restrictive point of view ("everything that might cause perceived risk or inconvenience to others should be illegal"), nor the extreme liberal point of view (total anarchy).

My view on the particular issue of gun ownership is due to my assessment of the risk as severe, while at the same time I cannot understand why anyone would like to own a gun. I can put some value on perceived safety (even if I think it's an irrational perception of safety), so if guns were completely harmless I would be all for them. It's just that the lives of thousands of people getting killed with legally owned guns (or guns stolen or traded from legal owners) are more valuable to me than some perceived safety which I believe to be marginal at the level of perception and non-existent (even negative) at the level of real safety (on average, that is. I'm sure some gun-owners living in particular circumstances have rational reasons).

[Winstonm]

helene_t, on Apr 21 2007, 09:14 AM, said:

luke warm, on Apr 21 2007, 03:35 PM, said:

the founders, rightly in my view, feared the tyranny of domestic government more than foreign, or more than individual citizens of the country... the purpose of the ammendment was to insure freedom from the potential tyranny of the very gov't they had established... the entire constitution, with emphasis on the bill of rights, was framed for that very reason

I've heard that argument before. Not sure if my problem is that I don't understand it, or if I just disagree, or if it's because times have changed since the constitution was written.

It seems to me that each citizens' right to writing his own blog without fear of government censorship is essential to avoiding governement tyrany. OTOH, I don't see how gun ownership could contribute. At least the present government meets more resistance from blogs than from guns. So will the next government, no matter if it's democrat, republican or whatever.

How are citizens supposed to use their guns to control government tyranny? By shooting policemen, tax collectors, judges and politicians? By shooting those criminals that don't get punished hard enough by the government? Suppose (well, "suppose") the government commits election fraud and illegal wiretapping, apoints AGs on the basis of political qualifications, and bans peace-marche participants from boarding flights. How would guns help citizens to fight back in that case?

Amazing insight, Helene. Of all the rights created - and Jimmy is corrrect that they were created for protection from tyranny, both domestic and foreign - the least important in today's world with regards to protection from domestic tyranny is the right to bear arms; however, I think it imperative to maintain the right because even if its practical usefulness has declined, its honorary value as a conceptualization that individual rights supercede the powers of government is still as valid.

[helene_t]

Winstonm, on Apr 21 2007, 06:02 PM, said:

however, I think it imperative to maintain the right because even if its practical usefulness has declined, its honorary value as a conceptualization that individual rights supercede the powers of government is still as valid.

I'm glad that we agree on this (the priority of individual rights vis-a-vis government power), since it's important.

[hrothgar]

For what its worth, I don't have a problem with gun ownership. My father spent the Korean war working a a repair depot fixing sighting rifles. He still owns a few guns. I used to hunt with rifles and shotguns before I moved over to bow/spear hunting. I do have a major problem with fact that so many people in the US seem to have a fetish for guns. Furthermore, I think that its ridiculous that people are permitted to own what are (essentially) military grade weapons. I've always felt that something like the following was a reasonable compromise

1.Home defense:

People are permitted to own just about anything they want in the way of shot guns and bolt action rifles. (no fully automatic shotguns). Licenses and waiting periods are required

2. Hunting

People are permitted to own just about anything they want in the way of shotguns and bolt action rifles. Licenses and waiting periods are required

3. Target shooting:

The owners of a licensed shooting range can (pretty much) purchase whatever they damn well please. Anyone who wants to play around with a pistol, an automatic rifle, a machine gun, what have you is welcome to go and rent time at a shooting range. If anyone feels an “extreme” need to own their own pistol, they're welcome to buy one and store it at a shooting range.

I am pretty much trying to restrict ownership across two different dimensions

First: The ability of individuals to “conceal carry”. I think that conceal carry laws are a big mistake. I'd go a lot further and restrict people from being able to have easy access to pistols and other such weapons that can be easy concealed

Second: The ability to spew large number of rounds in a short period of time.

[Winstonm]

Quote

My view on the particular issue of gun ownership is due to my assessment of the risk as severe, while at the same time I cannot understand why anyone would like to own a gun. I can put some value on perceived safety (even if I think it's an irrational perception of safety), so if guns were completely harmless I would be all for them. It's just that the lives of thousands of people getting killed with legally owned guns (or guns stolen or traded from legal owners) are more valuable to me than some perceived safety which I believe to be marginal at the level of perception and non-existent (even negative) at the level of real safety (on average, that is. I'm sure some gun-owners living in particular circumstances have rational reasons).

Helene: First, I agree with you that guns are dangerous. Second, I also concur that there are too many guns in private hands, contributing to the problem of non-regulated exchange of ownership through gun shows and pawn shops as well as the problem of theft.

Third is a more personal issue. I have had the unfortunate fate to be involved in violent confrontations twice in my life. I talked previously about the first episode of being robbed at knifepoint. The second was more severe.

A few years back I was dating a woman who had filed for divorce. While waiting for trial, her estranged husband decided she should not have access to her 2-year-old son and would not let her see him. (Her attorney said there was nothing we could legally do to force him to share custody until after court appearance, another two months away.) After three weeks of this nonsense, we decided enough was enough and one day went to the daycare center that kept the child, and his mother signed him out - all perfectly legal. Somehow the estranged husband found out, and as we were driving out of town, he accosted us in his pickup truck, blocking the 2-lane road, jumped out with a pistol in his hand, and - from 20 feet away - took aim and fired. The passenger side window of our car exploded in a shower of glass. I managed to get our car around his, but he jumped into his truck and gave chase. The move "Bullit" had nothing on our chase - for twelve miles within the city at speeds of 90-95 miles an hour, running traffic lights and stop signs with him on our tail the whole way until we managed to get within sight of the sherriff's office, at which point he broke off and disappeared. He was arrrested later but was released on bail.

The next day I went and purchased a shotgun with ammunition that is only used for large game. I did this for only one reason - the feeling of total vulnerability, of total helplessness in being unarmed when facing an armed aggressor is so chillingly horrific as to be impossible to describe - it took years to get over - that I simply could not allow myself to be in that situation again if there was an alternative. The shotgun was for defense, kept in the home in case, while out on bail, he decided to invade the house and continue his rampage. If that were to occur, I was not going to allow myself to be helpless again.

It is one thing to theorize about gun ownership - to personally have a legitimate desire for self-preservation through self-defense with a gun puts the argument on a completely different level.

[Winstonm]

hrothgar, on Apr 21 2007, 11:07 AM, said:

For what its worth, I don't have a problem with gun ownership.  My father spent the Korean war working a a repair depot fixing sighting rifles.  He still owns a few guns.  I used to hunt with rifles and shotguns before I moved over to bow/spear hunting.  I do have a major problem with fact that so many people in the US seem to have a fetish for guns.  Furthermore, I think that its ridiculous that people are permitted to own what are (essentially) military grade weapons.  I've always felt that something like the following was a reasonable compromise

1.Home defense:

People are permitted to own just about anything they want in the way of shot guns and bolt action rifles.  (no fully automatic shotguns).  Licenses and waiting periods are required

2. Hunting

People are permitted to own just about anything they want in the way of shotguns and bolt action rifles.  Licenses and waiting periods are required

3. Target shooting:

The owners of a licensed shooting range can (pretty much) purchase whatever they damn well please.  Anyone who wants to play around with a pistol, an automatic rifle, a machine gun, what have you is welcome to go and rent time at a shooting range. If anyone feels an “extreme” need to own their own pistol, they're welcome to buy one and store it at a shooting range.

I am pretty much trying to restrict ownership across two different dimensions

First:  The ability of individuals to “conceal carry”.  I think that conceal carry laws are a big mistake.  I'd go a lot further and restrict people from being able to have easy access to pistols and other such weapons that can be easy concealed

Second:  The ability to spew large number of rounds in a short period of time.

This really sucks in that I can't find any point with which to disagree.

I might add that in my view the number of guns in circulation, as well as the ease of purchase through gun shows, private sales, and pawn shops, are the main problems in the current overdistribution and underregulation of ownership.

[pbleighton]

I'm in agreement with Richard's suggestions. Using handguns at a range and storing them there is OK with me. As I've said earlier, I have no objection to most shotguns and rifles.

Peter

[helene_t]

Winstonm, on Apr 21 2007, 06:56 PM, said:

The next day I went and purchased a shotgun with ammunition that is only used for large game. I did this for only one reason - the feeling of total vulnerability, of total helplessness in being unarmed when facing an armed aggressor is so chillingly horrific as to be impossible to describe - it took years to get over - that I simply could not allow myself to be in that situation again if there was an alternative.

Thanks for sharing, Winston. I'll have to take back my phrasing that I cannot understand why anyone would want to own a gun.

Strange that this guy was released on bail. But OK, I'm not going to post jokes about the American justice system here. It could probably have hapened in Europe as well.