Guns?
In my nearly 52 years of life on this planet, I have yet to ever come across a situation where I wished for or saw a need for a gun. I just don’t get why America is so gun crazy. I suppose if I lived where there were problems with bears and cougars. I’ve seen bears and cougars and I never felt like I needed to shoot them.
Yes, I know there is the NRA, Republicans and Libertarians out there who adhere to the “Cold Dead Fingers” statement, but why would anyone need a gun and the liability that goes with it in this day and age?
I know there are many gun owners who read this daily journal. Does this question piss you off? Have you ever needed your weapon? Ever ice any one?
posted by The Guy Who Writes This at 5:35 AM
26 Comments:
My brother lives in the Yukon and actually uses his rifle to supply his family with meat (moose). That, I get. (Not the eating of moose meat - tried it, don't like it - but using a rifle for food supply and for scaring away bears while hunting.)
In the city, the only use for a gun would be to kill people.
(Re: yesterday's comment and your response - how do you know my butt isn't already huge???)
Ice anyone? There you go cracking me up again!
Well, I do own guns and unfortunately, I do have to use them sometimes. I'm talking rifles here that I consider a work tool to be used when all else fails to protect what I do for a living. Ex marksman here with the Queen's Rifle and Crown badge to prove it (chest puffing out now). Shooting a target is entirely different than shooting a living creature (chest deflating here). I do see how it could be a rush though as when I have had to shoot bears, my heart is thumping so hard, I think everyone within miles could hear it. Fear or excitement? Don't really know.
I have a brother in Jersey that I haven't been to visit in years. With your situation in the U S A with handguns, I'm not sure that I would want to go unarmed.
Way back in my yute, I was driving through a town called Kingman Arizona bound out from California, so naturally I had a bag of weed. Out of nowhere, cops sprang out with a roadblock, front and back, shotguns levelled and handguns drawn. The picture was Cool Hand Luke perfect complete with the cowboy hats, pot belly, the requisite drawl and mirrored sun glasses. Did I shit my pants? Not telling, but mind you,this was in the days when possession of a joint could get you life in prison. It was one of the first times I saw my life flash before my eyes - well, maybe the second cause they had pretty good peyote back then.
Anyway, turns out they were looking for an escaped con from Maryland whose car plates were the same color as mine. Just sayin' this cause I'm not sure who I would fear most in the US - the white or black guy in Trenton or the cops.
Oh yeah - they did not find the dope. It was well stashed and lasted well into our foray into the Merican South. Reminds me - are there any bars in Seattle that aren't gay? Loved that Pismo weed...
I know 'ti Guy (which is what you would be called in Frencville - pronounced tee incidentally). Wasting another blog post. Chalk it up to fresh caffeine from Tim's (a Canadian icon)coursing through my veins this morning!
Beth, the fact you would get hurt tells me not enough cussion, but if you want to shoot down your image to all, feel free. You could also post a photo and we could all rate your butt if you like. I know I have no butt.
Moosehead...what can I say, you are one funny bastard, now get out there and disburse some poison, spring is here.
Spring may have sprung your way but it sure doesn't feel like it here.
Don't mind that chompin' sound in the backround. It's just Maxdelab chowin down on a smoked and dried bull pecker. He does seem to enjoy it way too much...I think he may be gay. Me homophobic?? Nahhh. Damn karma.
Our first home in the country was on 1 acre. When I shot the last gopher I remember that I had counted 24.
When we bought our 15 acres, it was overridden with gophers. 17 years later, there is not one single gopher on the property.
Of course, one does cross the fenceline from time to time; just often enough to keep me in practice.
I have a 22 rifle and a 20 guage shotgun. Both, I bought when I was 13.
The gearhead family does not hunt, other than gophers and crows.
However, I was so impressed with the Hunters Safety Course when I was 13 or 14, that I had all three children complete the training when they were in their early teens.
We have two pistols.
Up until about 12 years ago, I rode a motorcycle back and forth to work and carried one in my pocket. No, I didn't have a lic.
Aside from that, I have been in 3 incidents, where I realized that in the next few moments I may have to defend my life and those with me.
Breifly, in one incident my wifes grandmother, Stormy, and I were chased off of a steelhead spot on the river by a drunk old lady and 3 old drunk guys at about 7:00 in the morning.
They were drunker than a skunk.
The lady was pointing a shotgun at us and telling us we were tresspassing.
As we were quickly picking things up to leave, I firmly demanded that she stop pointing the shotgun at us.
Then she raised the shotgun in a manner that appeared like she was going to shoot. I pointed my finger at her and yelled, "DON"T POINT THAT AT US AGAIN!"
Then, I went on full war alert.
If she leveled the shotgun, I would draw, cock, and aim, take 3 steps to one side and shout one last demand, and she would make her desicion. Fortunatly, she lowered the shotgun to her waist and left it there.
As we drove away, Stormy said, "I knew that you were within seconds of shooting her."
"I have never cared for the fact that you carry that thing around, but I was quite sure that you had it with you and damn glad you did." she said.
Are you prepared to defend your life? How about your wife's dear grandmother?
Our two loaded pistols are positioned in two kid-proof spots in our house where only my wife and I know for quick easy acsess in a spot.
Just like our generator, their ideal use is non-use.
I've never lived in the country, and have never been around guns. I hate 'em. But my other half is a cop, so it makes for an interesting compromise for me. Big rules for where they go in the house: guns here in North Portland mean something different than on acreage in rural Oregon I s'pose!
I'm not sure if I could rest with one in the house. I get such a creepy feeling when the locals are shooting as well. Lelo, that is a necessary tool for your partner and that position should ensure the knowledge of not only how but when to use it. As for Gearhead, I would have bargined, "If you let me fish here I'll get you a half rack."
I'm just saying I've been in some weird places, NYC, Brooklyn, Slums, bear and cat country, some places in Hawaii where they don't like mainlanders. (no problem ever in Canada).
I knew my dad had a rifle in the house while I was growing up, but he never went hunting. Come to find out, he had twelve or thirteen guns (including two black-powder pistols and a black-powder rifle--antiques), but he never had ammunition. I never saw any of them until about three months ago.
My uncles are big hunters, but they didn't let their nieces touch the guns. I guess I grew up thinking guns were for boys. I am definitely not a pacifist, but guns always put me on edge.
This last summer, I had my first experience firing a rifle (both a .22 and a .30-30) and a 12-gauge shotgun. I hurt for three days afterward, but I did a great job for a first-timer. My "instructor" (a friend) walked me through all of the safety basics, then helped me learn how to sight and stuff. I enjoyed the experience, more to gain respect of guns than to shoot things. I can't see myself ever pointing a gun at any animal.
I do believe in the right to have guns in your own house -- that is in the Constitution. I also believe in common sense (like storing your ammunition separately).
Well I don't own a gun, but the day my government tries to tells me I can't is the day I'll buy one. I know that in this day and age it is difficult for us to ever imagine that our government is anything but rightous and pure of heart and mind, full of honest and forthright people acting to serve only in the best intrest of its electorate(please read with the sarcasm that was intended), but someday there may come a time when our when our government becomes so powerful and corrupt that we may have to protect ourselves from it. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. People should never be afraid of their government, the government should be afraid of it's people. I'm sure this makes me sound like a wack job to some, but we have thousands of years of history about what people in power do to their own. Not our government you say. Didn't anyone read 1984. Geeze!
Plus, if there is ever a zombie uprising, I need to be prepared.
Good points Jaggy.
Zoe, I love you so much! Zombie uprising...
Are you baiting me with this post? LOL
I have too much that I'd like to say to even start here. I will say that I hope I never have to use my gun in self defense, but I'd hate it even more to need it and not have it.
And Moosehead is a fucking RIOT!!
We've got 'em. We don't use them, they're not loaded, but they've been passed down in some cases. They just sit in the closet. I won't do handguns, just too easy to load and use.
We're not afraid of anyone bursting in. But, I don't mind them being there, either.
Syd, like I'm going to bait you with the mood you've been in ; ) And damn, now Moosehead's ego is going to sky rocket now he has your approval, I nearly had him in check, but now with his internet dating he'll be out of control, but you're right, he is a riot.
K, anon, just checking everyone's pulse...Just seeing who I shouldn't mess with. Syd is on the do not mess list for sure, I've seen some of her pieces.
Zoe posted my thoughts.
But one more point is that our country has done fine with a armed citizenship for 225+ years, why should we change it?
Lelo said: >>guns here in North Portland mean something different than on acreage in rural Oregon I s'pose!<<
Nope! You have more methheads there and need to be able to defend your family in the same manner that we do at a moments notice.
Jaggy said: >>I also believe in common sense (like storing your ammunition separately)<<.
Sorry to nit-pick, but I'm sure that you meant to say, "Lack of common sense."
Zoe said, >>Well I don't own a gun, but the day my government tries to tells me I can't is the day I'll buy one.<<
Yeah right! And the moment that the elctricity goes out for a month, I'll go out and wire in a stand by generator. The day that we have the M-7 earthquake, I'll stock up on groceries.
Anonymous said:>> We're not afraid of anyone bursting in.<<
Good "luck" with your decision.
Remember that each of your statements here represent a conscience desision on your part about your safety and security.
I never want to read about you're being "victomized" by " (fill in crime tag)".
You make the final policy for your family's security.
If it fails, who then is responsible?
I think I said what I meant: common sense includes storing ammunition separately from the weapon it goes to. The military adheres to this policy, and the same is covered in gun safety courses. Have I heard incorrectly? Another good reason to store these separately: if someone stumbles across your gun, they're going to have a hard time firing it without ammunition.
I get shocked over and over again when I read/see that people think it's necessary and "safer" to own guns when it has been shown OVER AND OVER that the person most likely to be killed by your gun is YOU or a member of your own family.
It's also very distressing to know that so many of my neighbors have them in their houses.
If you want to exercise your freedom - go VOTE!
Meg, oddly I thought that most people would have responded like you. I'm pretty surprised how sympathetic the readers are to gun ownership.
Personally I'm with you 100%
gearhead- that was not intened to be taken literally. I of course understand supply and demand, and how making guns illegal would drive demand and drain supply. My point was intended to illustrate that just because I am not a gun enthusiest like my friend Syd, does not mean that I am ambivilant about my right own one if I so desired.
The reason many people choose to arm themselves is simple. They have come to the realization that they are responsible for their family's and their own safety.
Do you live with a police officer? Is there one in your back pocket when you go out? I think in the majority of cases neither is true. So, if the police aren't with you what is their response time if you call them? An average is two minutes from call to dispatch, then whatever travel time they need to get to where you are. I am in Knappa, average response times are around ten minutes. How much damage can be done in ten minutes?
I hope it never happens but what would I be able to do to an armed intruder bent on harming my family if I didn't have a tool at least equal to the one used by the offender?
I have a responsibility to keep my family safe and ensure my children are able to grow up and live their lives as they see fit. If that means that I have to take on the responsibility of potentially having to kill someone to protect their safety then I will gladly do that for them. They deserve every bit of help I can give them.
The reason citizens own and carry guns is the very same reason police officers do, protection. Yet we don't hear calls to disarm the police, why is that?
I understand that not everyone can handle that kind of responsibility. But just "because others cannot handle the responsibility" is not a reason to disarm or demonize those that can handle the responsibility.
There are well over 3,000 concealed carry permit holders in this county alone. In fact, I would be willing to bet you have met and even spoken to a few in your daily life around Astoria and never even knew it. There is also a very active 4-H sponsored shooting club in the county, kids from 8-18 are having fun shooting everyday. We are not hot heads just waiting to shoot anyone we meet who gives us the stink eye. In fact, here is an offer,I would like to take you to the range and introduce you to shooting. No costs involved, I will bring everything needed. This offer is also open to any others that are antigun.
I just do see why people think they are going to have to protect their family. As I said, I never needed one, and if I lived where I think I might need a gun, I'd move.
Gaston Fan just did it again. Justified gun ownership by the need for "protection" from some mythical intruder who has a (bigger) gun, or a gun at all. FACT: If you have a gun in your house, you or a member of your family is MORE likely to be shot by that gun than you are to defend them against an intruder. The reason your illogical justification works with most people is that they are more scared than they are smart. Duh. No gun = nobody can get shot with it. Duh. All the rationalizing in the world is not going to change the facts. So please everybody, get rid of your guns! Then, and only then, will our communities be safer.
Meg, I'm with you.
Meg, if that is true then why do the police have guns? If the police and those of us that obey the law give up our guns but the criminals do not then how does that make the community safer? Remember, criminals don't follow the law, that is why they are called criminals afterall. I guess you are right, less people would get shot wouldn't they? But since the criminals would be the only ones shooting then only innocent people would get shot. I don't think I like that idea meg.
We are not scared meg, I am not scared of flat tires or kitchen fires either but I have both a spare tire and a fire extinguisher just in case. Here is one person that is alive to disagree with your position, he shot an intruder that was beating him with an ASP baton. Those are the steel batons the police carry and they are very deadly.
http://www.registerguard.com/news/2006/02/11/d1.cr.shooting.0211.p1.php?section=cityregion
That incident happened in Eugene, there are hundreds more if you want to count the entire country.
http://www.claytoncramer.com/gundefenseblog/2007_03_01_archive.html
That blog has a list of incidents that author collects from all over the nation, all incidents include links to the newpaper article on the incident. There are 104 incidents listed so far this year, 3 of which took place in Oregon.
I am also wondering where you are getting this so called fact that families are in danger of getting shot by guns they own. Could you site your source please? The only time I have seen this "Fact" cited is by the Brady campaign to Ban guns. Their method of data collection is severely flawed however. You see, they count suicides as accidental shootings. Suicides may be many things but they are not accidents!
The offer still stands, I will gladly take you shooting anytime! maybe if you see there is nothing mystical about guns, that they are just tools, it will give you the facts needed to thoroughly understand both sides of the issue.
It seems to me the ante is upped every time one side gets better fire power. The police in many countries don't carry guns and the criminals don't use them either. Here the police are violent, the criminals are violent, our entertainment is violent, the games kids play are violent. We make our own swill.
Guy, I can see how that sounds like a good theory. If criminals don't have to try to get hard to come by tools they will just not use them right? Unfortunately, that's not the way criminals work.
"According to the UN International Study on Firearm Regulation, in 1994 the homicide rate in England (including Wales) was 1.4 (9% involving firearms), and the robbery rate 116, per 100,000 population. In the United States, the homicide rate was almost 9.0 (70% involving firearms), and the robbery rate 234, per 100,000. England has strict gun control laws, ergo, the argument goes, the homicide rate is far lower than in the United States. However, such comparisons can be dangerous: in 1900, when England had no gun controls, the homicide rate was only 1.0 per 100,000.
Moreover, using data through 1996, the U.S. Department of Justice study Crime and Justice concluded that in England the robbery rate was 1.4 times higher, the assault rate was 2.3 higher, and the burglary rate was 1.7 times higher than in the United States. Only the murder and rape rates in the United States were higher than in England."
As you can see from the murder rate per 100,000, England actually had less murders in 1900 with no gun control than it did with a near total ban on guns in 1994. That's a big gap in years right? That is the key to understanding this issue. You touched on it briefly, " We make our own swill". You were correct, we do, but the tools involved have nothing to do with it.
"The Swiss Federal Police Office reports that, in 1997, there were 87 intentional homicides and 102 attempted homicides in the entire country. Some 91 of these 189 murders and attempts involved firearms (the statistics do not distinguish firearm use in consummated murders from attempts). With its population of seven million (which includes 1.2 million foreigners), Switzerland had a homicide rate of 1.2 per 100,000. There were 2,498 robberies (and attempted robberies), of which 546 involved firearms, giving a robbery rate of 36 per 100,000. Almost half of these criminal acts were committed by non-resident foreigners, which is why one hears reference in casual talk to "criminal tourists."
As you can see from that quote, the British havea robbery rate of 116 per 100,000 and near total bans on guns but the Swiss, who have the highest gun ownership rates in the world have only 36 robberies per 100,000.
Some on the pro gun side love to use that to prove guns cause less crime, but that isn't really true. You have to compair the societies, not the tools. Britain is very open to immigration and outside influence, The Swiss on the other hand have some of the tightest immigration restrictions in the world. Society and it's members are what influence crime, not the tools used to commit the crimes. It is not possible to modify behavior overnight or even within a single generation, certainly not amongst those that commit crimes. Where does that leave us?
Well, we can't just give in and allow criminals to wontonly do as they please and there are not enough police to assign one to every person on the planet. Nor is that their job, they are there to protect society, not individuals, there has even been a Supreme Court ruling stating just that. That leaves the responsibility of protecting ones self to each individual.
If you must defend yourself why would you use inferior tools? Certainly not many people still travel by horse and cart, they realize that technology has surpassed that mode of transportation and drive cars. The same is true of self defense, swords are large, obtrusive and somewhat less effective in the hands of the less trained, so most use guns to defend themselves.
Ready to expand your knowledge and take me up on the offer?
Post a Comment
<< Home