Do you feel the need to be unarmed and defensless while camping?

[plainjaneFJC]

Todays climate around gun issues with society will force changes. You can choose to be part of driving better policy or choose to do nothing and then complain about what non owners have pushed through as policy. There will be no answer E option of nothing.

We already have a perfectly good policy why can't people just leave it alone. The idea of more laws makes no sense because bad guys don't follow laws. We could ask what you or others think is a good idea for new policy or laws but bottom line if it infringes on my right then the answer is no. I really missed you driving analogy. Does the constitution guarantee the right to drive?

 

[jeep-N-montero]

Whats my choice? My choice is to live in a free state. Where I can carry responsibly without fear of being locked up just for doing so. I plan to keep honing the perishable skill that is "operating a firearm". Not only do I have to do that for my job, but I do it because Im a responsible citizen. I encourage every firearm owner or prospective owner to get good training, because I could go buy a Stratocaster but that doesn't make me Stevie Ray Vaughan...same applies to firearms.

I don't worry about what other idiots do with their time, or what negligent choices they make because I believe a reasonable person would be able to understand that I have no control over anyone else but me. My belief is that individuals are responsible for THEIR actions and don't represent the majority of any group, I guess I take for granted that some people cant make that connection.

Ive never committed a crime with a firearm and I wont accept being treated like I have simply because someone did.

You make it sound as though you don't care if guns get into the hands of some "idiots" who shouldn't ever have them, as opposed to requiring at least some basic safety/training prior to ownership.

 

[plainjaneFJC]

You make it sound as though you don't care if guns get into the hands of some "idiots" who shouldn't ever have them, as opposed to requiring at least some basic safety/training prior to ownership.

I cant speak for JWP, but have you developed a plan to keep the guns out of "idiots" hands that in no way infringes on my rights? Basic safety training won't work, surely you guys know that would snowball into more and more rules. I mean look at Ca and their BS rules on mag capacity.

 

[calicamper]

We already have a perfectly good policy why can't people just leave it alone. The idea of more laws makes no sense because bad guys don't follow laws. We could ask what you or others think is a good idea for new policy or laws but bottom line if it infringes on my right then the answer is no. I really missed you driving analogy. Does the constitution guarantee the right to drive?

In the eyes of current US voting population we have no policy. Be prepared to get bent over and rode hard if gun owners dont start speaking up and pushing for some smart discussions on the topic.

 

[plainjaneFJC]

In the eyes of current US voting population we have no policy. Be prepared to get bent over and rode hard if gun owners dont start speaking up and pushing for some smart discussions on the topic.

I don't think it'll ever fly in this country. By "smart" you mean more regulation I assume? We don't need or want more rules, how many times can we stress that bad guys don't follow rules.

 

[JWP58]

I don't think it'll ever fly in this country. By "smart" you mean more regulation I assume? We don't need or want more rules, how many times can we stress that bad guys don't follow rules.

Gun control folks know that. They don't care. They just need a means to the end of legal gun ownership. That's all they want. They don't care about logic. They don't care that violent crime has dropped significantly since the 80's, and gun ownership has only increased. They don't care that the areas of the country with the strictest gun control laws have the most gun violence....see Chicago for reference.

The only thing they care about is taking our rights away, once piece at a time. That is it.

You make it sound as though you don't care if guns get into the hands of some "idiots" who shouldn't ever have them, as opposed to requiring at least some basic safety/training prior to ownership.

Its not that I don't care, its that I live in reality and know that's an impossible task. That's something some people cant seem to understand. It is NOT the governments role to protect you everyday of your life. Yes they are responsible for national security, but YOU bear the burden of protecting yourself. You cant just say..."well pass some laws to make us more safe". I know that's what the bleeding hearts want you to believe, but it just isn't so..

 

[zigsrig]

I had an experience today that I thought I would share, that might show how polarizing this issue is for some people.

As I was wrapping up a lunch meeting with some very close friends/business partners, one of the gentlemen in the party who was riding in my truck with me back to my office asked what I had on my hip as I pulled my jacket over to buckle my seatbelt before driving. I told him what I tell everyone, "its my phone". He pressed the issue again, after noticing my phone in the cupholder a few minutes later. Since I have known and worked with this individual for a long time (10+ years) I decided to tell him that it was my concealed firearm. The panic on his face was very noticeable, and the rest of the car ride was silent.

After getting back to my office, and going our separate ways, I received an email stating in more words than necessary that "my choosing to be a 'gun nut' and putting his safety in danger with out his permission has made him rethink our professional and personal relationships"...

A few minuets after receiving this email, the other gentlemen at the lunch meeting called me to let me know they too had received an email from this individual in which he had expressed his 'shock' that I would choose to carry a firearm and put all of their lives in danger. He basically drew a line in the sand, asking them to 'be on his side', and end their relationships with me.

What he didn't know, was that he was the only unarmed person at our table at lunch. He also didn't know, that the other gentlemen at the table and myself all compete in shooting competitions and one is a retired Marine.

Moral of the story... Peoples beliefs on firearms are clearly deep routed, right or wrong. I feel bad that I have lost a friend and business partner over this, but I also feel that I don't need to tolerate people who believe their beliefs are more important that mine...

Ill never change his mind, nor will he change mine....

Now, back to the debate :sombrero:

 

[plainjaneFJC]

Gun control folks know that. They don't care. They just need a means to the end of legal gun ownership. That's all they want. They don't care about logic. They don't care that violent crime has dropped significantly since the 80's, and gun ownership has only increased. They don't care that the areas of the country with the strictest gun control laws have the most gun violence....see Chicago for reference.

The only thing they care about is taking our rights away, once piece at a time. That is it.




Its not that I don't care, its that I live in reality and know that's an impossible task. That's something some people cant seem to understand. It is NOT the governments role to protect you everyday of your life. Yes they are responsible for national security, but YOU bear the burden of protecting yourself. You cant just say..."well pass some laws to make us more safe". I know that's what the bleeding hearts want you to believe, but it just isn't so..

We need a way to "vote" on posts! Well said.

 

[Christophe Noel]

Yes, true. But there is a loophole open regarding the purchase of a vehicle. That's unacceptable. Also would you believe that some folks don't have a license, or insurance, or registration?????? Should we ban cars because of those people?

I'll jump back in because I love the car analogy.

In 1977 automotive fatalities had come off a decade of 50,000 deaths per year. It was decided more regulations needed to be implemented and over the course of the next decade we saw safety standards all across the transportation sector increase. This is the era that brought us all the technologies that now keep us safer than ever including anti-lock brakes, collapsing steering columns, airbags, crumple zones, three-point seat belts, and the list goes on. At the same time, roadways improved and regulations multiplied. Stiffer laws for DUI were implemented. Manditory seatbelt laws were created and finally...child seats required by law. There was a global approach to safer automobile travel.

The result: We reduced automobile fatalities by a full 50%. That reduction can be wholly attributed to the collection of efforts applied to that result - directly.

While there are those who have drawn loose correlations between the proliferation of guns in the US to a reduction in homicides over that same period, that connection is not very tenable and disputed by many social experts. More telling are the predictions that our rapid proliferation of weapons is not sustainable, and we can't continue to flood the streets with guns and not be where we are...one of the most violent countries in the world.

Earlier someone pegged me as not applying any logic to this discussion, which I don't think is accurate. I believe we all have our own way of applying our intellect and experience to this topic. I still contend, adding more guns with fewer regulations simply does not seem like the path to a less violent country.

And as a moderator and member, I want to thank everyone for keeping this discussion polite, thoughtful and interesting.

 

[Christophe Noel]

By they way, that Chicago reference above needs context. Although that city has strict gun laws, innumerable sources have cited that more than 66% of the guns used for violent crimes in the city came from out of state, which highlights the ineffectiveness of the current laws we have in place.

 

[Dalko43]

You still need to have your vehicle registered, and a current license to operate it and insurance. Hell you even need to take a DMV test again yrs later to prove that you still know enough to operate safely.

That may be a requirement where you live, but it's not applicable where I live.

 

[Dalko43]

I'll jump back in because I love the car analogy.

In 1977 automotive fatalities had come off a decade of 50,000 deaths per year. It was decided more regulations needed to be implemented and over the course of the next decade we saw safety standards all across the transportation sector increase. This is the era that brought us all the technologies that now keep us safer than ever including anti-lock brakes, collapsing steering columns, airbags, crumple zones, three-point seat belts, and the list goes on. At the same time, roadways improved and regulations multiplied. Stiffer laws for DUI were implemented. Manditory seatbelt laws were created and finally...child seats required by law. There was a global approach to safer automobile travel.

The result: We reduced automobile fatalities by a full 50%. That reduction can be wholly attributed to the collection of efforts applied to that result - directly.

While there are those who have drawn loose correlations between the proliferation of guns in the US to a reduction in homicides over that same period, that connection is not very tenable and disputed by many social experts. More telling are the predictions that our rapid proliferation of weapons is not sustainable, and we can't continue to flood the streets with guns and not be where we are...one of the most violent countries in the world.

Earlier someone pegged me as not applying any logic to this discussion, which I don't think is accurate. I believe we all have our own way of applying our intellect and experience to this topic. I still contend, adding more guns with fewer regulations simply does not seem like the path to a less violent country.

And as a moderator and member, I want to thank everyone for keeping this discussion polite, thoughtful and interesting.

Your car example is about car safety.

It's demonstrating a correlation between technological advancements (some forced by government regulation and some motivated by the free-market demand for safer cars) and safety. Some of the biggest drivers behind decreased auto accident fatalities are more advanced airbags, better seat belts, designed impact zones.

The penalties for drunk driving, speeding, unsafe driving are noticeably harsher than they were back in the 70's. I'd be willing to bet that if you compared the stats on # of drunk driving arrests, # of total accidents, # of accident related injuries, you would find that we have just as many nowadays, if not more, than we did back in the 70's. The cars are safer; that's the main reason why we have less auto accident deaths. Not because we as a population have been "regulated" into driving more safely.

So I'm really not sure on how this example relates to firearms. Most firearm manufacturers have safety mechanisms in place. Safety, or lack thereof, on a firearm is not the reason we are seeing most these gun deaths. It's due to intentional murders/attacks. What safety regulations/restrictions should the government put in place (that it hasn't already enacted) to deal with these crimes?

Two different topics: one having to do with safety (related to inadvertent accidents) and the other has to do with crime (related to intentional homicide/attacks).

 

[Dalko43]

By they way, that Chicago reference above needs context. Although that city has strict gun laws, innumerable sources have cited that more than 66% of the guns used for violent crimes in the city came from out of state, which highlights the ineffectiveness of the current laws we have in place.

And it's that context you bring up which would explain why widespread bans on certain firearm types would be ineffective in this country. We ban their sale/manufacture here, they simply will be smuggled across the border.

 

[Dalko43]

The reality is today Society wants to see changes in how we manage Gun ownership. Gun owners can step up and get involved in creating good policy or they can watch the short bus full of politicians drive by pandering to the Soccer Moms. Whats your choice?

The reality is there is no overarching societal call for greater gun control, rather there are variety of opinions and stances. You may hear more vocal calls and arguments from the anti-gun crowd for greater regulation, but don't confuse that with popular support.

The % of people who want increased regulation has decreased from 78% in 1990 to 55% in 2015. The % of people in 2015 who want less strict regulation or no changes to current regulations is about 45%:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx

And quite honestly, in this day and age where the public's trust of the government is at a low, people are going to be less inclined to simply relinquish most of their firearms and rely on the civil services to ensure their safety.

 

[Christophe Noel]

Dalko, I'm not sure how you missed the parallels, particularly given that you restated my position again, only in your words. In the 70s there was an impetus to reduce automotive fatalities. To achieve that end, every facet of automobile transport was addressed. The results speak for themselves. We have the faculties and resources to do the same with our massive rates of gun deaths each year. It will most certainly take a global approach as it did with cars. It will probably require gun owners to jump through a few hoops. It will probably involve stiffer penalties for the misuse of firearms. When someone makes that transition from good guy to bad guy, they should go away for a very, very long time. Who can get a gun will likely need to be revamped. Like I said before, if you're on a terrorist watch list, you shouldn't be allowed to buy a gun.

We also have to address our social issues head on. Why do we rank so high in gun deaths per 1,000?

In my opinion, the end goal should be to aspire to reduce gun related fatalities of all kinds, but to also not remove the right for those capable of owning guns from doing so.

It's not being "anti-gun" or "liberally whacko" to want a safer society. How we get there differs. Some don't want to do anything. Today 90 people will die of a gun wound. Statistically, within Japan, England, and Australia, there will be less than 12.

Do we not want that for ourselves?