for the record (re: guns thread)

In Wyoming, sure. In Los Angeles, not so much.

This is a dodge, Jar.Unless, what you are saying about the quote: Is that teh average Joe intended for his kid to be killed.The point is that the person buying the gun for self protection is more likely to see the gun unintentially harm a member of his family than to see it used in protection against a criminal.Weither we term that unintential event as an "accident" or a case of "neglagence" doesn't change that fact that that was not the plan when the person brought home the gun.

So she gets shot by a gun in her own house, and you think the problem was that there wasn't a gun in the house?If there had been a "gun on the nightstand" or whatever, wouldn't that have been the gun she got shot with?

Lots of stuff listed here, but much of it isn't all that well thought out. You live in Wyoming! What's the population density? You said yourself you can't even get a pizza.Guess what, your average motorcycle thief isn't going to travel 27 miles off the highway to find your place and snag your bike. University of Texas at Austin massacre - Austin, Texas, United States; August 1, 1966Don't know how old you were in '66. More gun control is an answer. It is not the only answer.
Enforcing current gun laws is an answer.
Holding the media accountable for it's fear mongering and gun glorification is an answer.
Closing loop hole that allow criminals to get machine guns is an answer.There are lots of answers. Just because one of them will not completely solve the problem by itself doesn't mean we shouldn't do it. Yeah, a .22 is gonna bounce off a woodchuck. Don't think it would even piss them off. "works very well" is a bit of a misnomer here. After all, you are shooting the object you are trying to protect. You may want to consider a powerful hose or some sort of great horned owl replica. Given the number of mountain lions, the restriction of their native habitates and the presences of recreational hikers and bikers, the number of attacks as astonishingly low.Generally they don't want to have anything to do with people.However, attacks do happen. But there's no reason that any of the other guns you mentioned would not be just as effective at warding off an attack.The only reason you are bringing an hand gun in that situation is that it is more convenient for you to carry it. That's fine.But the other factor of a hand gun is that it's more convenient for you to hide it so that other people don't know you have it.That's the problem I have with them. If it's for your protections, why would you need to hide it. Hiding it makes it worthless as a detourant.The only reason you need to hide your .45 is to use it on people. It's not like the mountain lion is going to say "uh oh, he's got a gun."

Rats and pigeons are edible.

We are spinning off topic but...We need to differentiate between shootings in which many random people are targeted and, say, a personal quarel which has gotten out of hand.If a student shoots a teacher they hate, that's not the same as a student taking out 30 classmates.Additionally, Crash's point was that the events today get more coverage.The coverage of Columbine actually LEAD TO some of the shootings which followed it.Kids which had either been toying with the idea already, or who were angry but didn't know what they were going to do about it, went out and copycatted the Columbine kids.Had there not been wall to wall covered on 50 channels 24 hours a day 7 days a week, perhaps those follow up cases wouldn't have been so inspired.

Yep, and that's the point to which it was aiming.

Oh my god, Jon.Do you even listen to yourself? So your solution to gun safety is to have 2 guns in every house? Or 1 gun for every person in every house?This guy presumable has 2 hands. Why wouldn't have have had BOTH guns?Well, what if there had been another 2 guns in the house and she could have gotten both of those guns. Then they both would have had 2 guns, and no one would have gotten shot!What if her sister lived with them and saw this happening...She could have gotten her 2 guns, then all three of them would each have 2 guns. There would be 6 guns in play, and everyone would have been much much safer.

You really really really don't want to eat a city pigeon.Besides, fishing poles are very effective are procuring food. As are snare traps. As are fruit baskets and hands.As are pizza delivery guys for that matter

Sounds good if I had a concealed weapons permit, but I don't. That means in both Colorado and Wyoming my pistol must be in plain sight which it always is. Otherwise I'm breaking the law and can be arrested. Some towns or cities have restrictions on this but I never carry a gun in town.Only problem with carrying a rifle on a hike when it's not hunting season is people can see it from far away and might think you're poaching or something and call the dept. of wildlife. Plus I have to consider that a discharged rifle round can travel a mile and a half and other people live in the area. You probably didn't think of that, did you?Like all gun owners I've met, we're safer than you think.

Sounds like someone just relieved the responsibility of the gun and blamed one of the real problems: tensions get heated in densely-populated areas, and crimes will generally be higher. Remind me again how many very large cities the U.S. has? Most likely because there are people like you who would start panicking, and freaking out, and screaming at the top of their lungs like a little school girl if they saw someone with a gun. After all, no one wants to make you uncomfortable in what is obviously a country whose laws are meant to be set up around your beliefs and moral values. Sure you don't like guns”you'd rather see away with them, and probably only want just tighter restrictions for the purpose of seeming as though you are willing to compromise”, but just because of all that, does it mean everyone should also be equally as pleased about the possibilities of having their rights infringed upon?Does it seem as though they actually are? Did you read jar's posts? It's not meant to be a deterrent. The purpose for carrying around a hand gun is for self protection if the need arises. Why do you try to make everyone who caries a handgun out to be some crazy lunatic red-neck who's as trigger happy as a little boy on his birthday?Jon

No, just the people worth saving. I can think of one person in that situation”*cough*ex-husband*cough*”who would not have been very safe in that situation.Of course, I could really just sum up this post in two words:slippery slope

My father was one of seven kids, born in 1915. His father only worked 3 days a week for the Erie RR. To make ends meet they used to make rye whiskey. After they were done they put the mash out side and the pigeons would eat it. They would get so drunk they couldn't fly and so they got clubbed and eaten.THIS IS AN OFF TOPIC POST >>>>DO NOT REPLYBeat admin to it.

You need to understand that the reason for concealed carry has been explained to nuggin before.When I carry concealed it is because the LAW requires I carry concealed as opposed to open carry. It also keeps those who are ignorant of guns and gun owners from being afraid. There really are no other valid reasons I can think of.I do favor open carry though. Concealed carry has a hidden weakness, since the general public does not know who is carrying, they don't realize that gun owners are just ordinary people. We cut the grass, take out the trash, take the kids to school, go to church, go to work and buy groceries.Because the law requires us to hide our guns away, the general publics view of gun owners is based on the image Hollywood and the news create. Unfortunately those images are far too often negative. Edited by jar, : fix sub-title

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Just a couple of points.When I come out of the house the woodpeckers fly to the nearest tree.
That's where I blast them, not when they're on the house. What do you think I'm a idiot?Ever shoot a woodchuck with a .22 at 50-75 yards or more. They don't die immediately. I don't shoot animals for fun and I don't want them to suffer. But we couldn't afford the time and money to replant 8 acres of cauliflower. When the plants are small they will eat them all in no time. When they're big it's no big deal if they eat a few leaves.So you think the media is part of the problem with shootings?No problem, I agree.In 1966 I was 17 and remember the Austin shooting. I gave you a list of 36 school shooting in the last 8 years. Try digging up that many for the decade of the sixties. Bet you can't, so my point stands.There are more school shootings now. How come? You mentioned the media. What do you think about some of these being related to the use of fluoxetine as an antidepresent? It can cause violent psychopathic behavior in some people. Maybe 1 in 1000, but give it to a million people and you just might make 1000 nuts.Breggin.com | Breggin.com - Refounding America - Rediscovering Ourselves Edited by petrophysics, : No reason given.Edited by petrophysics, : No reason given.