Me And A Gun

Kollektor,

I think the argument can be made about how to interpret the ancient Hebrew meaning of Kill vs. Murder, but in a subsequent clarification Jesus showed up and started the whole turn the other cheek thing. Then he showed us what he meant, just in case there was any question by dieing without resistance. He even chastised Peter for trying to defend him by cutting off that servant guys ear. Pretty much all the 12 met the same end. So if your a christian you don't have a religious argument to stand on. Your only hope is to repent on your death bed if your a christian soldier. Its not relative or based on circumstances if you kill someone you committed a sin, accept it, repent, pray for forgiveness.

God was also pretty clear about it being OK for him to kill and not for us "Vengance is Mine."

This is another one of the things that those of us who have chosen to serve in spite of our faith have to live with.

I do agree not all those who serve are sociopaths, some just accept that risking their immortal souls for the greater good is an acceptable risk. Some are sociopaths though, can you guess which I am?

I am not sure I buy into your point about someone being bad only if they enjoy killing, in the end we are not judged by what we think or what we feel, we are and should be judged by what we do. There is an old saying "the road to hell is paved with good intentions."

Theology, metaphysics and ethics on rep watch board who would have thought!

Thanks for getting us all thinking Posh!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kollektor

Actually, Posh, God kills EVERYBODY and every living thing on Planet Earth. We all die. By the millions and millions. Evil?

People who are killing terrorists are not sociopaths. If we didn't have these people, we would be ruled--or murdered--by sociopaths. Are you suggesting we all march to our deaths like sheep to the slaughter? Should we bow to terrorists and let them guide our national policy? Should we change our religion because we are being forced by sword?

As far as semantics go, killing and murdering are diametric opposites; and frankly, I'm surprised to see you taking this stance.

A hackneyed thought experiment: If--God forbid--a terrorist was about to murder someone you love, and you have a gun in your hand, would you turn it against the terrorist? If you "turn the other cheek," then in essence it could be argued that you just murdered your loved one insofar as you were able to prevent the act. Whether or not you perceive this to be an act of murder on your own behalf or as an act of free will by the killer, evil reigns irrespective. Nobody has to feel good about killing, but in a world where evil is present, "killing" is sometimes very necessary.

As you point out, maybe the terms are relative to a degree. Relative to societal constructs, relative to cultural perspectives; relative to religious beliefs or ethics. For example, in some religions, the act of infidelity might warrant a death sentence. The executor would not be considered a murderer by that society. Neither would the committee that judged the man. However, the Hague might condemn both the committee and the executor as murderers. Ethical? Can we know what objective reality is? What right and wrong really are in any objective sense? Of course not. But for some reason, most humans on the planet would not view an act of killing in self defense as an act of murder. Majority rules? Common sense? Who knows.

I personally believe that a horrible person is one who enjoys killing others. But the act of killing itself is in a vacuum, to be judged by circumstance.

---

As for a firearm being specifically designed to take life, let's delve into other inventions that were designed for the same specific purpose (although they have since branched out and can be used for other things).....

Large Rocks- Used since pre-history for the purpose of killing game more efficiently, large rocks were typically used by the besieged to crush those below walls and battlements. I'd imagine several hundred thousand people, if not more, have been killed with large rocks thrown from heights. Let's ban rocks.

Heavy Tree Branches- The club was perhaps the earliest man-made weapon, simply a large piece of wood capable of bludgeoning. Later included a previously governmentally banned weapon- large rocks making it even more efficient at taking human life. The Maya even attached pieces of volcanic glass, making an efficient slicing weapon. Banning heavy tree branches however does not fit the liberal agenda because it would contribute to global warming. Perhaps a ban on metal clubs only with strict licensing to own a tree?

Pointed sticks- The earliest conceptual weapon is perhaps the pointed stick, later developed by stone age peoples into the spear. More people have met their deaths by polearms than firearms. Time to ban pointed sticks, however refer to the global warming point above.

Bows/Crossbows- Again originating in pre-history the bow was formulated to kill at greater distances than the pointed stick/spear. The longbow itself was the sole decider of several major engagements in European history. Also developed at the same time was the recurve bow of the Eastern peoples, and later the compound bow of today. Crossbows, designed in the late 1300's were an attempt to provide sufficient projectile weapons to the unskilled. Let's ban bows and crossbows- they were designed to kill people also (again made of wood primarily so the whole global warming ting comes up).

Edged weapons- Knives and swords were designed from their outset to take human life. From the earliest flint and sharpened bone knives to the works of art produced by Japanese metallurgists, the sword and knife were designed as an offensive weapon. The main gauche not withstanding, they were designed to slice/stab one's opponent- thereby killing him/her. Lets ban everything metal that can hold an edge.

The "peace at any cost" crowd amuses me to no end. Please remember the sole reason you lie safe and snug in your beds at night is because rough men stand ready to do violence in your stead. Whether that be your local police/sheriff's department, your countries military or internal security organizations or simply a collection of neighbors organized into militias (Sons of Iraq for example)- someone holds the line for you.

I just consider myself lucky to live in a country where someone can openly criticize the government and those who risk life and limb on their behalf and not be herded to the lip of a slit trench by someone acting on behalf of that government which disagrees with what you are saying. I've seen the results of government monopoly on firearms ownership and it is most definitely not pretty. A few other members here have also.

I'd bet a good amount of money that people in Germany in the 1920's didn't think they would live to see 15+ million people exterminated by their enlightened, Westernized government either. Rather than say "It'll never happen here" I prefer to say "Never again."

As for being a sociopath for serving as a police officer and in the military, I actually find that quite offensive. I've no real way to respond to that without degenerating into an ad-hominem attack which I will not do. I will say that millions have given their most precious gift, their own lives, to enable you to make that statement. Treat that gift with kid gloves.

GE- They bring good things to life :cool:

http://i195.photobucket.com/albums/z307/sfa437/GE.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sfa437

As for being a sociopath for serving as a police officer and in the military, I actually find that quite offensive. I've no real way to respond to that without degenerating into an ad-hominem attack which I will not do. I will say that millions have given their most precious gift, their own lives, to enable you to make that statement. Treat that gift with kid gloves.

---

Although I don't agree with Posh's stance (I also don't agree with yours! lol), I think she was referring to the "higher ups" as the sociopaths. Posh, I apologize if i'm putting words in your mouth.

-James

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kollektor

Certain religions have a caveat about writing the name of the Creator. The name is forbidden to be used in vain. Moreover, it is forbidden to destroy the physical manifestation of the name. So, for example, if you were to write the name of God on a piece of paper, you would be forbidden to tear or burn the paper. Instead, you would have to bury it. There are many streams of thought on this subject, but the above addresses the standard spelling "G-d." I figured everyone knew this, and even playfully poked (NOT in a Biblical sense) a member for being snide. My bad (Joewatch ;-).

Anyway, Guan, now ya know :)

---

I knew about this, but I thought it applied only to the name (or names) of God.. none of which are "God".

Does this mean it's now An-bis? :lol:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sfa437

Does this mean it's now An-bis? :lol:

---

LOL! Good one, sfa :D

The most confusing thing to me is that Posh posts "G-d" sometimes, and "God" other times...

http://repgeek.com/showthread.php?p=...God#post442947 for example

I guess if you post "G-d" it means you're really serious and religious.. in that post :confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sfa437

Does this mean it's now An-bis? :lol:

---

That was the first laugh of the day. 10k sent your way. Thank you.

And to answer you: My name is older, those nonsense rules do not apply. Feel free to write it out completely, but the gods help you if you misspell it. Funny things will happen to your account......

:lol:

I LOVE this thread. How did I miss this one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Posh

G-d has the right to to take lives and command for lives to be taken, obviously, because He is G-d. Recently, He hasn't done this, to my knowledge. When and if He does, I'll be first person looking for a gun.

---

Posh, do you sit on G-d's advisory council? Do you get the "here's what I'm up to today by G-d" blog update? How do you know it's not in G-d's will to have let the gun be created for a purpose you couldn't even conceive of?

The beauty in America is you have a right to express your views on guns and their effects on humanity while I have the right to own a gun.

It's good that you stick by your convictions. I applaud you for your convictions.

Now I have to go clean my gun because I don't feel like I have any power and am a small individual with little or no value and a tiny penis.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Posh

If a gun isn't for ending the life of another living thing, then it what is it for exactly? I'm being very, VERY serious when I ask you this question and I implore you to think before you type out your answer. No one's managed to answer this question for me.

And since I'm so ignorant, please, by all means, educate me. I'm your clay. Mold me.

---

Okey Day.. Perfectly understandable why some oppose widely available guns. No shortage of tragic incidents available to demonstrate how hideously sad the outcome can be when guns (of any type) are misused. S'only human nature to broadly decree we should do away with em all to prevent further harm.. (maybe a little over reactionary, a little naive to think the genie could be put back in the bottle, but perfectly understandable). Hope it's equally obvious why individuals, born into shooting families, wonder why all the fuss. In any case.. while an interesting exercise.. it hugely pointless to "argue" re: guns. Minds made up long ago are not open to change, and emotions run high on this issue. Better luck "talking" someone into another poplitical party, or another religion.. Just not gonna happen.

But... answering a specific question is another matter altogether.

'Course I can only speak for myself. Matter of fact I believe that's where some problems arise.. with those who feel empowered to speak not only for themselves, but for YOU!?

But in my experience.. a gun has been used to forge friendships and strengthen bonds.. The dad-n-lad skeet shooting league was one of the best & most memorable experiences of my childhood. Time spent with my father handloading 12ga shells, properly caring for a handcrafted shotgun, learning range etiquette with gentlemen was a learning experience in becoming a man that I would not trade for the world. Thousands of clay pigeons lay dead in my wake without so much as a mosquito's blood on my hands. Shooting sports are just that.. one of many SPORTS. Far less lethal than Soccer, Football, B-ball, and certainly Rugby.

In the military shooting was yet another tool used to instill discipline and group unity. Range time was just another opportunity to teach the importance of attention to detail and following order. Granted, those of us who grew up in shooting homes were at an advantage, just as Alvin York (who grew up in my mother's "neighborhood") was predisposed to becoming a Medal of Honor recipient through his call to duty and native shooting skills. Military duty increased the number of paper targets I've "killed".. nothing more.

IPSC pistol matches, NRA .22 matches, DCM hi-power rifle matches,(fall weekends spent at the Friendship muzzle-loading meet).. have provided countless "male bonding" moments, and have made me a legitimate threat if paper targets ever get placed on an endangered species list. Barring that, many thousands of rounds fired have never drawn so much as a single drop of blood in my hands.

Just as javelin, discus, and archery.. Shooting sports are Olympic events, and are just as far removed from their early roots as implements of death.

Philippine historical records indicate that 16th century hunters hiding in trees used a rock tied to a cord up to 20 feet in length to throw at wild animals beneath them—the cord enabling retrieval of the rock after missed attempts, thus the genesis of the yo-yo. Can anyone keep a straight face while saying we should ban children's yo-yos because they were once used to kill?

Absolutely no political dig intended.. not in any sarcastic way or manner.. but for anyone to assert that all guns are good for is "killing" is to reveal the depth of their ignorance as pertains to guns in general. Obviously not ingorance as in "stoopid".. but ignorance as in, haven't been exposed to, haven't been educated in, aren't aware of, beyond their scope of experience, etc, etc.

Again.. I don't harbour any illusions about educating anyone.. (although I am occasionally paid to educate re: handguns). No one can communicate with those who've decided not to hear. All I can do is lead you to the water. Not my job to make you drink.

S'funny though, should the worst happen nearby.. ny neighbors know who to call. The unarmed liberal won't be nearly as much help as will I.

;)

Anubis- couldn't resist :lol:

Posh-

While a firearm was indeed designed to take life (as were all projectile weapons from crude spears and slingshots up to modern firearms), there are two sides of the coin.

One is a malicious usage, which governments and individuals have exercised freely since the beginning of time. I've had family marched into camps because the only ones with guns were the government at the time and their only crime trying to help a minority population. They are not "deader" because they were shot in 1943 vice being run through with a sword 600 years ago. The weapon used to take life is meaningless, it is the act itself that carries gravity.

The other, while still involving the ending of human life, allows an innocent to live. Again, the taking of life is not pleasant but if one were to choose between an innocent and an attacker, I would greatly prefer the attacker to no longer be walking this planet.

The firearm has become the equalizer, allowing the weak to stand against the strong. It allows the few to stand against the many. The US Air Force Pararescue have a saying "So that others may live". Quite appropriate.

While the utopian vision of world peace is indeed admirable, I feel it is unattainable at least in my lifetime. Whether it is a tweaker on the street or a nation-state, someone will always be willing to attempt to take by force that which is yours/ours. The best defensive option is a firearm, which is why our police are armed with them.

If one were to rid the entire planet of anything that could possibly be used as a weapon (we're all butt naked on a field of uninterrupted tungsten), someone will inevitably attack another. This is human nature unfortunately. I do not see this changing anytime in my life, nor within the century, barring any paradigm shifts in the human psyche. There will still be kidnappers, rapists and murderers.

I would prefer to survive an encounter with any of the above, and the best tool (not the ONLY tool) to do so is a firearm.

As for a child with a firearm, you posted numerous pictures of children soldiers as well as children with toy firearms. The difference between those children and mine is circumstance. My son was lucky enough to be born in the US, where he has no need to fight wars at 10 years of age. My son was lucky enough to be born to parents who instill a sense of personal responsibility for his actions be they positive or negative. My son was lucky enough to have parents who have taught him not to hate another person based on religion, skin color or sexual orientation and to respect differing opinions. The children in your pictures do not share his fortune.

There is a world of difference between a child soldier, a future terrorist being indoctrinated and a father teaching his son to hunt or target shoot. One fights for his life, one fights out of hatred and one does not fight.

so...having not read any much of this thread I am buying a gun in the next week or so...Prob a 9mm or .22 cal..it will be a handgun either a glock or a Walther PPS. The reason I am buying it is becuase of my wife....Not what you are thinking...

We have both read many stories of breakins where the animals breaking in have attacked and sexually assualted the wife and Children ...totally sick. There was even one recently in the Northeast where the husband was tied up in the basement, the attackers raped the wife and daughter upstairs and then set them on fire...the husband survived... she wants the oppurtunity to at least give herself a chance to potentially defend herself and our children...There is a chance if it happened that she would not get to the gun on time but there is a better chance if the gun is available.

So whilst neither of us are gun lovers, we will be buying one for secuirty.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by brittt1

...So whilst neither of us are gun lovers, we will be buying one for secuirty.

---

And keeping it in a safe but accesable spot against the day it may be needed. Much like any other tool.

There are some sound basic guidelines it may be well to follow in the selection of a defensive weapon for the home. Happy to offer M2CW. Feel free to PM me if I can be of assistance.

:)

First, nobody was calling anybody here a sociopath. I didn't think I would have to defend my use of the word sociopath since it had a qualifier in front of it; I said there are "some" people who fit the clinical description of that term AND have careers that put them in contact with weapons. There's sociopaths who work as day traders (I think I've met some) or work at McDonald's. Am I to believe that everyone who is in the military and police forces of the world are psychologically healthy individuals? No. But are most? Yes. Sure. I'll buy that.

And Mingus, thanks for trying to shed some meaning as to my statement's point, regardless of your feelings on my stance. I appreciate that. :) I can't patrol the board every five minutes so that I and my viewpoints don't become misconstrued nor do I want to do that. I already have a day job.

Sfa, you really think rocks are equivalent to guns? Well, okay! Fine then. Rocks are guns. And since earlier in this post pencils somehow made the cut as something designed to kill like a gun, let's just add that to mix too. Okay. Okay. Okay. Rock quals gun and gun equals pencil. If gun equals rock, does rock still beat scissors? And I want to know desperately if pencil can take paper which used to take down rock. But I think rock will just shoot its way out of paper.

Viper, you're relatively new here so I'm going to explain my position on luxury and why I won't be buying "the basics," which is not everyone else's reason. I deal with the business of luxury on a day-to-day basis and really enjoy inundating myself in it whenever possible, the industry as whole being so exciting to me. That's why I will never own a five dollar watch or clothes from Wal-Mart. But along with my love of luxury and sybaritic excess, I also have a very pragmatic side that stems, ironically enough, from my knowing the business behind luxury. And it's for this reason I write about replicas and getting the most for your dollar on things that--come close to the screen for this epiphany--really don't matter in the grand scheme of things. That's right, none of this sh*t matters. If a person wants to spend $50,000 on a watch or a coat or a car, I wouldn't stop them. My job depends on these jack offs buying expensive things. But for those who want that same look and almost all of that same quality, so they can save their money for hard economic times like we're experiencing now without really sacrificing anything from their lifestyle overall, I'm there. I don't believe in more of the same. I believe in change. And I think I just lapsed into Barack Obama's campaign theme.:D

I am all about having beautiful things in beautiful settings with beautiful people all around me but not at any cost. I will squeeze a nickel until my fist bleeds. I suggest others do the same. I'm a big proponent of this doctrine: before you spend your money, know WHY and on WHAT you're spending your money.

Thank you, Swiss, for pointing out the one time I spelled His name. I was alluding to the Scarlett O'Hara movie quote but I didn't think I would have to explain or defend that either.

To "Teh Posh Watchers," I'm not running for president so the dissection of everything I say and do REALLY will not better the country as whole. Gun control, however, might.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by guest916

And keeping it in a safe but accesable spot against the day it may be needed. Much like any other tool.

There are some sound basic guidelines it may be well to follow in the sellection of a defensive weapon for the home. Happy to offer M2CW. Feel free to PM me if I can be of assistance.

:)

---

Appreciate the offer...first thing is to get a reliable gun, hence the glock...but i dont neccessarily want a cannon as i expect my wife to learn to clean and use the gun, hence the 22 cal. As for keeping it in a safe place i was looking at those fingerprint safes that you can keep by your bed..thoughts on that or thoughts on a better hand gun?...not a revolver lover although I understand that would prob require less maint and provide better reliability... thanks again....

brittt-

If I might be so bold- a Smith & Wesson 5906 or 6906 is an excellent autoloader for your home.

It is a stainless and aluminum 15/13 shot auto (respectively). The stainless makes it quite resistant to corrosion, a blued firearm (Walther) requires far more maintenance.

It is a double action handgun with a decocking lever. This means the first pull of the trigger is rather long and heavy (although smooth). This allows the user time to back off if necessary. Quite a few police departments have gone to double action only handguns for this very reason.

Once loaded and decocked (a round in chamber, hammer safely lowered by the lever) it can be put on safe which now requires a separate distinct action to allow it to fire, or it can be left off safe with the hammer down. Again it requires a long heavy trigger pull to fire the handgun.

On top of that it is equipped with a magazine safety. Once the magazine is removed it is essentially impossible to fire the weapon. This also serves as a failsafe in the unlikely event that the weapon is wrested from you in a close-up struggle. Punch the magazine out and get distance between you and the attacker.

The 9mm in modern loadings is sufficient to stop an attacker in the event it needs to be employed. The days of the 9mm being an insufficient cartridge are long over. There is the added benefit of it being a commonly available cartridge and quite inexpensive if bought in case lots.

They are also very reasonably priced as many police departments are switching to .40 S&W (a MUCH snappier caliber than 9mm with attendant recoil issues) and 59/69 series trade-ins typically retail for 350-400 dollars.

I've owned them and enjoy them immensely.

I would not recommend a Glock for a novice shooter (flame away). I do not like the absence of a positive safety which is why I tend to stick to the CZ75 in 9mm or the 1911.

Sorry I went a tad overboard and misconstrued your posting.

The whole issue is actually fun to debate and while I'm sure we'll never, ever agree on it it still exercises the brain.

I brought up rocks as they were used as weapons but in reflection I probably should have left them out of the narrative. Sharp sticks (spears) however WERE designed solely to kill, as were every implement listed after.

In actuality a bow can kill at far greater range than a handgun can.

My base point is I simply do not trust my government to always do the right thing no matter who is running the show. Power corrupts and those in office seek only to amass more power unto themselves. Couple that with legal precedent that the police are under no obligation to protect you from a criminal and that is my reason for choosing to carry a weapon while I am not working.

Turn the other cheek is all nice and dandy until someone is trying to turn your neck into a reasonable facsimilie of a Pez dispenser.

But since we're on the road of the government is supposed to protect us, by removal, of anything capable of doing harm- perhaps we should ban religion. More people have been killed because God, Allah, Ya-eh or whoever is being prayed to at the time told them. Religious intolerance has killed more people than firearms have, however the longer religion is allowed to proliferate the more people will die in His name.

People are dying right here and now in the most horrific ways, not 1000 meters from where I sit, not even because of a differing God but on political divisions dating back over a thousand years!

We need to outlaw religion immediately, after all If we can save just ONE life.....

^ is obviously hyperbole to make a point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sfa437

But since we're on the road of the government is supposed to protect us, by removal, of anything capable of doing harm- perhaps we should ban religion. More people have been killed because God, Allah, Ya-eh or whoever is being prayed to at the time told them. Religious intolerance has killed more people than firearms have, however the longer religion is allowed to proliferate the more people will die in His name.

People are dying right here and now in the most horrific ways, not 1000 meters from where I sit, not even because of a differing God but on political divisions dating back over a thousand years!

We need to outlaw religion immediately, after all If we can save just ONE life.....


^ is obviously hyperbole to make a point.

---

Get proactive on that.

http://i211.photobucket.com/albums/b...religion-4.jpg

Here is a question for the gun banners....

Firearms were MUCH more easily obtained prior to 1968. One could order a weapon through the MAIL! No background check, no NICS, just put a money order in an envelope. Two weeks later, your rifle/shotgun/handgun showed up on your doorstep.

Murder rates were MUCH lower then vice today.

What happened during the mid 60's that radically changed American urban society?

Vermont has no real firearms laws to speak of. One can enter a firearms retailer, purchase a weapon, load it, conceal it on your person and walk about with it. Vermont has a very low per capita homicide rate.

Washington DC has some of the most restrictive firearms laws in the country. Possession of a handgun is essentially illegal. You cannot purchase one nor carry one concealed or otherwise. Washington DC has one of the highest per capita homicide rates in the country.

Dallas (low homicide rate) Detroit (high homicide rate). Raleigh (low homicide rate) NYC (high homicide rate).

Now lets move onto Switzerland. They have more than watches- just about every home has a fully automatic rifle contained within. Not an incorrectly termed "semi-automatic assault rifle" (no such animal) but a selective fire machinegun. They have a very low homicide rate and spree killing is unheard of.

Just wondering why this is- can someone enlighten me?

I think of gun haters as trolls, their sole purpose is to spew out illogical ideas as to why guns should be banned, for example, if guns were banned and someone wanted to kill someone there's always the black market to get an illegal gun just like there is one now, OR they'll just find other means of killing them let it be a bomb [home-made pipe-bomb, etc.], knife, machete, baseball bat, strangle them to death, running over them, poisoning them, bludgeoning them with a blunt object, etc.

Guns are not the problem, people are.

@sfa: great points as usual.

Guanaco-

I actually understand the gun-ban crowd's logic.

Someone bent on committing the penultimate crime, murder, will suddenly say to themselves "I'd best not shoot this guy because my gun is illegal".

They'll put down the weapon and invite the intended victim over for some Earl Grey and cucumber sandwiches.

Couple this with the SENSATIONAL success of banning things like drugs (currently) and alcohol (Prohibition), it'll be peace love and farfegnugen for everyone!

One more thing I desperately need enlightenment on.....

Could someone please define the word "criminal" for me?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Guanaco

I think of gun haters as trolls, their sole purpose is to spew out illogical ideas as to why guns should be banned, for example, if guns were banned and someone wanted to kill someone there's always the black market to get an illegal gun just like there is one now, OR they'll just find other means of killing them let it be a bomb [home-made pipe-bomb, etc.], knife, machete, baseball bat, strangle them to death, running over them, poisoning them, bludgeoning them with a blunt object, etc.

Guns are not the problem, people are.

@sfa: great points as usual.

---

True. I think we should ban people. Makes as much sense as banning firearms.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Anubis

Get proactive on that.

http://i211.photobucket.com/albums/b...religion-4.jpg

---

SPOT-ON!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sfa437

Here is a question for the gun banners....

Firearms were MUCH more easily obtained prior to 1968. One could order a weapon through the MAIL! No background check, no NICS, just put a money order in an envelope. Two weeks later, your rifle/shotgun/handgun showed up on your doorstep.

Murder rates were MUCH lower then vice today.

What happened during the mid 60's that radically changed American urban society?

Vermont has no real firearms laws to speak of. One can enter a firearms retailer, purchase a weapon, load it, conceal it on your person and walk about with it. Vermont has a very low per capita homicide rate.

Washington DC has some of the most restrictive firearms laws in the country. Possession of a handgun is essentially illegal. You cannot purchase one nor carry one concealed or otherwise. Washington DC has one of the highest per capita homicide rates in the country.

Dallas (low homicide rate) Detroit (high homicide rate). Raleigh (low homicide rate) NYC (high homicide rate).

Now lets move onto Switzerland. They have more than watches- just about every home has a fully automatic rifle contained within. Not an incorrectly termed "semi-automatic assault rifle" (no such animal) but a selective fire machinegun. They have a very low homicide rate and spree killing is unheard of.

Just wondering why this is- can someone enlighten me?

---

People live in Vermont?

I think there's only one "gun banner" here and it's probably me. Almost every individual I've met who owns a gun is person I would NEVER be the first to give a gun to on any occasion. I think I know four people I've met with guns who I felt like were type person who should have one other than officers of the law. Two of them are my parents, and they haven't touched that gun since they bought it. There's NO crime in Shook Hills. The third person is the Marine I know that I dated briefly. Odd, but true. The fourth person was my father's friend's friend whose house we went to for clay shooting in Yorkshire, England. His collection consisted almost entirely of Holland & Holland and Purdey rifles and/or shotguns. The collection was worth over a million dollars. That's obviously not what most people who talk about unfettered gun ownership are buying. :machine:

As far as low homicide rates go in all those places, I have no idea why there's a disparity. We could speculate or we could get sociologist in here and have them break it down for us. That can be your assignment. :machine:

Sfa, you want to own guns. You want your kids to own guns. You want your wife to have a gun. You want everybody to go through classes and then get one. I get it. You like guns and you think they're okay in the "right" hands. :machine:

I'm sorry everybody is afraid. I don't have a gun. I don't even carry mace. Before guns, people managed to live and go about their lives. Baltimore doesn't scare me. Washington, D.C. doesn't scare me. I don't need a gun to feel safe. My parents hate the fact that I live too close to crime and constantly wished I would move home but I'm safe in my own skin no matter where I am. They raised a fighter.

A woman living anywhere in the world, a world where men do and say the most despicable things, whether online or off, has to be a fighter. She doesn't need a gun to do it but it MIGHT help and it MIGHT not. And really if anybody needed a gun, it would be us women. You guys are big and burley and clinging to your guns like your d*ck. Unless you're in a war or the police, cling to your own strength. Can I shoot a gun? Yes. Do I need a gun? No. I've got the two most powerful weapon available to me everywhere I go: my mind and my will.