How to contact the NRA....

[fancypiper]

Babydoll, you obviously didn't read my post ("for the sake of killing it") or all my other posts on this issue, so I'm not even going to respond to you any further.

Honeypie, I read your post, it seems as if you read something into my post that I didn't write.

I get no thrill out of killing something and I wouldn't kill anything that wasn't a threat or that tasted good.

[Bloomfield]

Why is armed robbery so common in Great Brittian now? I believe it is because the crooks aren't afraid of the disarmed citizens.

LMAO. You're going to start comparing violent crime statistics for Europe and the US now? Talk about shooting yourself in the foot (and the gun didn't do it, you did it).

[The Weekenders]

Quote @ fancypiper

I have used guns all my life. I have killed squirrels and rabbits and lots of tin cans, but no people.

Killing a squirrel is as bad as killing a person in my eyes (notice I'm not speaking for an entire group, only myself). You're still killing something, just to kill it. I don't think all guns should be completely banned, period. Guns are beautiful and very erotic. But hunting any living being and killing for the sake of it should be banned.

Cran, out west people generally kill ground squirrels when they settle in near house, fence or corrals because they undermine foundations and postholes, that sort of thing. People also bait or trap em. The only people who kill fuzzy tree squirrels are some of the Asian immigrants, who don't trust meat from the supermarket. They nearly wiped out the tree squirrels in GG Park in SF, tho they used snares and box traps to do so.

Pthou, I will just re-state that much of gun ownership issues in US revolve around security and protection of families, homes and neighborhoods. It is perhaps archaic in your way of thinking, and many others. But it reminds me of the alcohol hypocrisy in a way. For all the years that I have supported de-criminalization of drugs, I have realized that, for whatever reason, people have decided that alcohol is okay, other drugs not. The "wisdom of the people." As painful as that may be to utter, the decisions of many people out-number mine and its pointless arrogance to insist that I am smarter than they rather than to accept their decision, or expect a very slow cultural change away from it by seeking change.

To use tragedies like Columbine for sudden change smacks of demagoguery and opportunism. Columbine proved that we have a sick society, not a surplus of guns.

Pthou, nobody in my family has been killed by gunfire in the past 300 years, based on my personal geno research, yet they existed in frontier milieus for most of that time, using weapons regularly. Yet, in the last 10 years, I have had a niece and nephew literally executed because of drugs and the Mexican drug cartel. Yup, they were killed by handguns.

It has not changed my views on gun ownership though. I will not deprive law-abiding people in this society their rights because of my family's loss and because of the overall sickness of this society. That is selfish and weak. The guns are as usual accessories to the crimes, not the cause. The declared "War on Drugs," the lack of enforced borders, the rise of asset forfeiture/seizure and militarization of potentially corruptible govt. agencies, and the big one, the unlivable lives and expectations of so many people in this country, leading to licit and illicit drug use are the problems. Not the guns, which have been here all along. You probably disagree, but I am not sneering at your beliefs, perhaps you and others could consider our views with some respect as well. And your point about the ease of standing back and shooting rather than getting up close is correct.

As Royce said, if you want change, do it through legislation etc. and to that end, you were encouraging people to sign this particular petition, admittedly.

But pissin' on the shoes of those who believe in gun ownership in this country is about as useful as me going into liquor stores and screamin' at the customers. As this is an open Forum, there are those of us who do believe, so to raise this issue in such a way is incendiary. The replies have proven so.

[fancypiper]

Hmm.. <looking around for a gun> <examines feet carefully, sees nothing wrong>

I wasn't comparing violent crime statistics for Europe and the US.

Maybe I should have stated London rather than Great Britain in my question.

I was just speculating as to why armed robbery was so common in London. I have heard that robbery involving firearms in London has almost overtaken some "crime capitals" of the US. I believe that I have read they armed their bobbies recently to cope with it.

I know that armed robbery is much higher in London than any place in the US that has laws allowing carrying concealed weapons. It seems logical to me that a crook would fear an armed person more than an unarmed one.

[susnfx]

Yes, people kill people - using guns. So until we can do something about the hate, anger, drugs, and on and on and on, and stop people from killing people, maybe we could try to do a little something about the weapons they're doing it with.
Susan

[pthouron]

When are "you people" going to realize that a firearm is a tool and that it is legal to possess. When will you realize that they don't operate themselves to kill people?

A tool??? For what?
Legal does not make it right. It is now legal for the FBI to pry into your reading habits. But is it RIGHT?
They don't operate themselves to kill people, OK. But remove them from the killing equation and there IS no killing.

As far as the gun shop or any other business, I think all business should follow accepted buisiness practices and laws applicable to their business.

Then why does the NRA not come out officially and say so?

You can put all sorts of obsticles in the way of law abiding people to obtain a firearm, but it seems never to deter the law breakers.

Particularly when every obstacle in their way is removed by the lack of sale records and controls.

Why is armed robbery so common in Great Brittian now? I believe it is because the crooks aren't afraid of the disarmed citizens.

If you sincerely believe that, then there is nothing I can say. And if you believe that the "crooks" here ARE afraid of "armed citizens"... I have a bridge I'd like to sell you. Why should they be afraid of "armed citizens"? "Armed citizens" are one of their best sources for weapons.

[The Weekenders]

Yes, people kill people - using guns. So until we can do something about the hate, anger, drugs, and on and on and on, and stop people from killing people, maybe we could try to do a little something about the weapons they're doing it with.
Susan

That's the problem in a nutshell, Susan. UNTIL??????? Take away a civil right so you don't have to address the real problem. It's just incrementalism toward a completely govt-controlled society where the citizens are reduced to children who can't be trusted with what the government can be. A classic argument in this issue.

[fancypiper]

Yes, people kill people - using guns. So until we can do something about the hate, anger, drugs, and on and on and on, and stop people from killing people, maybe we could try to do a little something about the weapons they're doing it with.
Susan

We have tried and it didn't solve the problem.

Why not actually try to cure the problem? Why would you choose to just do something that makes you feel good about it even though it doesn't actually help and may do more harm than good?

[The Weekenders]

If you sincerely believe that, then there is nothing I can say. And if you believe that the "crooks" here ARE afraid of "armed citizens"... I have a bridge I'd like to sell you. Why should they be afraid of "armed citizens"? "Armed citizens" are one of their best sources for weapons.

Any policeman will tell you that, at least here in Richmond, the click of a shotgun being chambered by a homeowner certainly does cause criminals to retreat. You are just wrong on that point, though correct in terms of the burglary issue as a source. I was advised by those police to get a "streetsweeper", a shotgun, to protect my family. They are honest. They cannot protect everyone.

[susnfx]

*sigh*
I can't believe I let myself get sucked into this no-win debate. However you feel about Michael Moore, one thing that really struck me as true in "Bowling for Columbine" is that Americans live in fear. We do. And it's how we react to that fear, the ways we feel are best to deal with the fear in every facet of our lives, that will forever divide us. We'll never agree about this.
I'm out on this one.
Susan

[pthouron]

Yes, people kill people - using guns. So until we can do something about the hate, anger, drugs, and on and on and on, and stop people from killing people, maybe we could try to do a little something about the weapons they're doing it with.
Susan

That's the problem in a nutshell, Susan. UNTIL??????? Take away a civil right so you don't have to address the real problem. It's just incrementalism toward a completely govt-controlled society where the citizens are reduced to children who can't be trusted with what the government can be. A classic argument in this issue.

Weeks,
It seems to me most people who think gun control is an infringement upon their civil rights don't have a problem with other basic civil rights being tampered with.

Susan,
Out of everything that has been said here, your post makes the most sense to me.

[pthouron]

*sigh*
I can't believe I let myself get sucked into this no-win debate. However you feel about Michael Moore, one thing that really struck me as true in "Bowling for Columbine" is that Americans live in fear. We do. And it's how we react to that fear, the ways we feel are best to deal with the fear in every facet of our lives, that will forever divide us. We'll never agree about this.
I'm out on this one.
Susan

Susan,

I'm afraid you are right. The only question that has never been answered, though, is what makes us so different from every other country in the Western world. We are unique in our fascination and attachment to guns. And despite statistics to the contrary, gun deaths in the US still far outpace gun deaths anywhere else.

[Jack]

The solution:

[The Weekenders]

I dunno Pthou. I have been active in neighborhood council work for years, and being a fairly libertarian bunch, I can say that the various issues of civil rights are of concern beyond the guns.

Here, though, you reach the divide of libertarianism, perhaps, vs. conservatism. To me, as a libertarian-oriented person, I see people on both sides of issues who will selectively oppress themselves by consensus on various issues. To that extent I would agree. In some villages in Massachusetts, they make you paint your house a certain color for example. I find that incredibly oppressive. In my state, if your passenger has a tiny bit of pot on his person and he is discovered, you lose your car.
We have a new Smog Check law, which triples the price of a smog check and doubles the chance of the govt. totaling your car (this one really hurts as the EPA just announced the cleanest air here in a decade, but they are going through with this draconian procedure).

I fought the street sweeping ordinance as did my neighborhood council. We passed on the chance to have a cleaner gutter because of the police power inherent in posting signs. Everytime you approve of an ordinance that gives the police one more tool to "check you out" you are risking some of the elusive and perhaps delusional sense of freedom.

Rep. Henry Hyde-R, wrote a mini-book on asset seizure/foreiture a few years back after a series of Congressional hearings. So many of these paramilitary arms of law enforcement are budgeted by assets seized in drug and gun raids. They shoot innocent people sometimes, too.

Not trying to be needlessly argumentative, but some of us gun-nuts are very concerned with the big picture.

[Pat Cannady]

This discussion is completely pointless.

Mutter mutter Dubya mutter...mutter mutter pinkos mutter mutter...

SHUT UP, THE LOT OF YOU!

Stick to whistles and related topics, or go and post your diatribes in a more suitable venue.