Interesting viral Email found on the intertube.




Please take time to read this and pay particular attention to "A Little Gun History" about half way down.
Why Grandpa carries a gun, scroll way down, PEOPLE ASK WHY? Why Carry a Gun?

My old grandpa said to me 'Son, there comes a time in every man's life when he stops bustin' knuckles and starts bustin' caps and usually it's when he becomes too old to take a whoopin.'

I don't carry a gun to kill people.
I carry a gun to keep from being killed.

I don't carry a gun to scare people.
I carry a gun because sometimes this world can be a scary place.

I don't carry a gun because I'm paranoid.
I carry a gun because there are real threats in the world.

I don't carry a gun because I'm evil.
I carry a gun because I have lived long enough to see the evil in the world.

I don't carry a gun because I hate the government.
I carry a gun because I understand the limitations of government.

I don't carry a gun because I'm angry.
I carry a gun so that I don't have to spend the rest of my life hating myself for failing to be prepared.

I don't carry a gun because I want to shoot someone.
I carry a gun because I want to die at a ripe old age in my bed, and not on a sidewalk somewhere tomorrow afternoon.

I don't carry a gun because I'm a cowboy.
I carry a gun because, when I die and go to heaven, I want to be a cowboy.

I don't carry a gun to make me feel like a man.
I carry a gun because men know how to take care of themselves and the ones they love.
I don't carry a gun because I just 'feel' inadequate.
I carry a gun because unarmed and facing three armed thugs, I am inadequate...

I don't carry a gun because I love it.
I carry a gun because I love life and the people who make it meaningful to me.
Police protection is an oxymoron. Free citizens must protect themselves.
Police do not protect you from crime, they usually just investigate the crime after it happens and then call someone in to clean up the mess. Personally, I carry a gun because I'm too young to die and too old to take
an "ass" whoopin'.....author unknown (but obviously brilliant) **********************************************
A LITTLE GUN HISTORY… In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------

In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

------------------------------

Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------
China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------

Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

------------------------------

Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------

Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
-----------------------------

Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun
control: 56 million.
------------------------------

You won't see this data on the US evening news, or hear politicians disseminating this information.

Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws ONLY adversely affect the law-abiding citizens.
Take note my fellow Americans, before it's too late!

The next time someone talks in favor of gun control, please remind them of this history lesson.

With guns, we are 'citizens'. Without them, we are 'subjects'.

During WW II the Japanese decided not to invade America because they knew most Americans were ARMED!

If you value your freedom, please spread this anti-gun-control message to all of your friends.

The purpose of fighting is to win.
There is no possible victory in defense.
The sword is more important than the shield, and skill is more important than either.
The final weapon is the brain.
All else is supplemental.

SWITZERLAND ISSUES EVERY HOUSEHOLD A GUN!
SWITZERLAND'S GOVERNMENT TRAINS EVERY ADULT THEY ISSUE A RIFLE.
SWITZERLAND HAS THE LOWEST GUN RELATED CRIME RATE OF ANY CIVILIZED COUNTRY IN THE WORLD!!!

IT'S A NO BRAINER!
DON'T LET OUR GOVERNMENT WASTE MILLIONS OF OUR TAX DOLLARS
IN AN EFFORT TO MAKE ALL LAW ABIDING CITIZENS AN EASY TARGET.

I think you need an IQ of at least 100 to understand that you can successfully navigate life in the United States without a gun.

I think you can successfully navigate life in the US without all sorts of things, the question is what does successfully navigating life have to do with not having those items? I can succesfully navigate life without swimming, biking or running. I can successfully navigate life without beer, wine anda plethora of other "Harmful" foods. I can successfully navigate life without almost any thrill seeking behavior like skydiving, mountain climbing, skiing or any sport. Does that mean I should give these up?

Furthermore let's just switch the question since your question is so specious as to mean nothing.

1. Would you Anti gun people go buy a gun if it meant your children not being killed?

This discussion has NOTHING to do with guns. It has EVERYTHING to do with the crumbling of our society. Everyone wants to run around and actually believe they can protect everyone from all ills yet in the process of our protection we create the very dangers we seek to protect ourselves from. Continued isolation of ourselves from the rest of the community in an attempt to make sure we are safe. Removal of anything that is not what we see as as safe with complete and utter disregard for views and beliefs of others.

Take all the most dangerous weapons in the world and throw them into a pile into the middle of a interactive and healthy community and not a single person will get hurt. Give a dangerous prison population access to plastic spoons and enough time and someone is going to die.

At what time in this country are people going to open their eyes, look in the mirror and proclaim "I'm the problem"? No it's not the guns, the blacks, the whites, the politicians, the poor, the rich, The insurance companies, the teachers, the corporations, no, none of these things it's US.

~Matt

I don't know, I thought Obama did extremely well in front of a national audience and a room of people that just saw
a sick fuck (remind you of anybody?) take out 28 people. He was very eloquent and went beyond what normal
CE duties might entail.

Just wondering what you would've said dickhead...?

This times infinity!!! Well said sir!

Nothing short of a Constitutional Amendment.

If you are talking about me giving up my guns, the answer is that I would give them up immediately. If you want a real answer though, I would say that "MY" guns are not harming anyone and will never harm anyone that doesn't attempt to harm me or my family. "MY" guns are kept locked in a Liberty safe each and every day and my wife and I are the only people who have the ability to access the safe. "MY" guns are kept locked in a manner that will not harm your children or my children or anyone else's children. Is this what you meant by your question or were you asking something else?

I'd give them up for any of the above.
Realistically, I'd give them up if I could get a "phaser", one that only had a "stun" setting. Not some taser bullshit, but something that could discharge multiple times and was longer-ranged. I value the ability to defend myself and my family.

Thank you for eloquently stating what I haven't been able to.

A serious question to you sir:


If you could prevent the death of your children would you give up your car?

2. If you could prevent the death of your spouse would you give up your car?

3. If you could prevent the death of your parents would you give up your car?

4. If you could prevent the death of your neighbor's kids would you give up your car?

5. If you could prevent the death of your neighbor would you give up your car?

6. If you could prevent the death of 5 kids in your town would you give up your car?

7. If you could prevent the death of 10 kids in your state would you give up your car?

8. If you could prevent the death of 20 kids in another state would you give up your car?

This is a serious question, though it likely makes car owners such as yourself very uncomfortable. At what point would you be willing to surrender your car, if it would prevent the death (by car) of any of the above?

The difference is that the primary purpose of a car is transportation, the primary purpose of a gun is to shoot.

One delivers people, animals & goods 99.999999% of the time. That it may be used for other purposes .0000001% of the time (accidents aside) is irrelevant as that isn't its primary purpose.

One shoots bullets & kills/maims/injures people & animals. That is its intended purpose. That 99% of gun owners are somewhat responsible & aren't looking to shoot/hurt/kill anyone in a criminal manner/purpose is irrelevant. The shooter's Mom was likely a responsible gun owner, but the simple fact that she owned guns, specifically a Bushmaster/AR-15 clone, was a huge contributor the death of 20 5 & 6 year old children.

A nice false equivalency you are trying to convey. I have 99.99999% conviction that no matter what argument I put forth, it won't change your & your fellow absolutists minds because 99% of you think yourself responsible gun owners. So did Nancy Lanza right up until the point that her own son shot her in the face with her own gun. So much for being responsible.

---

____________
"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." John Rogers

I answered same point it in Semper's query already, but Nancy Lanza also thought her guns safe & herself a responsible gun owner. And I'm sure she was, right up until her own guns were used to kill her & cause the deaths of 20 five & six year old children. Up until that point I'm sure she was a very responsible gun owner. Too bad she isn't around so we can ask her how that snuggly blanket of personal responsibility worked out.

---

____________
"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." John Rogers

mopdahl wrote:

I answered same point it in Semper's query already, but Nancy Lanza also thought her guns safe & herself a responsible gun owner. And I'm sure she was, right up until her own guns were used to kill her & cause the deaths of 20 five & six year old children. Up until that point I'm sure she was a very responsible gun owner. Too bad she isn't around so we can ask her how that snuggly blanket of personal responsibility worked out.

Dude, get off your moral high horse. Your OP was all hypothetical questions. I am sure there is not one person on this forum that wouldn't give up their own guns if it meant saving a life. The sad reality is that it doesn't matter if anyone gives up anything, there will still be tragedies like this. I am neither pro gun nor anti gun. Ban everything cause I don't really give a shit. It's still not going to prevent a God damn thing.

Trust me, I am no absolutist. I do not even like firearms. I have two (A .45 cal Glock and a Smith & Wesson .380 for concealed carry) as opposed to several. The two that I have a for my personal safely and that of my family.

What I am is a realist. I am not naive enough to believe that criminals will give up their guns for any reason whatsoever. There are hundreds of reasons why which is a whole separate debate in and of itself.

Therefore, I will not give up my firearms in the hopes that you will defend my family. It is not a fair expectation that you do. Furthermore, it is not a realistic one. And I cannot expect that law enforcement, despite their abilities and good intent, will either.

Your statement, "That 99% of gun owners are somewhat responsible & aren't looking to shoot/hurt/kill anyone in a criminal manner/purpose is irrelevant" is irrelevant in light of the actual numbers of guns, gun owners and actual incidents. Sure they are tragic, but how much more tragic could they be without personal defensive firearms given the demise of our nation's moral values and kids that just don't give a damn about laws or harming you for a pack of Kool's?

It could also be easily said that your comparison of Nancy Lanza is a false equivalency as well. The details are still to come as to exactly what happened and when. Personally, my thought is maybe it wasn't so responsible to have them in the home with someone such as her son who had a recognized social/behavioral pattern that we have already seen over and over as being the "shooter" in these tragedies.

I'm no absolutist. I'm just a realist and I won't be a victim over the naive ideology that banning firearms in the United States will work any more than the war on drugs has. Its sad, and I hate that it is what it is...but it in fact is what it is.

These questions aren't serious. They are fundamentally flawed. You ask them as if the guns would actually cause any of those murders. Yet you don't mention anything about mental illness or evil of the people thinking about using those guns. What about the guy that did the suicide rage thing a couple of weeks ago?. Do you do gooders and people that know more than us common folk really think that situation was going to be different had you and Bob Costas banned all guns??!?! Really??!??! If he didnt have a gun, he probably would of beat her to death or stabbed her and then he probably would of taken a bunch of pills and alcohol and killed himself which was his goal anyway.

About last week, this guy was already planning this act. So would you rather see these evil psychos find another method?? Maybe you would prefer suicide bombers? maybe you would like to see crazy people just drive vehicles right into the buildings??

You cant legislate away mental illness, stupidity or evil. Sorry to break to bubble but it aint gonna happen.

BTW, Im not giving any private property to the government, they cant legislate that people turn in guns anymore than they can legislate that everyone should turn in their cell phones. I would bet that more people have been killed in vehicle crashes caused by texting this year than guns.

---

---------------------------------
Hold my Beer and watch this!

Well actually the gov't can legislate against cell phones---in CA if you are caught texting while driving by the cops its a $350 fine, minimum. In Oz unless you are completely hands-free it is even more.

Now back to the point at hand re guns. I completely agree with you & Semper on quite a few levels. The bad/insane guys are going to figure out a way to attempt/wreck mayhem/murder no matter what. Look at the Batman psycho who had rigged his house to explode with gasoline booby-traps. HOWEVER, guns absolutely make it easier to do so; case in point again being the Batman guy---he had knowledge of explosives but chose to use handguns & a AR-15 type militarized rifle as his tools of choice when it became time to kill. Handguns are convenient. Handguns don't require special tools/knowledge to use. You can carry 2 handguns, a Bushmaster & several hundred rounds of ammo fairly inconspicuously---enough to fire several hundred rounds during a mass execution. The same can't be said for almost any other weapon. Sure, I'm sure there is some asshole out there who has figured out how to wire two 5 gallon Home Depot buckets filled with gas or homemade napalm & would gladly blow up a school or whatever, but it ain't ez, and it certainly hasn't been happening with any sort of regularity. There have been something like 600 people killed in the last 12 years by guns in mass shootings in the US alone. That's both a societal problem and a GUN problem---as that is the tool of choice used in 99.9% of these murder sprees. Will taking guns away stop it? No, and I haven't heard anyone saying that it would (if they are they are very naive). However it will make it significantly more difficult to do so on any sort of mass scale or with the sort of regularity you are seeing now. Australia, Scotland, UK.....pretty much every other non-third world country that has put significant restrictions on private ownership of handguns & non-hunting related firearms has a gun-related murder rate that is significantly less than ours. After 9/11, we as a society took measures to make flying safer, and significant cost & aggravation to the public at large. That was over a single incidence that caused the deaths of 3000 people. Why is it so hard to take similar steps to restrict the proliferation & obtainability of weapons that are used to kill 3x the # of 9/11 victims every single year?

---

____________
"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." John Rogers

If you want to make access to firearms more difficult thus weeding out people with violent histories or mental illness then great. I have no problem with that. I have nothing to fear in that regard. If it helps curb the gun related crimes so be it.

If you want to require additional training in the use, safeguarding and so on of firearms, in order to possess one, I'm all for it and would advocate that. Especially on the topic of the use of deadly force, when to employ it and when not to. If it helps curb the gun related crimes so be it.

I'm even ok with carrying a form of insurance for the right to protect my family with a firearm. If it helps curb the gun related crimes so be it.

What I am not ok with is giving it up and being totally defenseless against the thugs out there that will never surrender their weapons even if we ask them pretty please with a cherry on top.

How about the fact that the health risk of having a gun in the home:

"Having a gun in your home significantly increases your risk of death — and that of your spouse and children.
And it doesn’t matter how the guns are stored or what type or how many guns you own.
If you have a gun, everybody in your home is more likely than your non-gun-owning neighbors and their families to die in a gun-related accident, suicide or homicide.
Furthermore, there is no credible evidence that having a gun in your house reduces your risk of being a victim of a crime. Nor does it reduce your risk of being injured during a home break-in.
The health risks of owning a gun are so established and scientifically non-controvertible that the American Academy of Pediatrics issued a policy statement in 2000 recommending that pediatricians urge parents to remove all guns from their homes.
Notice that the recommendation doesn’t call for parents to simply lock up their guns. It stresses that the weapons need to be taken out of the house."

from http://www.minnpost.com/....UM-NvYY2WEA.twitter

Meuf,
I don't disagree that there are a lot of idiots handling firearms and are licensed. Lots. Which is why I made the point in my post taht I advocate for additional required training and such. Those are the idiots that encompass the quote in which you mention, ""Having a gun in your home significantly increases your risk of death — and that of your spouse and children. And it doesn’t matter how the guns are stored or what type or how many guns you own. If you have a gun, everybody in your home is more likely than your non-gun-owning neighbors and their families to die in a gun-related accident, suicide or homicide'. So for me, that quote does nothing. I think that my time served as a United States Marine puts the odds far in my favor and in contradiction to that argument of yours.

Besides that, one of my brothers in arms foiled an armed assailant from entering his home in 2007 and assaulting his wife and kids. Why don't we ask him what he thinks about the American Academy of Pediatrics stuff you posted?


Again, should there be increased awareness and training to prevent a Wyatt Earp wanna be from buying a gun and carrying it? Sure, I'll go with that. BUT TAKE AWAY my means of defending myself or even you should we be staring down the barrel of some thugs weapon? No thank you sir/ma'am. I'm no gambling man but I'll take those odds with my Glock. If you aren't confident enough or responsible enough to handle a firearm in the same manner, that's on you. I genuinely hope you never have the occasion to wish you did.

I would still worry about suicide risk, accidental shooting risk.

There are going to be exceptions - examples of someone foiling an assailant - but the statistics are not in the favor of outliers.

As a physician, and from a public health perspective, my recommendation would be to NOT have guns in the home.

Clearly someone with your training is in a better position to handle a gun than someone without training. I am all for annual licensing and courses that include safety, cleaning, handling of weapons.

Tax the snot out of ammunition and let it pay for mental health services. That would be my immediate move.

.

Tax the snot out of ammunition and let it pay for mental health services. That would be my immediate move.


This is where my thought process is leaning to as well. When I eventually declare myself Benevolent Ruler of All Creation & assume the throne, here is what I would do on the gun issue:

1. All the AR-15 clones & similar militarized semi-automatic rifles & 5+ round pump action shotguns would be banned. They seem to be the weapon of choice for a large % of these maniacs, and IMHO a large reason is because they look like the weapons used in war (whether in real life/Hollywood/video games). This is more of an appearance thing than anything else, as I realize that from a practicality standpoint there is little difference in how they actually work, but there is a reason that 99% of video games & Hollywood movies use these types of weapons in them & not the exact same caliber/function that are used by hunters.
2. No clips for the remaining semi-auto rifles & handguns greater than 7 shots. It was good enough for the Colt 1911 for about 70 years. A big part of the problem is the 10-50 round magazines that allow for long bouts of sustained firing. Having to reload = escape/evade/engage opportunities.
3. Ammo--treat it like cigarettes & make it friggin expensive + restricted, with some caveats. You want to buy ammo at a range? Great--make it relatively cheap & easily accounted for--make range owners responsible for accountable for their customers using it up & not walking out with it. The guys who load their own are usually not the problem. The guys who have 10s of thousands of rounds....yeah, they are a bit of a worry. Guys who want to buy a couple of boxes of bullets for hunting season? No problem. I'm fairly certain we could put together a tracking model so that certain demographics/calibers would be fine while others would be highly restricted/on quota basis.


The above would be a start.
3.

---

____________
"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." John Rogers

The thing is, though, is that there is not, as near I can tell, a correlation between gun ownership rates, and murder by firearm rates:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/...ownership-world-list

It's an interesting table, and many countries that have very low ownership rates of guns have quite high rates of murder per 100,000 people. So I'm not convinced that comparing the US to other countries that have both low murder rates and sterner gun laws means that the reason the US has a large number of firearms related murders is because of the sheer number of guns.

Also, there have been a fair number of gun laws passed in this country, notably the Gun Control Act of 1968, which apparently did little to stop the explosion of violence in the 1970s and 1980s. Major US cities tried banning handgun ownership (like Chicago and Washington DC), yet suffered many handgun related murders. So, there doesn't seem to be much evidence that gun control laws, to include outright banning, really helps that much.

There are some posters that like to trot out the Australia case, but I think we are really looking at an apples and oranges comparison here. Australia had a far lower crime rate to begin with. Couple that with the fact that the US has very porous borders where gun smuggling is pretty easy (look how easy it is to get drugs into this country), and the notion that any kind of gun ban would really put a dent into the actual numbers of guns I think is misplaced.

All that being said...that doesn't mean I wouldn't entertain practical ideas to reduce gun deaths in the US. I just haven't heard one yet, short of an all out ban on all firearms, and that is a complete pipe dream.

Spot

---

___________________________________________________
Taco cat spelled backwards is....taco cat.

Ignoring your 8 questions, because of course anyone would give up their guns to prevent those things. Me giving up my guns wouldn't prevent any of those things.

But to answer your question in the topic line, I'd give mine up if you can give me a guarantee that all criminals and whack jobs give their guns up too.

---

I miss YaHey

Case control studies, full of confounders and recall bias shouldn't be accepted as fact.

Your #3 is not a bad idea. I stock up on "cheap" ammo for the range. I make sure to go once a week and take the wifie with me. I need to know everything about the gun -- and I mean everything -- and so does she. We will go through, easily, 200 rounds a piece when we go. I mean, if we are going to the range, we make is worth our while. Well, that adds up pretty quick. So, when I find a deal on ammo, I load up and buy a lot. Usually, it is more expensive at the range, so, I don't buy it there. But, your idea has some merit. Make it "cheap" at the range. Hell, maybe even subsidize it.

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

Why do you have such a vendetta against firearms anyway? Have you ever been properly familiarized and/or trained with one? My guess is, if you had maybe you wouldn't be so closed off to the idea that they actually serve a decent purpose. And I am not saying that in an attacking fashion. But why should I be taxed for ammunition when it has noting to do with mental health or any of its root causes?