Tips on deterring forcible equipment theft while carrying camera?

[hbr]

You keep saying the second amendment does not allow for discussion. Wrong. You just are not interested in logical discussion. You continue to put aside facts and depend upon fallacy and personal ideas not grounded in reality.

You missed his point.
The second amendment does not forbid discussion. But so many of the gun enthusiasts, when pressed about why they should own guns, resort to the 'I can because it says so in the Constitution'. They actually don't want to (or some, I am sure are incapable of) rational discussion so quote the Second Amendment as their defence.

To many of us, we realise the genie is out of the bottle, so we are not arguing whether you should be allowed to carry guns but more about why you would want to. And, as the Jim Jeffries clip showed, examining the reasons often quoted. But as soon as anyone even questions the motives, out comes the Second Amendment argument to try and close down any discussion. The second amendment is also quoted as an argument against any tightening of gun control even though most NRA members want tighter control.

I don't have the time to trawl back over the previous pages to know where you stand on gun control but do you believe the control laws at national level could (should) be tightened?

Here are more stories, nut I am positive they mean nothing to you. The idea that a gun can be a force for good is just not one you are capable of entertaining. Examples are brought to you that completely obliterate your previous arguments, yet you are not phased.
http://crimeresearch.org/2016/09/uber-driver-in-chicago-stops-mass-public-shooting/

Just because a gun is used to stop evil does not mean it is a force for good. If you think that shooting someone, anyone, under any circumstances is 'good' then maybe that is the mindset at the heart of the matter. It is rather like the characters played so well by Clint Eastwood anti-hero in his early years. Was the 'man with no name' a good man just because he shot bad guys? Was Dirty Harry 'good' or just someone who fought the bad guys on their own terms and just happened to do so on the side of law and order?

One thing I will say on these stories is that the links posted on recent pages are about 'concealed carriers' pulling their weapons in response to an ongoing shooting. They are stopping someone who is already harming others.
This thread started as ways to protect your camera gear. So if someone came up to you and told you to hand over your expensive SLR kit, would you shoot them in 'self defence'? Would you draw your weapon and immediately escalate the issue (in which case they will probably get you before you even pull your weapon)? Or would you hand over your gear?

This thread continues....

In the United States the Constitution can be amended. The problem is that the majority of the people don't want to amend it. We do have "discussions," they are your vote. The NRA and gun lobby consists of law abiding citizens that do not want the government taking away their guns. Law abiding citizens are not terrorists, neither are the NRA and gun lobbies that represent them.

For the sake of "discussion," how would you propose to eliminate them? Pass another law, (which we have too many already that don't seem to be working), to take away the guns of the law abiding citizens and make the criminals cringe in fear that they are breaking the law?

Make no mistake about it, the goal is to eliminate the handgun which is the choice of most criminals. The "assault type" weapons are just a guise because the public reacts more strongly to these crimes.

Do you really believe that if we eliminated guns, crime would decrease? We haven't been able to solve our drug problems in this country, much less our racial problems, although we have spent billions of dollars over many years trying to solve them.

Why is it that the police are constantly asking for more federal money for more powerful weapons? They keep claiming that they are outgunned by the criminals.

If you can find a way to eliminate private ownership of guns, I promise you the weapons that the criminals smuggle in and use will be far more lethal.

I believe that both sides want the same things, that is to leave in peace and prosperity without fear. The difference between the two sides of this argument is how to accomplish this. Unfortunately, for your side, you have been outvoted.

 

[Mikehit]

This thread continues....

In the United States the Constitution can be amended. The problem is that the majority of the people don't want to amend it.

I didn't mention amending the Second Amendment. You can work within the current amendment in introducing controls. The controls are patchy and designed in each state - as I understand in some states there are no barriers to someone buying a gun even if they have a history of mental instability or violence.

As I said earlier, there is enough evidence to suggest a majority of the NRA members want to tighten gun controls. Yet the NRA oppose this at every turn.

We do have "discussions," they are your vote. The NRA and gun lobby consists of law abiding citizens that do not want the government taking away their guns. Law abiding citizens are not terrorists, neither are the NRA and gun lobbies that represent them.

You are joking, right? there is enough public support for tighter controls. it is the NRA and the powerful arms lobby that block any moves.

Do you really believe that if we eliminated guns, crime would decrease?

What a facile comment.

If you can find a way to eliminate private ownership of guns, I promise you the weapons that the criminals smuggle in and use will be far more lethal.

Who said i want to eliminate them?
I keep on going back to the fact my comments are about (1) the ease of obtainind them and (2) people's desire to own them.
Warbling on about eliminating them is mere deflection.

I believe that both sides want the same things, that is to leave in peace and prosperity without fear. The difference between the two sides of this argument is how to accomplish this. Unfortunately, for your side, you have been outvoted.

Which side has been 'outvoted'? All I see is that the more powerful lobby (the NRA) has won.
But from your post it seems your idea of having 'won' is based on the premise of abolition. Not tighter control. So perhaps if you can bring yourself to answer that question we may get somewhere.

 

[AcutancePhotography]

I have often wondered why the NRA is perceived to be so powerful. There are about 5 million members in the NRA (including international members) and about 30 million (some sources have this number a lot higher) gun owners in the US. They claim to represent gun owners but the numbers don't seem to support that. They seem to represent only about 5-7 percent of gun owners. I have been a gun owner for over 30 years and I have never, and will never be, an NRA member. I do not feel that the NRA represents my views concerning gun ownership and I don't think I am unique in this.

The NRA, like any other lobbying organization, is only as powerful as we allow them to be.

 

[Mikehit]

I have often wondered why the NRA is perceived to be so powerful. There are about 5 million members in the NRA (including international members) and about 30 million (some sources have this number a lot higher) gun owners in the US. They claim to represent gun owners but the numbers don't seem to support that. They seem to represent only about 5-7 percent of gun owners. I have been a gun owner for over 30 years and I have never, and will never be, an NRA member. I do not feel that the NRA represents my views concerning gun ownership and I don't think I am unique in this.

The NRA, like any other lobbying organization, is only as powerful as we allow them to be.

'We' (I'm British so only quoting you here) can't stop them. Unfortunately. You can only stop it by stopping access of lobby groups and no-one will legislate against that.
The only way it can be done is to become and NRA member and vote out the people currently in charge of it.

 

[hbr]

This thread continues....

In the United States the Constitution can be amended. The problem is that the majority of the people don't want to amend it.

I didn't mention amending the Second Amendment. You can work within the current amendment in introducing controls. The controls are patchy and designed in each state - as I understand in some states there are no barriers to someone buying a gun even if they have a history of mental instability or violence.

As I said earlier, there is enough evidence to suggest a majority of the NRA members want to tighten gun controls. Yet the NRA propose this at every turn.

We do have "discussions," they are your vote. The NRA and gun lobby consists of law abiding citizens that do not want the government taking away their guns. Law abiding citizens are not terrorists, neither are the NRA and gun lobbies that represent them.

You are joking, right? there is enough public support for tighter controls. it is the NRA and the powerful arms lobby that block any moves.

Do you really believe that if we eliminated guns, crime would decrease?

What a facile comment.

If you can find a way to eliminate private ownership of guns, I promise you the weapons that the criminals smuggle in and use will be far more lethal.

Who said i want to eliminate them?
I keep on going back to the fact my comments are about (1) the ease of obtainind them and (2) people's desire to own them.
Warbling on about eliminating them is mere deflection.

I believe that both sides want the same things, that is to leave in peace and prosperity without fear. The difference between the two sides of this argument is how to accomplish this. Unfortunately, for your side, you have been outvoted.

Which side has been 'outvoted'? All I see is that the more powerful lobby (the NRA) has won.
But from your post it seems your idea of having 'won' is based on the premise of abolition. Not tighter control. So perhaps if you can bring yourself to answer that question we may get somewhere.

I am willing to try anything that would reduce violent crime, but first you must convince me that 1) clearly state what your objectives and proposals are and 2) that they would work.

Nothing personal here, I am just saying, Convince me.

 

[takesome1]

I have often wondered why the NRA is perceived to be so powerful. There are about 5 million members in the NRA (including international members) and about 30 million (some sources have this number a lot higher) gun owners in the US. They claim to represent gun owners but the numbers don't seem to support that. They seem to represent only about 5-7 percent of gun owners. I have been a gun owner for over 30 years and I have never, and will never be, an NRA member. I do not feel that the NRA represents my views concerning gun ownership and I don't think I am unique in this.

The NRA, like any other lobbying organization, is only as powerful as we allow them to be.

I am not an NRA member, although I would say that I believe in what they do. It is true that many gun owners probably do not take the extreme view they do. But it is good to have that extreme view and an organization to voice it.

 

[Mikehit]

I am not an NRA member, although I would say that I believe in what they do. It is true that many gun owners probably do not take the extreme view they do. But it is good to have that extreme view and an organization to voice it.

I agree. But their 'extreme' view gets a disproportionate access to power which is where I have a problem in this discussion.

 

[Mikehit]

I am willing to try anything that would reduce violent crime, but first you must convince me that 1) clearly state what your objectives and proposals are and 2) that they would work.

Nothing personal here, I am just saying, Convince me.

If I were American my primary objective would be to tighten gun control. Reduce ownership of guns by those reasonably suspected of being excessively violent or with mental incapacity.
Would it work? Well, to paraphrase criticism of the 'war on drugs' - what you are doing so far has failed miserably yet any avenues for trying anything different are blocked by self-interest. As said previously, all efforts on rational discussion are derided and shouted down with calls about 'freedom' and 'second amendment'.

Has the NRA ever actually polled its members? Not that I recall and given that it is such an important issue for them, I wonder why...



https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/most-gun-owners-support-background-checks-and-other-limits-so-why-arent-their-voices-heard/2015/10/07/af9c96b0-6c41-11e5-aa5b-f78a98956699_story.html?utm_term=.8eedd140e991

 

[cayenne]

The fact is this: The more guns there are in the hands of law abiding citizens, the less crime there is.

Sorry, but the fact is that you don't know what the heck you're talking about. Is Kellyanne checking your facts for you?

An example; We have much (as in MUCH) stricter weapon control here in Norway, than you in the US. However, since we are a nation of hunters, we have lots of hunting rifles (we are actually in 11th place globally on weapon density), but you have to go through special training and screening to get one. Hand guns, assault rifles etc. are banned and the control with ammunition and use is significant.

The rate of people getting killed in the US is 50, FIFTY, times higher in the US, compared to what we have. But, of course, that has absolutely nothing to do with your liberal weapon legislation :

The trouble with a LOT of the stats on gun deaths in the US, is that they include suicides.<P>
If you remove that, the numbers go way down....

 

[takesome1]

I am willing to try anything that would reduce violent crime, but first you must convince me that 1) clearly state what your objectives and proposals are and 2) that they would work.

Nothing personal here, I am just saying, Convince me.

If I were American my primary objective would be to tighten gun control. Reduce ownership of guns by those reasonably suspected of being excessively violent or with mental incapacity.
Would it work? Well, to paraphrase criticism of the 'war on drugs' - what you are doing so far has failed miserably yet any avenues for trying anything different are blocked by self-interest. As said previously, all efforts on rational discussion are derided and shouted down with calls about 'freedom' and 'second amendment'.

Has the NRA ever actually polled its members? Not that I recall and given that it is such an important issue for them, I wonder why...



https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/most-gun-owners-support-background-checks-and-other-limits-so-why-arent-their-voices-heard/2015/10/07/af9c96b0-6c41-11e5-aa5b-f78a98956699_story.html?utm_term=.8eedd140e991

If you were American you would understand how important our freedoms and rights are to us. It isn't like other nations whose governments guarantee no freedoms and rights. Sure I would wrap myself in the 2nd amendment and say you can not take my gun. It is a right that our ancestors forefather's saw fit to include and the courts have tested and confirmed numerous times. When someone joins the military in the USA they take an oath that they "...will support and defend the Constitution of the United States..". All of the amendments are taken very seriously. As Americans we have those rights and they were paid for by our ancestors blood.

But you say the discussion gets "shouted down". To the contrary, in the US we have the first amendment. The majority of the people "shouting down" would defend your right to say what you have to say. You hear different forms of this saying from Americans "I may not agree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".

It helps to understand this mindset.
Really there are only two options for passing any kind of laws or control.
The first is a change to the 2nd amendment, and given the current political environment it isn't going to happen in the foreseeable future.
Look at other options of regulation, control and education that will limit those individuals who legally shouldn't have firearms and prevent accidents.

 

[kirispupis]

In the United States the Constitution can be amended. The problem is that the majority of the people don't want to amend it. We do have "discussions," they are your vote. The NRA and gun lobby consists of law abiding citizens that do not want the government taking away their guns. Law abiding citizens are not terrorists, neither are the NRA and gun lobbies that represent them.

While I agree that the majority of citizens and even most gun owners are not terrorists, the NRA has become a terrorist organization. How else do you explain their primary argument - that without guns people will die? This is despite the preponderance of evidence stating otherwise. Of course, there would be even more evidence if the NRA didn't stifle gun research. The definition of terrorism is using fear to propagate your goals - which is exactly what the NRA does.

For the sake of "discussion," how would you propose to eliminate them? Pass another law, (which we have too many already that don't seem to be working), to take away the guns of the law abiding citizens and make the criminals cringe in fear that they are breaking the law?

Actually, and as I have said multiple times, I don't believe it's realistic to get rid of all guns. I also believe there are some valid uses for them - in particular as a last resort against wildlife in some places and for hunting. On a more realistic note, the following is what I would love to see happen.

• Gun registration. Every single gun is registered upon leaving the factory floor. When someone buys a gun, it is registered in their name. There are no exceptions. When a gun is then used for a crime, it's ownership can be traced back. The last owner may then be questioned on how it came to be at the scene.
• Liability. If your weapon is used in a crime, you are liable and may even be imprisoned. If a weapon of yours is stolen, you may report it so but may still be liable for a crime if you did not adequately secure it.
• Transfer. Direct transfers of weapons are forbidden. A weapon may only be transferred at a licensed third party store, which handles the necessary background checks and registration. This removes the gun show loophole
• In order to obtain a weapon, one must go through a licensed training program.
• Psychological background checks are necessary to obtain a weapon. Ones weapons may be seized by order of a court, if that person is deemed unsuitable for weapons
• Weapons are banned in all schools, sports stadiums, airports, and other places of mass gatherings
• A property owner has the legal right to ban all weapons (so for instance - malls). No state/local regulations may override this.
• Certain types of guns, accessories, and ammunition will be illegal. I think the label of 'assault weapon' is too vague, but in general a gun should fire a limited number of rounds before requiring a 'not-so-quick' reload. Professional target shooting usually requires a reload after each round, and hunted animals do not need to be full of lead. Which specific things banned should be the result of a logical discussion.
• Use of a weapon while under the influence of drugs and/or alcohol is a serious offence
• Concealed query requires a special license. One must prove that there is a very clear need given one's profession. For instance, a jeweler who regularly transports gems would have a valid need. Specialized training would also be required.

Make no mistake about it, the goal is to eliminate the handgun which is the choice of most criminals. The "assault type" weapons are just a guise because the public reacts more strongly to these crimes.

For the most part I agree - handguns cause the most problems. I do think though that there should be some limit in terms of how many rounds a weapon may fire before a semi-lengthy reload.

Do you really believe that if we eliminated guns, crime would decrease? We haven't been able to solve our drug problems in this country, much less our racial problems, although we have spent billions of dollars over many years trying to solve them.

Murders and gun deaths would decrease, as would most violent crime. Things like burglaries and theft from cars would probably stay the same.

If you can find a way to eliminate private ownership of guns, I promise you the weapons that the criminals smuggle in and use will be far more lethal.

Nope. All of the data already presented shows otherwise. That's why other 1st world countries have lower murders.

I believe that both sides want the same things, that is to leave in peace and prosperity without fear. The difference between the two sides of this argument is how to accomplish this. Unfortunately, for your side, you have been outvoted.

Again, no. Most Americans want tighter gun control - a very large majority in fact. The 2nd amendment makes this tricky though, because the NRA and a small number of individuals are prepared to litigate. Again, it prevents any logical discussion about guns.

The percentage of people willing to actually repeal the 2nd amendment is a minority, though I expect that it's growing. Unfortunately the effort to do this requires considerably more than a majority. There is a growing awareness, though, that our Constitution was written at a very different time - especially in terms of the electoral college (which was a compromise that allowed southern states to count their slaves toward electoral votes, without actually giving them the vote).

 

[takesome1]

The fact is this: The more guns there are in the hands of law abiding citizens, the less crime there is.

Sorry, but the fact is that you don't know what the heck you're talking about. Is Kellyanne checking your facts for you?

An example; We have much (as in MUCH) stricter weapon control here in Norway, than you in the US. However, since we are a nation of hunters, we have lots of hunting rifles (we are actually in 11th place globally on weapon density), but you have to go through special training and screening to get one. Hand guns, assault rifles etc. are banned and the control with ammunition and use is significant.

The rate of people getting killed in the US is 50, FIFTY, times higher in the US, compared to what we have. But, of course, that has absolutely nothing to do with your liberal weapon legislation :

The trouble with a LOT of the stats on gun deaths in the US, is that they include suicides.<P>
If you remove that, the numbers go way down....

The discussion usually goes to ban the guns and the suicide rates will go down. Then the conversation doesn't get anywhere because a ban isn't going to happen.

There are things that could be discussed that do not involve banning. For instance education or regulation on keeping firearms and ammunition under lock and key. Education on storage of ammunition. Better, easier to use more secure locks included when you buy a firearm.

 

[kirispupis]

I have often wondered why the NRA is perceived to be so powerful. There are about 5 million members in the NRA (including international members) and about 30 million (some sources have this number a lot higher) gun owners in the US. They claim to represent gun owners but the numbers don't seem to support that. They seem to represent only about 5-7 percent of gun owners. I have been a gun owner for over 30 years and I have never, and will never be, an NRA member. I do not feel that the NRA represents my views concerning gun ownership and I don't think I am unique in this.

The NRA, like any other lobbying organization, is only as powerful as we allow them to be.

This article provides some details - http://www.businessinsider.com/nra-lobbying-money-national-rifle-association-washington-2012-12

I believe it's a factor of two things

• Their membership
• Gun manufacturers - who earn billions from convincing people that their products are necessary for survival. They also make considerable sums sending guns to other countries (such as Mexico).

 

[kirispupis]

If you were American you would understand how important our freedoms and rights are to us. It isn't like other nations whose governments guarantee no freedoms and rights. Sure I would wrap myself in the 2nd amendment and say you can not take my gun. It is a right that our ancestors forefather's saw fit to include and the courts have tested and confirmed numerous times. When someone joins the military in the USA they take an oath that they "...will support and defend the Constitution of the United States..". All of the amendments are taken very seriously. As Americans we have those rights and they were paid for by our ancestors blood.

You need to stop drinking the cool-aid. This country is actually far less free than many others. Most countries in Western Europe - especially Scandinavia - are much freer in terms of what one can actually do. For instance, Americans have among the least privacy in the world. The US government has access to banking information for US citizens that is illegal for most Europeans. Companies may also sell + collect information that would be illegal for a European. At one point I do believe we were among the freest in the world, and the US did have a direct impact in making the world a freer place, but we've fallen considerably.

 

[Mikehit]

If you were American you would understand how important our freedoms and rights are to us. It isn't like other nations whose governments guarantee no freedoms and rights. Sure I would wrap myself in the 2nd amendment and say you can not take my gun. It is a right that our ancestors forefather's saw fit to include and the courts have tested and confirmed numerous times. When someone joins the military in the USA they take an oath that they "...will support and defend the Constitution of the United States..". All of the amendments are taken very seriously. As Americans we have those rights and they were paid for by our ancestors blood.

But you say the discussion gets "shouted down". To the contrary, in the US we have the first amendment. The majority of the people "shouting down" would defend your right to say what you have to say. You hear different forms of this saying from Americans "I may not agree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".

It helps to understand this mindset.
Really there are only two options for passing any kind of laws or control.
The first is a change to the 2nd amendment, and given the current political environment it isn't going to happen in the foreseeable future.
Look at other options of regulation, control and education that will limit those individuals who legally shouldn't have firearms and prevent accidents.

To say we don't understand how important rights and freedoms are just because we do not have written Constitution is patronising. We in Britain were asserting our rights ever since the Magna Carter, later through abolition of the Star Chambers, curtailing regal powers in the English Civil War and the Protectorate and various ups and downs over the centuries. We have freedoms and rights asserted and vigourously guarded through courts and jurisprudence and that is effectively our 'Constiution'.
Given that Thanksgiving Day celebrates the arrival of the first (largely British) pilgrims who were escaping religious persecution in Europe, I fully appreciate how the American Constitution was underpinned by the desire to avoid over-oppressive Government.

Just because you have the First Amendment doesn't mean that the arguments are not shouted down - it may not be a censorship but in some areas it is an issue more emotive than abortion rights or gay rights and some discussion can be very intimidating. Bar the (very) rare instances of insults being thown on this thread, it has been probably the most civilised I have participated in.

Look at other options of regulation, control and education that will limit those individuals who legally shouldn't have firearms and prevent accidents.

Which, I believe, is exactly what I suggested.

 

[Loswr]

This country is actually far less free than many others.

The state of New Hampshire's motto is, "Live Free or Die." If you go hunting, it's perfectly legal to bring a few dozen assault rifles...but don't bring a ferret, because that's against the law (RSA 207:6). Oh yeah, we're free.

 

[hbr]

Interesting that none of the proposed solutions address the crime issue where the problem lies. Nearly every proposal stiffens the regulations of the law abiding citizen. That is where this thread originated. The OP was mugged by armed thugs who were using their weapons in an unlawful manner. They had no regard for the laws. I don't care how many laws and regulations you propose if you can't reduce the crime, you don't solve anything.

 

[Loswr]

I don't care how many laws and regulations you propose if you can't reduce the crime, you don't solve anything.

Do laws requiring vehicle occupants to wear seatbelts reduce the frequency of automobile crashes? No...so I guess those laws don't solve anything. :

 

[takesome1]

If you were American you would understand how important our freedoms and rights are to us. It isn't like other nations whose governments guarantee no freedoms and rights. Sure I would wrap myself in the 2nd amendment and say you can not take my gun. It is a right that our ancestors forefather's saw fit to include and the courts have tested and confirmed numerous times. When someone joins the military in the USA they take an oath that they "...will support and defend the Constitution of the United States..". All of the amendments are taken very seriously. As Americans we have those rights and they were paid for by our ancestors blood.

But you say the discussion gets "shouted down". To the contrary, in the US we have the first amendment. The majority of the people "shouting down" would defend your right to say what you have to say. You hear different forms of this saying from Americans "I may not agree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".

It helps to understand this mindset.
Really there are only two options for passing any kind of laws or control.
The first is a change to the 2nd amendment, and given the current political environment it isn't going to happen in the foreseeable future.
Look at other options of regulation, control and education that will limit those individuals who legally shouldn't have firearms and prevent accidents.

To say we don't understand how important rights and freedoms are just because we do not have written Constitution is patronising. We in Britain were asserting our rights ever since the Magna Carter, later through abolition of the Star Chambers, curtailing regal powers in the English Civil War and the Protectorate and various ups and downs over the centuries. We have freedoms and rights asserted and vigourously guarded through courts and jurisprudence and that is effectively our 'Constiution'.
Given that Thanksgiving Day celebrates the arrival of the first (largely British) pilgrims who were escaping religious persecution in Europe, I fully appreciate how the American Constitution was underpinned by the desire to avoid over-oppressive Government.

Just because you have the First Amendment doesn't mean that the arguments are not shouted down - it may not be a censorship but in some areas it is an issue more emotive than abortion rights or gay rights and some discussion can be very intimidating. Bar the (very) rare instances of insults being thown on this thread, it has been probably the most civilised I have participated in.

Look at other options of regulation, control and education that will limit those individuals who legally shouldn't have firearms and prevent accidents.

Which, I believe, is exactly what I suggested.

The comment was about American's rights and freedoms and how Americans view the second amendment. If you took this as a personal comment or one about British understanding rights and freedoms, I either didn't explain well enough or you miss understood.

 

[cayenne]

The fact is this: The more guns there are in the hands of law abiding citizens, the less crime there is.

Sorry, but the fact is that you don't know what the heck you're talking about. Is Kellyanne checking your facts for you?

An example; We have much (as in MUCH) stricter weapon control here in Norway, than you in the US. However, since we are a nation of hunters, we have lots of hunting rifles (we are actually in 11th place globally on weapon density), but you have to go through special training and screening to get one. Hand guns, assault rifles etc. are banned and the control with ammunition and use is significant.

The rate of people getting killed in the US is 50, FIFTY, times higher in the US, compared to what we have. But, of course, that has absolutely nothing to do with your liberal weapon legislation :

The trouble with a LOT of the stats on gun deaths in the US, is that they include suicides.<P>
If you remove that, the numbers go way down....

The discussion usually goes to ban the guns and the suicide rates will go down. Then the conversation doesn't get anywhere because a ban isn't going to happen.

There are things that could be discussed that do not involve banning. For instance education or regulation on keeping firearms and ammunition under lock and key. Education on storage of ammunition. Better, easier to use more secure locks included when you buy a firearm.

Err....keeping my guns and ammo locked up make them useless for me for home protection.

I mean, if someone breaks in, they're not going to politely wait while I get up and go to my safe in the dark and fiddle with the combination, find the gun, then load them, etc.

I have several guns all over my house, fully loaded and chambered. If someone breaks in, I'm never more than a few feet from one or more of my firearms.

If you aren't going to keep them loaded and accessible, then they are pretty much useless for home protection.

Hey, those that don't want to bear the responsibility for owning and potentially using them...are free NOT to own them.

I have no problem with folks that feel that way.

C