A Firearm in Every Home.

[sparks19]

To be honest... I think this all boils down to people reading this incorrectly. He did not say people HAD to be armed or be shot.

We own guns.... we havent SHOT anyone. and we don't plan to either.

Gun ownership does NOT equal violence. I am not a violent person. my husband is not a violent person. we aren't going to hand hannah a gun and tell her to have at it

but EDUCATION doesn't hurt ANYONE. It seems that what is being proposed here is simply EDUCATION

are you against sex ed since so many people go out and fool around and end up with STD's? likely not. do you think they should teach only abstinence? probably not for the most part.

We raise our children teaching them how to handle things properly and how to stay safe... why is it that it's only guns that we want to make totally taboo? why not teach them HOW to use one correctly?

Too many people have no problem giving their kids a water gun or some sort of toy gun to play with... but then we expect them to not learn about what REAL guns do or are capable of?

Hmmmm

Hey I know my opinion isn't popular. but it's my opinion and it isn't going to change anytime soon.

[Whisk_Luva]

Nowhere in blue's posts here did I see the word "EVERYONE".

Of course not, and I understand exactly where you are coming from, but at some time in someones life they are going to need a mortgage, a business license, or go through the school system, all of which he is saying should have gun training.

Yes everybody should know how to safely use a firearm, even those with mental disorders. Obviously if you have a mental disorder you should not be allowed to own or be in unsupervised posession of a firearm.

So, someone is schizophrenic, with the potential to commit homicides, and you think we should teach them to use a gun? It doesn't matter if they are ALLOWED to own one, someone who feels that they need to kill people is going to get a gun somehow, whether it's legal or not, and this person is going to know how to use it! Not a very good idea is it?

Part of the problem is people are teaching kids that firearms equal violence, and that firearms cause violence. We need to be teaching kids younger then 1rst graders that firearms are not toys and to respect the damage they can do. Kids are taught not to play with knives, matches, lighters, etc, etc, before the first grade and most kids take it in quite readily. The main message everybody needs to learn is guns are OK and they need to be respected and handled accordingly.

Think about it. What use is a gun besides from the purpose of violence? Whether its defense or intentional, they still kill people. Kids can be taught they are not toys, but what use is that honestly going to do? Kids don't see games with matches in or whatever but they are constantly givent toy guns, games with guns, and despite what they have been taught if they think 'oh this is fun' I doubt its going to stop them wanting to use a real gun.
The reality is most children find it hard to think about anyone but themselves until about the age of 8, so how are you meant to get them to think about how this thing will effect other people?
I honestly don't see the point in teaching such young people about guns.

So people are better off defenseless is your argument?

Well they can hardly defend themselves against a gun attack can they? The other person shoots first and BOOM they're dead. And yes people may attack in other methods, knives or whatever, but if guns are available to everyone, knife crime goes down, gun crime goes up. Also you do not need a gun to defend yourself, for example I do aikido, and there we learn how to defend ourselves against a knife attacks, and at least with martial arts most will not let you use even a wooden knife or learn techniques using it until you are at least 18. If you ask me defense martial arts are the way foward, I mean, at least you can defend yourself without killing anyone.

Yes, its better to let the people recieving aid, food, and medical supplies be able to defend it. Arming them dosent turn them into killers it lets them defend themselves against those who will kill them for the goods they recieved. Giving them food and medical supplies only to turn them around and let others kill them is not charity.

Well if you give them a gun doesn't that meant they could turn round and do the same to others once their aid runs out? And is it fair that someone who is obviously so desperate for this food or whatever is shot? They try to relieve their own suffering, perhaps not in the best way, but still? People should be able to defend whatever they have of course, but I don't think stealing food justifies murder. Maybe if the charities didn't have to train all these people to use firearms, and have to buy all these firearms they could help MORE people, so less people would have to try and steal aid off others.

Yes I do. Legal gun owners do a small minority of unjustified killings. Making it harder for people to legaly own firearms only makes for more victims and increases crime in general.

Knives are available to people and look how much knife crime has gone up! Please explain to me how making guns illegal would make crime go up?

[Puckstop31]

Knives are available to people and look how much knife crime has gone up! Please explain to me how making guns illegal would make crime go up?

According the the BBC, in the three years since the UK's 1997 nearly total ban on personal firearm ownership, gun crime ROSE by 40%.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1440764.stm

I could go on and on and on with stories like this. Why? Because criminals don't care about laws. Ban whatever you want. Control whatever you want. Only the law abiding will follow it.

A armed person is a citizen. A disarmed person is a subject.

[Twisterdog]

So your point is what, exactly? To take what I wrote out of context for the amusment of those who are scared of firearms?

Obviously not. I said nothing at all that was "frightening". If I would have wanted to do that, I could have.

My point is that I do not agree with your idea, that I think it is silly, in fact. You are entitled to your opinion, certainly, but when you post it on a public board, you will indeed receive others' opinions, in spades. The reason I added the fact that I am a firearms owner, I thought, would be obvious. I am not afraid of firearms, I do not think they are inherently dangerous or immoral. I have been shooting for three decades. And, still, I do not agree with your idea.

[blue]

So, someone is schizophrenic, with the potential to commit homicides, and you think we should teach them to use a gun? It doesn't matter if they are ALLOWED to own one, someone who feels that they need to kill people is going to get a gun somehow, whether it's legal or not, and this person is going to know how to use it! Not a very good idea is it?

A schizophrenic should know what to do, what steps to take if they come across a firearm, so nothing bad happens. Yes it is a good idea for everybody to know firearm safety.

Think about it. What use is a gun besides from the purpose of violence? Whether its defense or intentional, they still kill people. Kids can be taught they are not toys, but what use is that honestly going to do? Kids don't see games with matches in or whatever but they are constantly givent toy guns, games with guns, and despite what they have been taught if they think 'oh this is fun' I doubt its going to stop them wanting to use a real gun.
The reality is most children find it hard to think about anyone but themselves until about the age of 8, so how are you meant to get them to think about how this thing will effect other people?
I honestly don't see the point in teaching such young people about guns.

So your argument is people are better off deffensless? Tell that to a woman being raped. Kids are taught matches arent toys, what is your point? The games, toys and videos that feture firearms and violence are exactly why kids need to learn firearm safety, so they wont want to do the forbiden and actually handle a firearm unsupervised.

Well they can hardly defend themselves against a gun attack can they? The other person shoots first and BOOM they're dead. And yes people may attack in other methods, knives or whatever, but if guns are available to everyone, knife crime goes down, gun crime goes up. Also you do not need a gun to defend yourself, for example I do aikido, and there we learn how to defend ourselves against a knife attacks, and at least with martial arts most will not let you use even a wooden knife or learn techniques using it until you are at least 18. If you ask me defense martial arts are the way foward, I mean, at least you can defend yourself without killing anyone.

Do you realy think that your average person is going to buy a gun and turn into a serial killer or mass murderer? Martial arts can kill just as easy as a firearm, so what is your point? That martial artists are going to snap and start killing willy nilly?

Well if you give them a gun doesn't that meant they could turn round and do the same to others once their aid runs out? And is it fair that someone who is obviously so desperate for this food or whatever is shot? They try to relieve their own suffering, perhaps not in the best way, but still? People should be able to defend whatever they have of course, but I don't think stealing food justifies murder. Maybe if the charities didn't have to train all these people to use firearms, and have to buy all these firearms they could help MORE people, so less people would have to try and steal aid off others.

If everybody is armed they arent very likely to pull off the scenario you just described. Keeping them unarmed and defensless against government armed militias in Siera Leon and other parts of Africa, it only makes them targets.

Knives are available to people and look how much knife crime has gone up! Please explain to me how making guns illegal would make crime go up?

DC, untill recently handguns where illegal and severe restraints on long arms, high crime rate. Chicago, severe gun laws, high crime rate. What is your reason for the high crime rates in Chicago and DC?

After firearm bans in the UK and increased firearm restrictions in Canada, crime increased. Maybe you can explain to me why?

If you come to the city I live in or my hometown, remember there is no lisence to carry concealed here, everybody could be armed. So try not to act as paranoid about firearms as you type.

Obviously not. I said nothing at all that was "frightening". If I would have wanted to do that, I could have.

My point is that I do not agree with your idea, that I think it is silly, in fact. You are entitled to your opinion, certainly, but when you post it on a public board, you will indeed receive others' opinions, in spades. The reason I added the fact that I am a firearms owner, I thought, would be obvious. I am not afraid of firearms, I do not think they are inherently dangerous or immoral. I have been shooting for three decades. And, still, I do not agree with your idea.

So with your 3 decades of experience, firearms training is a bad idea for the general public?

[blue]

Seriously, what are the downsides to this idea? People wont be forced to own or possess firearms but they will be trained in the safe handling of them. I fail to see the downside here.

[Lady's Human]

If you want a private business lisence you must pass a basic firearms safety and marksmanship course. If you want a home mortgage, you must pass a basic firearms safety and marksmanship course.

What are the downsides to this?

How's this for starters......

There are people who are perfectly good citizens who lack the physical capabilities to pass these courses.

Because of a physical disability someone would be incapable of getting a mortgage or owning a business?

Funny, I think Stephen Hawking would be an asset to ANY community, regardless of whether he can pass a basic marksmanship or firearm safety course.

[blue]

What are the downsides to this?

How's this for starters......

There are people who are perfectly good citizens who lack the physical capabilities to pass these courses.

Because of a physical disability someone would be incapable of getting a mortgage or owning a business?

Funny, I think Stephen Hawking would be an asset to ANY community, regardless of whether he can pass a basic marksmanship or firearm safety course.

You dont think exceptions wouldnt be taken into account? Obviously Mr Hawking, amputies, blind people, etc, etc would be exempt.

So are you being silly, trying to be difficult, or just trying to start an argument?

Not being able to take the course, for physical or mental reasons is not a downside to the idea in general.

[Lady's Human]

So are you being silly, trying to be difficult, or just trying to start an argument?

Entschuldigen sie bitte?

None of the above.

Just taking your absolutist statement and pointing out a flaw in it.

While I have no problem with the basic concept of everyone having basic knowledge of firearms, I have issues with the public education system being used as the place to further an agenda or teach opinions. (and yes, that would include ANY agenda, be it liberal or conservative. Just ask my daughter.) Besides, the liability issues alone would hamstring any school attempting to teach firearms. Just because it worked when my mother was in school doesn't mean it would work at the present time in the present climate.

If you want your kids to know safe firearm handling, teach them at home, or get them memberships in a gun club.

[blue]

Entschuldigen sie bitte?

I dont speak , German is it? Translation, please.

None of the above.

Just taking your absolutist statement and pointing out a flaw in it.

Countries that have mandantory conscription dont include the blind, or others with physical or mental handicaps. So if you think common sense is a flaw, my idea is flawed.

While I have no problem with the basic concept of everyone having basic knowledge of firearms, I have issues with the public education system being used as the place to further an or teach opinions. (and yes, that would include ANY agenda, be it liberal or conservative. Just ask my daughter.) Besides, the liability issues alone would hamstring any school attempting to teach firearms. Just because it worked when my mother was in school doesn't mean it would work at the present time in the present climate.

If you want your kids to know safe firearm handling, teach them at home, or get them memberships in a gun club.

I have alot of issues with the public education system. You want to make this a conservative/liberal agenda issue start a new thread.

How is teaching basic firearms safety and marksmanship an agenda, or opinion, when its about basic safety? Or is it only about the children when its anti gun? Sorry I had to go there.

If liability was an issue why do schools have any sport teams?

I dont have kids. What I would like is kids who know firearm safety, and at a young age.

[blue]

Im going to sleep.

[Lady's Human]

One, your original statement makes no allowances for disabilities. To quote....

If you want a private business lisence you must pass a basic firearms safety and marksmanship course. If you want a home mortgage, you must pass a basic firearms safety and marksmanship course.

That's pretty much an absolutist statement. I don't assume, I'm not reading your mind. I'm just going by your statements.

Safe handling and markmanship would be part of the overall GPA from 1st to high school graduation.

Subjects other than basic education should have no effect on GPA whatsoever. If a student hates gym class, it should have ZERO effect on their GPA. Same with any other non-academic course.

As to the liability issue, liability insurance is a major cost factor in school sports. Many schools are now requiring parents to pay a participation fee for sports for that reason. The probability of a severe accident would go up exponentially if you put live fire ranges in schools. Even on military ranges, where controls are tight, and the people shooting are professionals, accidents happen, and accidents on ranges are rarely minor.

As an NCO I didn't trust others to train troops for me, and I'm damned well not going to allow my children to be taught firearms safety by someone else.

[blue]

One, your original statement makes no allowances for disabilities. To quote....

If you want a private business lisence you must pass a basic firearms safety and marksmanship course. If you want a home mortgage, you must pass a basic firearms safety and marksmanship course.

That's pretty much an absolutist statement. I don't assume, I'm not reading your mind. I'm just going by your statements.

No, you are assuming that people with no motor controll function would be treated the same as people with full motor controll function. Comon sense would dictate that isnt the case.

Subjects other than basic education should have no effect on GPA whatsoever. If a student hates gym class, it should have ZERO effect on their GPA. Same with any other non-academic course.

As to the liability issue, liability insurance is a major cost factor in school sports. Many schools are now requiring parents to pay a participation fee for sports for that reason. The probability of a severe accident would go up exponentially if you put live fire ranges in schools. Even on military ranges, where controls are tight, and the people shooting are professionals, accidents happen, and accidents on ranges are rarely minor.

As an NCO I didn't trust others to train troops for me, and I'm damned well not going to allow my children to be taught firearms safety by someone else.

As things sit today physical education, and non academic courses in schools are tied to the GPA.

Public schools once had firearms teams as a sports option. Students and teachers used to bring their rifles on to school grounds during hunting season. It would seem reasonable, the younger people are taught firearm safety, accidents would be fewer and less severe.

As an NCO, your kids should have no problem passing basic firearms safety tests, after your instructions.

[Twisterdog]

So with your 3 decades of experience, firearms training is a bad idea for the general public?

Not for those who wish to be trained. I object to this because you are requiring the general public to participate a certain sport/hobby. I would object just as strongly if you were proposing that everyone be required to learn to drive a truck, take karate classes, use a chain saw or learn to use a digital camera.

Each of those things could be considered useful in self defense or crime prevention as well, couldn't they? But they are a choice, to be made by individuals, not mandated by the government.

I remember a thread not too long ago where you were vehemently objecting to the increase in cigarette taxes, stating essentially that the governement should not be able to "force" free people to quit smoking if they don't want to. Hmmmm ....

[Whisk_Luva]

A schizophrenic should know what to do, what steps to take if they come across a firearm, so nothing bad happens. Yes it is a good idea for everybody to know firearm safety.

So this person wants to kill someone. He knows how to use a gun. You work out whats going to happen next. 'Schizophrenia is the fourth leading cause of morbidity in both women and men, the second leading cause of international terrorism, and the leading cause of war. Schizophrenia is a humorous brain disorder characterized by delusional thinking and unique but unpopular perceptions.'- http://www.drleons.com/schizo/closet.htm

So your argument is people are better off deffensless? Tell that to a woman being raped. Kids are taught matches arent toys, what is your point? The games, toys and videos that feture firearms and violence are exactly why kids need to learn firearm safety, so they wont want to do the forbiden and actually handle a firearm unsupervised.

My argument is that children of that age are too young and too irresponsible to be taught how to use a gun, if they are unable to see the needs and feelings of others, they are too young to be introduced to a killing machine.
The games do not teach safety, half of them are just going around shooting everything in sight. What about the kids who rebel against the forbidden? What about the kids who think guns are cool and want to show it to their friends? What about the fact that many kids gain the perception that life is cheap from these games and that killing becomes a game in itself? Evidence points to the fact that violence has been encouraged by glamourising things in the media.

Do you realy think that your average person is going to buy a gun and turn into a serial killer or mass murderer? Martial arts can kill just as easy as a firearm, so what is your point? That martial artists are going to snap and start killing willy nilly?

No, not everyone, but by making it legal to carry a gun you are increasing the chances of a mass murderer being able to get a gun. And if everyone has a gun, accidents are bound to happen, people draw their guns for silly petty things, and if I was in a place where I knew everyone could carry a gun I would feel threatened, because I would never know who has anger issues, who has mental illnesses, and I would be scared to say anything to anybody.
No, that martial arts are better for defense. Martial arts rarely kill people (at least defense martial arts), and if someones coming at you with a knife you don't need to kill them, just snap a bone or two or throw them on the floor. No murder needed.

If everybody is armed they arent very likely to pull off the scenario you just described. Keeping them unarmed and defensless against government armed militias in Siera Leon and other parts of Africa, it only makes them targets.

Food, water and aid are more important than guns. I could say that if everyone had aid they wouldn't need guns to protect it. People need aid to live, guns just take away that life.

DC, untill recently handguns where illegal and severe restraints on long arms, high crime rate. Chicago, severe gun laws, high crime rate. What is your reason for the high crime rates in Chicago and DC?
After firearm bans in the UK and increased firearm restrictions in Canada, crime increased. Maybe you can explain to me why?

Give some thought of some of the underlying reasons for the lowering crime rates .... the "3 strikes and you are out" initiatives and the harsh penalties that exist in the US. Here in the UK our biggest problem is that we are soft on punishment and our prisons are so full that we have to free people early. Guaranteed to raise the crime rate I am sure you will agree! And as for the other places, I do not know enough about them to explain the reasons why.

If you come to the city I live in or my hometown, remember there is no lisence to carry concealed here, everybody could be armed. So try not to act as paranoid about firearms as you type.

Believe me, I am not planning to come to your town. No licence is just awful. Paranoid? Not really. I just want a world with less violence, and I don't want to promote a place which allows killing machines to be treated like everyday objects.