A Firearm in Every Home.

[blue]

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.

The Swiss have been very successful at training their citizens to use firearms and keeping gun crime down. Being trained in firearms safety is not the same as participating in the 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 cannot argue against that.

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 ....

They arent forcing people to quit smoking, they are counting on people to keep smoking to raise funds. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm, indeed.

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 all schizophrenics want to kill someone?

mor⋅bid⋅i⋅ty [mawr-bid-i-tee] Show IPA
–noun 1. a morbid state or quality.
2. the proportion of sickness or of a specific disease in a geographical locality.

mor·bid·i·ty (môr-bĭd'ĭ-tē)
n. pl. mor·bid·i·ties
The quality of being morbid; morbidness.
The rate of incidence of a disease.

I didnt realize being emo, peruse that link at your risk I didnt fully peruse it, was a disease.

Doctor Leon="A satire including sarcastic mental health definitions, visitors' questions with answers, commentary on therapy, and funny quotations."

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.

The parts in bold are reasons why kids should have real world experience with firearms, focusing on safety. I believe you are underestimating children.

Wouldnt

What about the kids who rebel against the forbidden?

Mean those kids would not do the forbiden? Even if I read it wrong, educating those kids so the mystery as why its forbiden is no longer a mystery for those kids to rebel against.

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.

By this argument gun crime in AK and other states that allow concealed carry would have a massive increase in murders and other criminal acts. Guess what, that didnt happen. You feeling threatened is a personal issue. Even in states or cities that dont allow concealed carry, odds are good somebody is carrying illegally, even in England.

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.

Martial arts can and do kill. The differense is the martial artist is the weapon, and by your argument weapons should be banned.

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.

Firearms protect food, water, aid, and life. If everyone had food, water, and aid, there are still those out there who will want to take it from others. Firearms protect life.

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.

The USA has just as many problems with prisoners being released early or not prosecuted at all due to prison populations, if not more so. Ill have to look into it.

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.

You might want to reconsider that, Alaska is a beautiful and unique place. When the licence restriction was dropped crime did not increase. See above for martial arts being a weapon and a method of killing.

It is my constitutional right as a U.S. citizen, to bear arms in my own home. I choose not to. Guns don't kill people, PEOPLE kill people.

With all the violence that's in the news and on tv, not to mention the economy, I'm not surprized at all the violence in the news.

When I was with the Auxiliary State Police, I owned a Rugar .357 magnum which I kept locked up at all times unless I was on duty. Did I show my 10 year old daughter the firearm? Absolutely! I educated her. She held it (unloaded) and I answered all her questions. It went back into lock up and she never asked about it again.

I went target shooting a couple times a month. I can take that gun apart, clean it and put it back together with my eyes closed, that how well they trained us at the academy.

It's the idiots who think it's the "wild west" and go around waving guns in the air to look like they're tough. THOSE are the ones ya gotta look out for.

The parts in bold are the important points. I live alone with no kids and my firearms are in the safe.

"Guns don't kill people, PEOPLE kill people."

Actually it's those pesky little bullets

Without the person and a firearm, bullets are harmless.

Read what you just posted.......OPTIONS

What you are proposing would be mandatory for all, by your own words.

Your posts actually got me thinking more on this subject.

Im a big fan of homeschooling. Schools dont have to do the teaching but the students would still have to pass basic firearms training, in stages. Yes, the qualifications would be mandatory but can be taught at home.

I'd pull my kids out of school in a hot second if this ever became law. There are things that schools are not, should not, and never will be set up to teach. Mass firearms instruction is one of them.

Absolutely fair. A plus however would be your kids could get extra credit for being a teachers assistant for the course.

Again, if parents want their children taught about firearms, they can do it at home.

Children get taught alot of things in public schools parents disagree with, why should expanding on safety be objectionable? Again the teaching can and could take place at home.