Gun problems around here used to occur only during hunting season, and
tended to involve wasted time at schools for staff and students who
would stand in the parking lot and compare rifles to use for killing
deer later in the week, said rifles resting in a rack in the rear
window of either the teacher's vehicle or the student's vehicle. In
the past 15-20 years, though, it seems (and this is impression only,
so could easily be way the hell off) people are choosing more often to
shoot each other, rather than deer.
The answer? I don't have one, but I am sure it's not what the idiot
woman who wrote the Roanoke paper recommended: force all gun
manufacturers out of business immediately. She was sure the "gun
problem" would then go away. Unfortunately for that attitude, all that
would happen is a bunch of people would be thrown out of work. There
are probably 300 million guns in the U.S. and possibly many more.
Those won't go away with a ban on manufacturers. Nor will the fact
that anyone with any kind of half-assed metal lathe can rather quickly
grab some bar stock and run up a gun. The gun may not be a carbon
fiber Glock, but it will fire, just as the car antenna zip guns fired
in the streets of New York in '50s.
There are something like 20,000 firearms-related laws on the books in the
U.S., one has to wonder if they were all enforced vigorously what impact
that would have on violent crime, and wouldn't that make more sense than
passing more laws that will be cheerfully ignored by criminals and psychos?
I read an article some time ago about a district attorney who had the police
target firearms possession by convicted felons and prosecuted them seriously
instead of making it a slap on the wrist, it had a clear effect on violent
crime in the area as criminals went back to jail and those on the loose got
nervous about being caught with guns and decided to live without them.
Seems like a simple enough idea, doesn't it.
I also have to wonder what the point is of having background checks if they
are are done as ineffectively as in these last couple of high-profile school
shootings. How does someone who has been ordered by a court to undergo
psychiatric treatment or who has spent a year in a psychiatric institution
pass a background check? Wouldn't it make more sense to close those
loopholes than to call for bizarre "solutions" like closing down firearms
companies or punishing law-abiding citizens who have done nothing wrong?
"Solutions" like that make as much sense as fighting traffic fatalities by
putting the auto makers out of business and punishing drivers who haven't
had accidents, yet plenty of folks seem to lose all common sense when the
subject of guns comes up.
The reason for getting a concealed weapons permit is to carry a gun for self
defense. It seems like the place you need it most these days is at schools.
Is it just me or does it seem that everytime the media gets on the subject
of school shootings another one happens?
The "Gun Free Zones" are working out great so far, right?
Where else can a psychopath be virtually guaranteed that they can carry
out their sick fantasies with little chance of being interfered with by
someone capable of defending themselves?
After Ted Nugent started advocating the idea that people should simply
pop a few bullets through their car doors at possible carjackers, and
a few actually did.... the car jacking slowed down.
It would a different 'feel' when you know your targets, and all their
mates, can shoot back.
<Rant Mode: ON>
One of the factors often over looked by gun control supporters is that the
folks that wrote the Constitution and the Bill of Rights felt that the
second amendment allowed the People to carry out the duty and directive to
overthrow a government that became oppressive...
Granted my 30-06, .45's, .9mm's, .22's and shotguns probably wouldn't stand
up to a mini-gun or a .50 machine gun... but the principle is reassuring
and a dis-armed population wouldn't stand a chance were that needed.
Check the increase of crime rates in England or Australia since they allowed
their politicians to take away their guns! And while you are looking
research the crime rates in areas with carry permits vs. those without them
Personally I'd like to see a law requiring all citizens to (1.) be trained
in firearm use and care and (2.) be required to carry at all times in
Seems to me some nutcase (and all we read'\/see/hear about ARE nut cases)
would be more reluctant to pull a weapon of ANY kind if he/she/it knew
everyone around them could take 'em out.
I have a carry permit, and have for years... been shooting since childhood
(family weekend entertainment), including a Navy rifle and pistol team, have
a 13 year old daughter that's becoming a pretty good shot, and have NEVER
shot a human being (there ARE a few I wouldn't mind seeing coming up missing
Sticks don't choose to hit someone (OWWC: except kick-back), knives don't
jump up and stick people and guns don't kill people...
PEOPLE DO THOSE ACTS of VIOLENCE.
Doing something to control people seems like an obvious choice... but of
course politicians seldom choose the easy way to do things.
Now I have no interest in a fully automatic weapon, can't afford the ammo!
But I'd support a responsible citizen's right to own one.
<Rant Mode: OFF>
Ask most cops what they consider to be the ideal ending to a "home
invasion" call and most of them will tell you "get there and find the
perpetrator spread eagled on the lawn being held at gunpoint by the
resident". Means no innocents were hurt, they get him, they don't
have to chase him, they don't have to fight him, they don't have to
investigate the resident (which they would have to if the perp was
dead), and it's going to be difficult for the perpetrator to get out
of the charge.
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.