The myth of the "vulnerable" gun free zone

Yes. When someone's loved ones die that is when they start, out of grief, trying to get guns banned, thinking it will make any significant difference, and not realizing the long term harm they would be doing. You HAVE to put your personnal feelings aside - I don't want to start us down a path where, yeah, maybe a few less people die (only a few, mind you), but they end up ruled by a tyranical government they can't fight because they've been disarmed.

 

Then I sorrow for you

You are trading your children for a myth

Please think it through and explain to me, how on earth having 30,000 people die a year, levels equivalent to a chronic war zone ensures "freedoms"

Tell me

What would trigger you to take you gun and go and "ensure your freedoms"

What would you do with that gun other than wave it in the air?

Who would you target - Washington? State Governor? Local Sheriff?

I am not sure what Americans have in mind with this but I keep thinking of all those countries where a handful of armed "rebel forces" or "insurgents" have destabilised the country into civil war

 

If it were a myth the United States of America would have never come into existence.

Whoever threatened my family would be fair game, no matter if federal or local govt or some thug. I reserve my right to try to protect them from all threats.

 

It is no myth. Armed Populations have the ability to fight off tyranny - the American Revolution proves that. Disarmed ones do not. If the American Revolution happened today, I would gladly join it. Many people, and you appear to be one of them, never think their government will ever become corrupted and authoritarian, so they see no reason to take measures to prevent such a thing from happening. Unfortunately, history is not on your side. The Romans had a republic for centuries - then they let in a dictator because he gave them free food. Lenin started a revolution "for the people", then promptly took everyone's guns as well as everything else they owned and gave it all to himself.

 

I feel sorrow for you.

You trade your children's freedom for the false notion that your government can keep them safe.

 

Tell me who you protect them and sacrifice them at the same time??

 

I don't think he means he wants to offer them up to a thug as a sacrifice... Like most people, he is saying he would protect his family at all cost, if like me, even with his own life and without regrets... But at the same time, if something did happen to one of his family members that involved a gun, it wouldn't be the legalility of the gun that caused the problem. As in the case with my family, if something did happen it would be because we were obeying the laws that do restrict us from having our own guns to protect our families such as in gun free zones.

Bad things happen all the time. Even before guns were invented people used other means to execute others. Unfortunately, that is just part of the human nature. I don't agree with it; hence I don't go around killing other people, but I understand that it does happen.

While nothing at all will protect you 100%, the best way that I can think of to protect my family is with a gun. Living where I do, I don't really feel the need to have a gun with me all the time, and if it were just me alone I probably wouldn't. I might accept giving my own life to not have to take the life of another even if they are a complete thug, but when I got a family.... All that changed.
I'm betting the kids and teachers at Sandy Hook felt the same way I do about not needing a gun, but we see how that went.
Will I ever have to use my gun... I sure hope not. Would I use my gun to defend my family? You bet. Would I regret having to take anothers life if forced to do so? I'm sure I would, but I'm not willing to accept the consequences if I didn't do EVERYTHING possible to protect my family and as I said earlier at whatever the cost might be.

 

some fail to accept the fact that legitimate gun owners view the use of a firearm as the LAST resort, but will in lieu of all else failing. Sometimes we don't get the luxury of time to debate with our criminal class at the time of the offense.

 

Question for you Bower, What would your self defense Weapon(s) of choice be?

When I go out, It is as follows.

Fist, Pen, Kershaw Skyline (Or my japanese carpentry knife), Benchmade LFK (5.2 inch blade) Since I do not have my License to carry it is not an option at this time.

At home it is as follows.

Bulldog, Fist fight, Buck 119 (6 inch blade) Benchmade LFK (always stays in pocket so better as a backup in this scenario) 1911 (8 rounds of hollow points)

Reason fist fight is 1st and 2nd are simply because if it gives my wife time to reach for one of the many knives we own or the pistol..

 

Its funny you say that, because to be honest out in public... the gun is the very last resort. At home though, I have to politely disagree... If I am in my own home and someone has taken the courtesy to let themselves in through a locked door...If I were alone, I'd probably agree, but if my family is home, my first choice is the Mossburg 500 with XX buckshot... Then the backup is a PT 24/7 pro ds loaded with 15 rounds of hollowpoints.
You see I feel like this.... I live in a pretty good area where people just don't bother each other, but if someone does break into my house they are not there for any good reason. If I don't neutralize the problem then it leaves my family to take the blunt of whatever the invader might have in mind. I will do whatever I have to in order for my wife to be safe then and in the future. (I mean the mental stress it would cause)

 

I agree but for me the pistol is all we have at the moment (looking at a mossberg 500 to play with converting it around but thats another story) So if I can get time for the misses to grab the gun and rack it, Thats time well spent.

 

Got ya... Good luck with that berg by the way... Great protector.

 

And this is what I do not "get". Everywhere else in the world the belief is "more guns LESS safety" and it is bourn out in study after study. But there is a simpler measure - look at the list of mass shootings and note how rare they are in countries with strict gun control compared to countries without

Australia, New Zealand., UK, Europe you can walk the streets WITHOUT a gun

My "defence" weapon? I have a heavy "camp oven lid lifter" and a sharp long fork when I go camping and am thinking about a sling shot but don't want to go overboard on the self defence

 

Since about 1950 all mass shootings (four or more) with the exceptions of the Giffords shooting has been in gun free zones.

I claim massive OP FAIL!

 

You know thats the thing.... All you can do is say "Oh look at the studies"... The studies don't mean jack to me. Like I have said in the past, if you want to give up your rights to own a gun then so be it, but don't point to a study and say it is a viable reason to take guns away from people that aren't doing anything wrong with them they are NEVER INCLUDED IN THE STUDIES....
You know even if there was a way to guarentee that there wouldn't be a single gun on the planet, I'd have to disagree with that option... I simply love to shoot my guns too much. If that means I have to carry one to protect myself from other idiots that might have one and do something bad with it, then thats just the price I have to pay to enjoy that ability. As I have said in the past, "The cost of freedom is never free". The simple matter still remains that guns are not the reason that people get killed. Its the evil minds of those that use that tool, so even if every gun on the planet was gone, there would still be people that killed others.

Oh by the way... Its kinda hard to compare the US to countries like Australia and New Zealand.... What New Zealand is the size of maybe Texas.... LOL Ok maybe a bit bigger, but really.... Not to mention that neither of them have the social probelms that we do in the US which is the cause of 3/4ths of the gun violence.

 

None of the listed countries have a second ammendment, none of the listed countries have the cultural diversity, none of the other countries have the gang issues, none of the other countries have the same population.

When you compare sample groups it usually helps if the samples are similar in most ways.

 

Not to well I wouldn't imagine, at least in the UK.

 

And what exactly are you including in this statistic and where does it come from?

 

Get a set of "Lady" Knuckles and your set

 

Yes, there are one or two less guns where we live. Don't you think that might have something to do with it? And how does our fewer shootings have anything to do with gun free zones in the US?

Okay, so five more shootings took place in a gun free zone. What exactly is your point? You should know that the Crime Prevention Research Center has reported that nearly 98% of all mass public shootings in the U.S. since 1950 occurred in a gun-free zone. That's a slightly longer period of study than what you quoted, which was from 2009-2013!

 

Like the U.K. which has almost 10K gun crimes a year, or Canada which just had a mass shooting that left 23 people dead including a law enforcement officer.

 

Not if they have a gun.

 

Total BS.

And get more innocent people killed, no thanks you can keep your anti-gun agenda where you live and mind your business about where I live.

 

No, because all it would do is disarm the law abiding, criminals will still be able to get guns just like they do where you live.

Besides we have much larger problem then a few mass shootings.