To Draw or to Holster?

I grew up around guns and shot with my family. I hunted with my brothers when I was young. We'd been taught to respect guns and were allowed to go hunting by ourselves. I enjoyed tromping around the timber with my big brothers. I had my first bb gun when I was 6, but did not own another gun until recently.

I haven't hunted since I was a teen, but enjoy target and clay shooting with my kids. Looking forward to some competition with my youngest son, a Marine, when he's home on leave. My grandkids are just now starting to shoot but have watched us shoot for a while and have been taught to respect guns. My boys like to hunt and one of my daughters went deer hunting for the first time this year.

Shooting is a family activity that most of us enjoy. We've had some good quality time and are passing down values and skills to the next generation.

I support the second amendment and have no problem with law abiding citizens owning any weapon. Banning weapons will not prevent gun violence because criminals do not obey laws.

As a result, I don't understand the affection some other cultures have for them. To me, they are deadly weapons, and I have no desire to be around them. It isn't exactly that I am afraid of them - I just don't see the point. To me, it would be like sleeping under mosquito netting in Alaska. What's the purpose?

The purpose? Alaska has hellish mosquitoes. Sleeping under mosquito netting in Alaska would be eminently sensible!

In winter. I should have qualified that.

I grew up in a small midwestern town where everyone had a hunter in their family.
It was normal.
Guns were in our home, locked in a safe. I never felt the urge to get one.
My dad let me shoot a pistol once.

I did not grow up around guns at all, I shot a few when friend's families woudl invite me to to the range with them. My parents were OK with firearms, but did not own any themselves.

As an adult, I own several handguns and a couple small rifles including one of those 'scary black rifles' that seem to always make the prese.

I have a conceal carry permit, even though I dont need one in my state (AZ). I got it after the law was changed to allow non-permit carry simply because I wanted to make sure I was informed on the laws and safety aspects of carrying concealed. I admit that I rarely carry concealed even though I have a permit. The main reasons I dont carry is that so many establishments ban them that it is awkward to comply with thier individual requirements. I.e. if you are going to lunch with your family and the establishment has a non weapons sign, you either have to ignore the sign and hope no one can tell you are carrying, or you have to go back to your car and store the weapon. Anytime you remove or reposition the firearm you are potentially drawing attention to yourself and there are so many people that just assume anyone with a gun is a criminal that you could wind up in a police situation simply by trying to comply with a property owner's request.

Why do I have a gun in the first place? Two main reasons. One is much more likely than the other but they are both very important.

1) Criminals will always be armed. Why would I give them the advantage of disarming myself voluntarily? Guns are the great equalizer. My 125lb wife can defend herself against a 300 lb intruder with a firearm. That would not be very likely without one.

As the leader of my family it is -my- responsibility to take care of my family. IF there is time for the police to arrive and deal with a situation, great, but the chances are that ***&&**!! will happen before they are able to get there if you hear glass break in the middle o fthe night. The arguments about hunting, sport, culture etc. are all just a side-effect. The fundamental reason for owning a gun is self defense.

2) The second ammendment was established for a reason. It wasnt to ensure people could hunt in the woods for their food, it was to keep government in check. The Americans knew too well what happens when a government is allowed to keep all the guns and are allowed to grow & usurp power unchecked. The revolutionary war was sparked exactly over this issue. The Lexington / Concord battles were instigated when the British tried to sieze personally owned cannons and black powder (notice that the gun confiscation that prompted the revolution was of military grade munitions, cannons and huge black power stores, not a couple muskets).

The second ammendments primary purposed is to ensure that the American citizens were always the largest army in the land, not a foreign invader, and not even their own government. I doubt this right will ever be needed in our lifetime, but it is an essential right, and one that should always be protected. Allowing it to be neutered with limits on ammunition, or gun type only serve to reduce the effectiveness of this governmental deterant.


All that being said; I am not against reasonable accommodations to make sure that guns are purchased by law abiding citizens only. I dont love the background checks simply because of the big-brother aspect, but I do understand thier need to ensure that straw-buyers, criminals, and mentally ill people are not allowed to purchase. THIS type of topic is what the gun control debate should be around.. How do we keep the guns in good, well informed, self-regulated citizens' hands, and how do we keep them out of criminals and crazy peoples hands.

The color of the gun, how large its magazines are, if it has a pistol grip etc. are all feel-good, stupid ways to try to improve the situation. They do almost nothing to improve safety even if you were able to effectively enforce them. A lightly trained person can swap out 10 round magazines on a semi-automatic pistol or rifle so quickly that it doesn't matter.

Besides, this argument is false when you take a look at fully automatic weapons. Full autos are much more strictly regulated, so it's very, very rare to find crimes committed with them. If criminals really can get any gun they want regardless of the law, then how come extremely few of them have these clearly superior guns?

If you wish to argue that the rarity of a crime being committed with a particular class of weapon is an indicator that that class of weaponry's regulation is sufficient you are arguing AGAINST the further regulation of semi automatic rifles (inclusive of AKs and ARs). They are very rarely used in homicides. The most common class of weapon used in murders is a handgun, far and away. FBI figures for 2011 put the number of murders by handgun at 6220. The shotgun deaths for that same year, same source, 356 deaths, THEN rifles at 323 murders. The FBI figures don't break it down by semi automatic rifles and other actions, but even if every single death by rifle was from an AR or AK (which it was not) that class of firearms is not a major source of homicides.

When one examines the figures for homicide by other weapons the issue becomes even more ridiculous. Knives and other bladed instruments accounted for 1694 murders that year. Blunt instruments (hammers, clubs) accounted for 496 murders and body parts (hands and feet) accounted for 728 deaths by homicide that year. All higher than rifle mediated murders. When the facts are laid out, going after semi automatic rifles - but ONLY the ones that "look scary" - is an exercise in trying to provide a false sense of security to an ill informed populace. It amounts to window dressing.

^This^

My father was a champion skeet shooter so I grew up with mostly shotguns. I learned to shoot skeet at a young age.

My feeling as that we rely on guns as to much of a crutch for perceived protection. If a gun is on or near you then you might stand a chance at protecting yourself if your home is invaded (or attacked on the street). However, if it is locked away then you have to run to retrieve the firearm and then prepare to defend yourself. Simply put, you might not have time before an invader or attacker gets to you. Then what?

Firearms sometimes don't always work as expected and during a stressful situation you might not be calm enough to fire accurately. People often think they are prepared to handle a situation and that possessing a firearm makes them tough, but they never really know until an attack occurs. Police officers and military personnel get to practice being in stressful combative situations, most civilians with a firearm do not. Going to the gun range is not enough to build the confidence of handling a life or death situation. Police and military also practice recognition of when and when not to fire such as when there are other people or children in the area.

I am a big supporter of learning to use your body for self defense. If you lose your firearm somehow during an engagement or run out of ammo, then using your body maybe the only thing you have left. There are also ways for a smaller person to learn to fight off a larger attacker. I'm not sure that relying solely on a firearm is the be all end all of protection and safety.