Stop! Hammer Time

[filkertom]

Comments

[starcat_jewel]

I have come to the conclusion that anyone whose primary purpose in wanting to own a gun is to be able to kill other people if they deem it necessary should not be allowed to have one

[alverant]

The phrase "law abiding, sane, responsible gun owners" is a logical fallacy known as "no true Scotsman". Basically it's "anyone who embarrasses the group is automatically and instantly kicked out of the group retroactively" like there's some membership card that vanishes the second they do something bad. I see it mostly being used by pro-gun people and religious folk who are trying to distance themselves from their extremist breathern. Personally, I'm sick of it because, as you said, we don't know who the next ex-"sane responsible gun owner" is going to suddenly decide he doesn't like someone's race, religion, politics, sexuality, taste in music, etc and start shooting.

[juglore]

I was a gun owner for 26 years. I went shooting 3 times the year I got the gun. Then I never fired it again. I passed it along to the next generation as it had been given to me. But I only had possession of the gun for 9 years. Because after that time I developed suicidal ideation. I knew that people that think about killing themselves are twice as likely to die if there is a gun in the house (odd statistic from Psych 101). So I had a family member keep the gun at their house. During this time I had to move the gun three times. It was a minor hassle. But it did some small part to keep me alive. See law abiding and responsible gun owners don't have to be sane they just have to be law abiding and responsible.

[drewkitty]

Good call. Firearms ownership is not for everyone and I applaud you for recognizing that.

[drewkitty]

I have no idea when you are going to use your car to go run over some people, so please mail your driver's license back to the DMV. Thanks.

[alverant]

I had to take a test for my license which has to be renewed. I'm also required to have insurance. Guns are easier to get legally don't require insurance and no one has ever tried to sneak into a house with a car under their jacket.

[drewkitty]

I hold and issue such licenses. I also carry instructor level firearms insurance. It costs me $300 per year for $1 million coverage.

According to your LJ you live in Illinois. If you think it's easy to buy a gun in lllinois, again you don't know what you are talking about.

http://www.isp.state.il.us/foid/firearmsfaq.cfm

You don't have to wait thirty days to buy a car, and another 72 hours to take possession from the dealer. Just one of many examples.

[starcat_jewel]

My apologies -- there was an unexpressed assumption in my comment. Law enforcement officials carry weapons as part of their job; people like your wife have strong, credible reasons for having guns. I was talking about people who do not have such reasons, but who yet feel that they have to have guns around in order to feel "safe".

I should note that I have plenty of weapons around my house, but they're not guns. I have neither the time, the money, nor the interest to invest in making myself a competent shooter, and I don't consider the increased risk of burglary that goes with having guns to be acceptable.

[drewkitty]

So you favor disarming the police?

[starcat_jewel]

I apologize for making an over-generalization. See my reply to doomspark above for clarification.

[drewkitty]

OK. Let me ask another way. Why is the life of a police officer more valuable than your life or mine?

[starcat_jewel]

Beautiful unsupported leap there. Also YOUR unexpressed assumption -- that having a gun will magically keep you safe, despite the growing research that says not so much.

I wish you joy of it. There's no reasoning with religious fanatics.