By Connie Schultz

Every Woman With A Gun Has A Story

February 14, 2013 1:26 pm Category: Memo Pad 72 Comments A+ / A-
Every Woman With A Gun Has A Story

Gina Odom didn’t like guns until she felt that her baby’s safety was threatened.

Daniela Halliburton armed herself when she returned to a home ripped apart by Hurricane Katrina.

Susan Fowler and Mary (last name withheld) grew up with weapons in the house. Ask about their first guns, and their voices soften to describe cherished childhood memories.

Earlier this week, I posted a Facebook request to interview female gun owners. In two hours, more than 150 responded, including these four women. Like many who reached out, they are liberals, which is why I wanted to talk to them. We agree on many issues, but I do not share their comfort level with guns.

It is increasingly clear that for many — men and women, Democrats and Republicans — gun control is an issue of personal experience, not politics. We never are going to find common ground without trying to understand one another.

Odom is 40 and lives in Cordele, GA. She did not grow up with guns, but her husband did. To her initial dismay, when they bought a house, his guns moved in with them.

Odom changed her mind after an encounter with a stranger as she pushed her newborn daughter in a stroller.

“It was clear he’d been watching us,” she said. “He could describe my furniture. I was terrified. My husband was working nights. I went into mama bear mode. I told him, ‘I can’t be here alone at night with no way to defend myself.’”

She researched and bought a .22-caliber pistol. Her husband hung a man’s shirt for target practice. “If you can hit that shirt,” he told her, “you can protect yourself.”

Odom and her husband share the same politics, except on gun control. “We both voted for Obama, both times, but my husband is part of that culture of fear,” Odom said. “Like a lot of his friends, he’ll say, ‘Obama’s going to get our guns.’”

She blames the National Rifle Association. “I see the stuff he gets in the mail. They keep telling him, ‘If you give up any little right, the government will take away your guns.’ They’re promoting fear, and it shuts down the conversation.”

Mary, who asked that her last name not be used, is married, with one daughter and another on the way. She is an equities trader in Denver, but she grew up in rural Tennessee. Guns were a way of life. She has four, including a Winchester Special, which she bought with her own money at 16. In our interview, she used the word “responsible” nearly two dozen times.

“The whole gun culture has changed,” she said. “It used to be you learned how to be responsible. Now it’s, ‘Get a gun.’ They aren’t learning self-defense. They’re not taking gun safety classes. If you aren’t willing to go to safety class, you’re exactly the person who shouldn’t have a gun.”

Daniela Halliburton is a 42-year-old lesbian who works as a data analyst at Tulane University in New Orleans. She grew up in rural Louisiana. At 6, she was the proud owner of a BB gun. Her father gave her a “real gun” when she was 12 and taught her how to use it.

“He taught me how to aim, how to load and clean a gun, how to shoot better,” she said. “It was part of family life.”

After Katrina destroyed her home, she returned to salvage what was left of it. She carried a gun on her at all times. “Eight years later, I still think that was the right thing for me to do,” she said.

Pages →  1 2

Every Woman With A Gun Has A Story Reviewed by on . Gina Odom didn't like guns until she felt that her baby's safety was threatened. Daniela Halliburton armed herself when she returned to a home ripped apart by H Gina Odom didn't like guns until she felt that her baby's safety was threatened. Daniela Halliburton armed herself when she returned to a home ripped apart by H Rating:

More by Connie Schultz

Parenting Is Full Of Goodbyes

This is the month of departure for many parents, the time of year when they brace themselves for new versions of their children getting on with life. In recent days, my encounters — from random conversations at the grocery to lengthy email exchanges with friends — are full of other parents’ tales of goodbyes. Facebook,

Read more...

Ferguson: A Failure Of Empathy

Earlier this week, I arrived for a scheduled visit with a medical professional and left reeling over just how divided we remain in this country about race. I had just settled into the examining chair when he walked into the room and said, “This country, I’m telling you, we are in real trouble here.” I

Read more...

Our Gayest Summer Ever

Ten years after Ohio voters passed one of the worst anti-gay laws in the country, a downtown arena in Cleveland welcomed 10,000 athletes, fans and corporate sponsors to kick off the weeklong 2014 Gay Games. Yes, we still have that awful law. Yes, they came anyway. Hope doesn’t need an invitation, and justice never waits

Read more...

Tags

Comments

  • Pingback: Every Woman With A Gun Has A Story | PROGRESSIVE VOICES

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_2XQAUUZDVBGZWAL6KWKI3J56LI Blaze Stryker

    How to say this?

    Terrorism isn’t just trying to kill people to make a political point or make life Hell for innocents over some point of ideology.

    Terrorism is making an institution out of scaring people in order to gain and retain power.
    The NRA leadership and their corporate masters in the Gun Industry are passive-aggressive terrorists, end-stop.

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_KOPKDFAUQPIIRAFI3HEXNMSHLQ Ed

      Hitler’s favorite tool. Every germen learned the “Juden” were threats to Germany and the caus eof all their woes.

  • Gambler2

    I’m a liberal who voted twice for President Obama, and I own two pistols. I grew up with guns on a rural farm. At age 13, I joined a gun club and got pretty good at target shooting. The idea that Democrats don’t own guns is nonsense.

    • WhutHeSaid

      You are correct, and drooling wing-nuts don’t know how to deal with progressive gun owners. What they need to understand is that responsible gun owners who support the theory behind the 2nd Amendment do not necessarily oppose sensible gun control reform.

      As a life-long supporter of the 2nd Amendment, I believe that we can achieve sensible reform that helps prevent the obscene tragedies that are becoming all too common in this country. The NRA, along with nut-bags like the mouthy, draft-dodging pedophile Ted Nugent, only serve to strengthen the argument against gun ownership. Anyone as mentally unstable as Nugent should have their 2nd Amendments right snatched away permanently. Responsible people don’t act that way, nor do they threaten secession or ’2nd Amendment Remedies’ as an answer to political failure.

      • old_blu

        Even as much as we have idiots like Ted the “draft-dodging pedophile” shit ass Nugent, (they can’t all be that crazy) you would think some of these gun nuts would realize that the status quo is not working, because it’s not working too many people are dying, because of gun violence.

        • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_2XQAUUZDVBGZWAL6KWKI3J56LI Blaze Stryker

          They refuse to realize that. We even have birther types harassing the victims of shootings, trying to badger the poor souls into denying these horrors occurred.

          • old_blu

            I seen that on another web site and someone was argueing with me about how Sandyhook was a government plot to take away our guns, I think they called themselves “truthers”

          • WhutHeSaid

            Maybe these nut-bags have good cause for worry. I, for one, would support terminating the 2nd Amendment rights of anyone who exhibits mentally unstable behavior with respect to the 2nd Amendment. In other words, if they want gun ownership so bad that they harass victims or deny reality — it’s time to terminate their 2nd Amendment rights on that basis.

            Anyone who wants a gun so badly that they proclaim it will have to be ‘pried from [their] cold, dead fingers’ should be immediately taken up on their offer. This country doesn’t need members of the nut-ball ‘lunatic fringe’ to be armed, and responsible public behavior should be a very basic requirement for gun ownership.

          • old_blu

            And I was thinking the other day those same “nut-bags” are teaching their children those things, and then we wonder why kids take guns to school, they think it is the way to handle a problem. (no more meet me behind the Y for a fist fight)

          • BDC_57

            I went after a guy the day after sandyhook that the government was for his guns what idiot.

          • old_blu

            I hope you didn’t go after him with a gun.

          • BDC_57

            No if I was a gun nut I probly would have.

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_KOPKDFAUQPIIRAFI3HEXNMSHLQ Ed

        “Political Failure”. That’s when the majority of Americans (In huge numbers) do not agree with you.

        • WhutHeSaid

          Yes, indeed it is: When prime-time lying to the American public and hundreds of millions of dollars worth of attack ads paid for by anonymous billionaires still results in many more millions of Americans voting for your opponent than for you — that is indeed ‘political failure’. Republican candidates across the country are becoming extremely well acquainted with this fact.

      • DEFENDER88

        On this, “sensible reform” and Ted Nugent, I agree almost 100%.

        He could be the anti-gun poster boy.

        Fortunately I know of no-one at my club(of 2,000) who even comes close to acting like him. And I am pretty deep in Dixie.

        A lot of “progressives” in here get pretty arrogant and sanctimonious but he is a real red-neck form of it.

        • WhutHeSaid

          Yeah, there are arrogant extremists on both side of this issue. I basically see it this way: There IS a problem with mass shootings (as well as shootings in general) in the US. Extremists on one side say taking away all guns will solve the problem. Extremists on the other say arming everyone will solve the problem. Of course the real answer is somewhere in the middle.

          We already have the right to bear arms, though, so the uphill fight is on the gun-control side. This is where responsible gun owners can help shape the argument by offering possible solutions that address ALL of the issues involved, from mental health to background checks to increased regulation of the more dangerous firearms. People who are rigidly anti-gun are just as much at fault for the lack of progress as are those who are rigidly pro-gun. The real goal here is to get results — not to succeed in fulfilling some ideological litmus test.

          Since gun owners currently have their right to bear arms, they can help create REAL solutions (ones that work) by distancing themselves from nuts like Ted Nugent, and suggesting practical solutions. Gun control advocates can hardly dismiss anything that may help out-of-hand. I believe that extra regulation on military-style assault weapons is reasonable, as well as a requirement for medical professionals to share limited information with law enforcement for the purpose of helping to ensure that unstable individuals don’t have easy access to firearms. Some regulations on this with real teeth would help, and the medical profession doesn’t need to share much information. A simple “we feel that so-and-so should not be allowed access to firearms at this time” would suffice.

          Rigid ideology is the enemy of practical solutions. Both sides need to encourage their more rabid members to ‘just shut up’. We can do this if we’re serious about it.

    • idamag

      I grew up with guns and was taught to shoot at 8 years old. However, I am not a gun nut.

  • old_blu

    The NRA is trying to scare people into believing that the government is trying to take all guns from everyone except the criminals, that’s simply not the truth, people with guns who go through life afraid are dangerous, these women in this story sound like very level headed people, too bad their male counter parts are not so much.

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_2XQAUUZDVBGZWAL6KWKI3J56LI Blaze Stryker

      The gun lobby and their shills, both in the head offices of the NRA and in office, are the ones trying to whip up irrationality.

      They do not, however, have to create that specific a fear in guys because the sad truth is that *men* are the ones that feel powerful when they get guns.

      When men feel their ego-crutch yanked out from under them, they fall into unreasoning defensive modes.

      Seriously, when a gun ad proclaims that buying one is re-issuing the buyer’s “man card”, what other demographic can these people be.. forgive me.. shooting for?

      • old_blu

        You are preaching to the choir I own many guns, but I’m not afraid.

        It’s fear put that the NRA pushes on them that makes them feel they need those rifles that can shoot 5 rounds a second, I’ve shot them before and although they are fun to shoot no one really needs one, even for home protection a shotgun would be better.

        • DEFENDER88

          1st the civilian version of assault rifles will not shoot 5rds/sec. They are semi-auto.

          2nd – Rifles in general account for a small fraction of the killing in this country.

          This is about stopping the killing, is it not?

          Or is it just about banning weapons so “you” can feel good?

          If you think the NRA is driving the populace to make a run on assault rifles you are seriously mis-informed.
          More like un-informed to clueless or have your own self-serving agenda.
          Sites like this and all the talk of bans is driving the fear.

          Some fundamental marketing – unless you are buying to sell(make a profit as a business) people dont buy things they dont perceive they “need”.

          The big driver of the rush to get assault rifles and ammo is coming from the fear that people will be left defensless by the gun control advocates and all the gun ban talk like in here.

          It has nothing to do with ego. And the NRA is not driving the need people feel either.

          It has everything to do with personal responsibility, self reliance and self defense.

          Who are you to tell me or anyone else what they need for their self defense?

          Just because you dont like them (assault rifles) does not mean “I” dont have a need for that kind of protection.

          I am glad you feel safe where you are, but, You apparently have no idea what kind of threats I and many others must be prepared to defend against. I have an inherent right to self defense at a level that I need to face my likely threats.

          There are inherent responsibilities associated with owning, carrying etc a gun but as long as I secure it and dont attack anyone with it it is none of your business what I own.

          Or do you think you are God?

          Or are you just simply self righteous arrogant ignorant?

          I did not say you are dumb – ignorant meaning you just dont know what others have to deal with, and apparently dont care.

          And dont come at me about children being killed, it hurts me as much as you to see that.

          But a ban on guns will not stop it. Want to stop it? See Below.

          By the way, most of the “Mass” killings have been done in those ignorant Gun Free Zones where no protection is provided.

          Cant get much more ignorant – letting that continue.
          Another anti-gun idea gone horriby wrong.

          Want to stop the killing?

          1 – Provide armed security in Gun Free Zones and allow “permitted” conceal carry

          2 – Control/restrain young men now being put on anti-depressants at home.

          An assault rifle ban did not work before and will not work now. And will have no effect on the killing.

          Do you always keep doing things that dont work?

          • WhutHeSaid

            Even though I support the 2nd Amendment, I don’t agree that people ‘need’ assault rifles for self-defense or that the 2nd Amendment grants them the unlimited right to choose whatever weapon they wish to own.

            Assault rifles are designed for military assault scenarios. These types of weapons are designed to kill many people at intermediate ranges. There aren’t any situations where a civilian faces a squad of heavily armed assailants — it just doesn’t happen.

            Also, US law has always recognized that the 2nd Amendment is not a guarantee of the right of citizens to own any weapon at all. Should people be free to roam around with Stinger missiles? Of course not. Hand grenades? No, because a civilian has no legitimate use for them, and thus they would merely be tragedies waiting to happen.

            One final point: An assault weapon like the AR-15 is attractive to mentally unbalanced people precisely because of the military style. There are other weapons that are similar (such as the Mini-14) that don’t have the same ‘macho’ appeal, yet are otherwise very similar in power, range, and operation. One aspect of this discussion is the relationship between mental instability and assault weapons. It seems that these psychologically impaired individuals very much favor what they perceive to be ‘macho’ weapons (as if any aren’t). I’m not sure what (if anything) this means with respect to prevention, but it’s an interesting point to consider and study.

            Perhaps there is room for compromise in this area. It would be possible to require a higher level of regulation for assault-type weapons while not banning them outright. In other words, perhaps owning an assault weapon could require additional safety training and background scrutiny (including psychological, perhaps) as well as strict storage requirements designed to prevent somebody other than the owner making use of the weapon. An effective solution doesn’t have to be completely pro-gun or anti-gun — it just needs to be effective at reducing tragedies like what happened in Newtown.

          • DEFENDER88

            You and I could probably reach a reasonable compromise but I have my doubts about our gridlocked, dis-functional, govt.
            And the polarization of pro and anti gun has gotten really bad.

            “I” could go for psycho test for owning any gun.
            Good thing I dont have to give my name here. I would be kicked out of NRA and my gun club.

            I see a link between the psyco impaired and video games. Lanza played them constantly. When you start one of those games they present you with a choice of weapons. Typically the AR is at top of the list. So that is what most use to play the game with. I think they are choosing it(for real) because it is what they are familiar with in game playing. I understand many of the other young men who did the killing played these games also.

          • WhutHeSaid

            I ‘sort of” agree with you on this. I don’t believe that violent video games in and of themselves are causes of violence, and I believe that there are a number of studies on this. What I DO believe, though, is that the young male loner, with an unhealthy fixation on violent video games and other aggressive hobbies, is a demographic ‘red flag’. Add mental health issues to this already volatile mix of hormones, angst, and immaturity and we should not be surprised at some of the results.

            So how do we target this particular issue? Any suggestions where we could create policies to head off trouble?

          • DEFENDER88

            From a previous post of mine:
            If you really want to reduce these mass killings, stop giving these new designer drugs/anti-depressants to your kids at home. Unless you are going to restrain them.
            Most of the mass killings have been done by young men on these drugs. They kill their parents then head to the local school, church, theater, etc.
            Prozac(Virginia Tech), Effexer(Columbine), Zoloft, Ritalin, Livox, etc.
            I am old enough to know that this was not a problem before about 15 or so yrs ago when this started becoming a real problem.
            That is what has changed in this country.
            There have always been many assault rifles in this country.
            In the past if kids needed to be drugged they were institutionalized where they could be controlled. It is out of control now.
            ———

            We played army when young and it did not warp us so, like you, I dont think video games are the fundamental problem but are a contributing and even maybe a driving factor for the already disturbed ones.

            But even more important, some kind of control is needed around distribution of drugs to these young men and control of them. They used to be institunalized/contained/restrained if disturbed enough to be drugged(so they could not go out and kill children). This kind of thing just did not happen when I was growing up.

            Solutions??
            Raise a red flag anytime a script is filled for anti-depressants?
            Investigate. Bet it would stop a lot of this sh-t.
            Even for adults, since sometimes kids are stealing the drugs from parents.
            We should try to control this maybe even more than guns.
            Exactly how to do this I dont know but something(more and serious control) is needed here.
            I am thinking the drug “user” should have to pay for it though(the investigation), like a gun permit carry has to pay for the permit, training etc.

            Now parents are left to self medicate them at home with all the new “designer”(anti-depression) drugs and, surprise!!, you create a mad man you cannot control. That is what apparently happened at Sandy Hook. I heard she was trying to get him put away and when he found out, he killed her then headed to school. And he played one of the new video battle games almost constantly.

            There was another case (Post – ie since Sandy Hook), of a kid out west(Utah I think) on a designer drug who wanted to kill everyone he saw. He headed to the mall but made a side-track stop at his church and luckily they talked him out of it. Did not make much news though.

            As for video games, I had a personal experience with a kid(young boy) who was a very good kid. But his mom started letting him play Dungeons and Dragons all the time. She and he lived with me for a time. When I had heard what it was doing to the behavior of young men, Plus I could see him deteriorate. I put a stop to it. Boy did it piss him off and within about 2-3 weeks he was in jail for a violent confrontation with the cops. Took him several(20) yrs to straighten out.
            So for “some”, video games “can” be a primary influencing factor.
            Not sure what to do about that – Minimum age maybe?? Say 30yr old??
            Since many of the killers are in their 20′s but not many over 30.

          • WhutHeSaid

            Dungeons and Dragons isn’t a violent video game — it’s a role playing game. I haven’t heard that it related to any violence. The mental instability is the key, but having access to something like the AR-15 is the piece that enables all of the carnage. In the case of Newtown, I’m willing to bet that this would have been a non-event if the mother didn’t have an AR-15 readily available. This is where the rubber meets the road (so to speak). If a mental health professional could have alerted local law enforcement that they had a potential problem on their hands, perhaps a simple phone call to the mother would have been enough to have her remove the weapon from the home temporarily or even put it under lock and key.

            I really doubt that any one solution will stop these tragic events completely. It will probably need several different approaches all taken at once. But we can’t rule out the logic that says if the AR-15 wasn’t available such carnage wouldn’t have been possible. That’s a very good argument, but not the only one, and it doesn’t mean that AR-15′s need to be completely banned in order to find a solution. I personally wouldn’t care much about ever owning an AR-15, but for those who feel that they must have one perhaps extra regulation isn’t too much to ask.

            There are a lot of good ideas out there, I think, and we need to filter out the noisiest zealots and come up with some adult answers to this problem. We have to act — that much is clear — and better sooner than later. These events are happening FAR too often.

          • DEFENDER88

            I mostly agree, especially with “These events are happening FAR too often.”

            “if the AR-15 wasn’t available such carnage wouldn’t have b een poss ible. That’s a very good argument,”

            It is a good argument ” in this case” but many of the other mass killings have been done with a pistol. I can shoot a pistol almost as fast as you can shoot an AR.

            It is also a good argument for more intensive training on gun safety, storage, etc and especially when unstable people may have access.

            ps the more I compete, the more intense I become on gun safety, handling, storage, etc. it is drilled into you.

            Pistol Killings – VT, Giffords, Fort Hood, many more.

            And I could well argue that a pistol would have done as much damage at Sandy Hook as a rifle, at that range. I confirmed this with some of the Police I train with.
            Acutally if you really think – for little 6-8 yr old kids, most of whom are shot 7-8 times or more. A low cal 22 pistol would have likely killed them.
            You probably know you can get many mags for a pistol and shoot it near as fast as an AR.

            The situations where an AR is better are
            1) Against Body Armor – usually not present in schools
            2) Medium to longer ranges – usually not present in schools
            3) Against a challenger(AR gives you some physical protection from return fire)
            usually not present in schools or other Gun Free Zones.

            Point is- This is not an AR problem(fundamentally), this is mostly a young men on drugs killing people problem, among others- lack of Armed security in Gun Free Zones, etc.

            So 2 things that worry me about the discussions.

            Most importantly:
            1) The Real Objective – Many people in here(not you) and elsewhere are concentrating so much on AR’s they are missing the more important fundamental, underlying problems/issue -ie real solutions that will actually work to stop the killing. And my belief that a ban on ARs will not stop or even slow down this problem. Perhaps on the margin but not fundamentally.
            And I think many in here are just after AR’s so they can say they did “something” to make themselves feel good. Whether or not it actually does help with the problem.
            I do not count you in that group.
            You(like me) seem to be seeking “real” solutions that will actually work to stop the killing.

            And from my stand point personally:
            2) One of my primary forms of defense will be taken away.
            I use mine for competition, hunting, and defense(as I have explained before, I have come under attack in the mountains by rifle fire). I definitely dont want to be without it when I go up there. If they know I have one, they dont mess with me.
            That is how I like it(ie Deterrence), I dont want to be in a gun fight. Been there dont like it.
            Also, I am fully permitted, highly trained, keep it under lock when not in use, train with police sometimes, etc, although I am not a LEO. My AR is not a threat to anyone not attacking me. It “does” deter the red necks I have to deal with.
            As long as the gangs and other threats I may have to deal with have them, I want to keep mine. Get them out of their hands and I might not feel the need so much.
            I dont see them giving theirs up, ever, even with a ban. All that will do is disarm me. Or make me an instant criminal.

          • WhutHeSaid

            I don’t agree with people who just blindly want to take away AR-15s (or other assault weapons) when they don’t even know the difference between that and a Mini-14 or any other rifle. But you can’t discount their simplistic view either, because the 2nd Amendment is part of their Bill of Rights too, and they have say in the matter.

            I do not agree that a pistol would cause as much damage as an AR-15. The AR-15 is FAR more deadly than any pistol, in almost any situation. Again, we are not talking about trained firearms instructors or soldiers — we are talking about a mentally disturbed boy, really. Children would have a much better chance to survive a pistol attack by hiding behind furniture in school (for example) and it would be easier for an adult to disarm the attacker when he has a pistol — as happened in the Giffords shooting. Perhaps the Newtown shooting wouldn’t have even happened without an AR-15: It may be that weapon that made the boy feel capable of shooting up the world. We’ll never know.

            As for you comments on gangs and your need for an AR-15 for defense, that’s not a very common situation at all, but you sound like you could pass any enhanced test for maturity and safety — whether psychological or not. When I first read your posts I thought they were bullshit, but as you posted more I saw that you were making sense. But realize that very few people would ever find themselves in a situation where they were returning fire with another assault rifle in the Unites States — it is very unusual.

            One of the reasons that I single out the AR-15 is because these types of killers also seem to single out those rifles. Perhaps it makes them seem invincible — I don’t know. What I do know is that it would probably be easier to get better regulation on the specific arms that seem to cause most of the carnage than to try to address all arms. The gun lobby is very powerful (but not invincible — they should remember that). Like you, I just want a solution that works.

          • DEFENDER88

            I dont have a problem with more controls on who can get an AR. While not as powerful as most hunting rifles it is still a powerful and potentially deadly gun. And seems to be preferred by the crazies. I would not see more stringent controls as a bad thing. Enhanced – Psyc test, safety in handling, shooting, etc. I dont think anything will actually be done on AR’s but I am with you on it, sort of, in that I really dont think just anyone should be able to have one either. But for those of us who have a need and can pass all that(ie “proven” responsible and not a threat), we should not be denied the protection we need. Providing Armed security in schools is ramping up, at the local levels anyway. “My” bigger fear, at this point, is the drug problem will not be addressed as it should be or even at all. I have not heard it discussed much on the national level. Killing, children especially, is a national tragedy beyond what mere words can adequately describe. I know we agree on that.

          • WhutHeSaid

            Yeah, I think that we could come up with a good mix of solutions worth trying. But of course, *we* aren’t the people that really need convincing. It’s the NRA and politicians on either side that will make this difficult. I guess that people like us just have to keep trying to talk sensible solutions and hope the NRA and politicians are listening.

          • DEFENDER88

            One last clarification for tonight.
            I *incorrectly* said a 22 would do as much damage as an AR.
            You are correct, of course it will not.
            I meant to say – if you shoot a child 7-8 times with a 22 they would still likely die. And some were hit 20 times. Think about it little guys 6-8 yr old could not likely survive even 5-6 hits from even a 22. A full grown male maybe but not children. And dead is dead from an AR or 22 so the same “ultimate” damage ie dead children.

            A 22 was a popular caliber for mobster hits in Chicago etc. 1 shot to head. It does not over-penetrate and rattles around inside. Lot of damage and a sure kill and lower noise level.

            Some ballistics:
            You may know all this but here is what I have found anyway.
            The Army says if a bullet will penetrate 1/2″ plywood it can kill you. Which a 22lr will easily do, at short range.
            My ballistic testing has shown that a 22lr will shoot clean thru a 2×4 and 1/2 way into a 2nd. That is roughly 2″ of penetration. The same penetration as a 38 HydraShok(Defensive Hollow Point) some police carry.. (Most police now carry 40cal. Glocks.)

            So, FYI, for your safety, dont expect to hide safe behind a 2×4 even from a 22. Say home invasion gun fight.

            FYI some others(Penetration, dry pine wood)
            My testing
            22lr – 2 in
            38 HP – 2 in
            380 FMJ – 3 1/2 in- ie 2 – 2×4′s
            40cal FMJ & HP – 4 1/2 in – ie 3 – 2×4′s

            This is why, in defensive shooting, you need to consider “over-penetration” even at home, you could kill your neighbor. We(Defensive Shooters) call it, “watch out for “shoot-throughs”.

          • WhutHeSaid

            I don’t disagree that any bullet is capable of killing — especially children. My point is that a .223 round from a rifle is far, far more likely to kill you than any pistol round. It’s just a simple fact, and it’s the reason that most body armor is effective against pistol rounds but not .223 rifle rounds. That pistol bullet that goes through a 2×4 might not have enough kinetic energy left to kill you, but a .223 round would hardly even slow down. Yes, I know that .22 pistols were often used for mob hits, but then those hits consisted of sneaking up behind a person and shooting them in the back of the head at point-blank range.

            Look, I’m not a novice around firearms. I know the difference in ballistics and practical use of different firearms. My point is that a .223 rifle — or any rifle for that matter — is far deadlier than any pistol. Some of the largest pistol rounds like, say, a .45 ACP are the slowest and most easily defeated by body armor. .45 bullets are very deadly, yes, but no match for a .223 round fired from a rifle. Also, pistols are not very accurate at more than short range even for experienced shooters. If you put this all together it just means that you have a much better chance of surviving an assault with a pistol, especially if you are able to seek cover.

            Of course there are many hunting rifles that are far more powerful than the .223 as well. But these rifles aren’t usually designed for military-style assaults where dozens of rounds at a time may be needed. They are designed for one or two shots for a clean kill with medium and large game, and for accuracy at long range. The people who commit these mass killings don’t seem to be drawn to 7mm magnums or .308s — they prefer the assault rifles. The reason is probably more psychological than anything else, but you have to admit that mass killing is the whole intent behind the design of these weapons, in other words — military assault. Against civilians that assault capability turns into a tragic massacre.

          • old_blu

            I guess it depends how fast you can move your finger.

            I’m not living in fear no matter where I live.

            And it’s not going to be a “ban on guns”

            My son has AR15′s and an AK he ask me why I don’t want one. I said I like them but don’t need one I said if someone invades my house my shotgun or my 1911 will do fine. He ask what if 15 people invade my house, I said Really? Who is going to have 15 people come at me I’m not in a gang I’m not the God father, he said the government. I laughed.

            So if you’re one of those that believe the government is coming after you, then you may need them I guess. And good luck with that, but life is better without being afraid.

          • WhutHeSaid

            I had a similar conversation with one of my sons. I had a long talk with him about just what chances a 15-year old boy — or anyone, for that matter — had against armed professionals no matter how well armed they themselves might be. I also pointed out how a single mistake is all that you might get in determining whether, in fact, you were in such an unlikely scenario. Most of the time a gun can be used only once against another person, and what happens after that will change your life forever. I hope it did some good.

            In my opinion, people who believe that the government is coming after them are already skating on thin ice. Either the government really is coming after them because they are suspected of some crime, or they are dangerously out of touch with reality. Naturally I’m not talking about people in the business of espionage, where such things actually do happen.

            Children need to be taught common sense for their own safety, and getting this notion of glorious battles with oppressive governments out of their head is in their own interests. There is nothing glorious about war and killing, especially if you are fighting an enemy that isn’t really your enemy.

      • idamag

        Blaze, the “man card” thing says it all. And it shows how gullible some people can be. Using fear and hate to destroy a democracy was done in the past.

        • BDC_57

          Most gun nuts believe that the government is coming to take their rights away.

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_KOPKDFAUQPIIRAFI3HEXNMSHLQ Ed

        The culture drives a lot of this. Examples “Aman’s got to do what a mans got to do”. and “Make my Day” Message being guns are the only solution.

    • whodatbob

      old_blu, your assumption that the male counter parts of these level headed ladies are not level headed places you in the catagory of being unlevel headed extremist.

      • old_blu

        I don’t think I’m an extremist, I was just going by what Odom said about her husband. “Like a lot of his friends, he’ll say, ‘Obama’s going to get our guns.’”

        • whodatbob

          You post are normally thoughtful and level headed but to assert that the husbands are not level headed because one husband had a knee jurk reaction did not fit your normal response. May it was a knee jurk reaction on your part. If so I apoligize for calling you out. I often have dumb Knee jurk reactions.

          • old_blu

            I really didn’t mean to come off that way. We cool?

          • whodatbob

            Ya! I may have had a knee jurk reaction to your comment. WE COOL!

    • DEFENDER88

      I am not afraid either.
      But I have been attacked before by people with rifles up in the mountains.
      So now when I go up there I always take my AR.
      I dont want to be defensless again up there.
      Also I can hunt with it.

      As for home defense, I dont envision having to fight the Govt any time soon. It would have to be a general revolution like the 1700′s where it got too opressive and everyone joined in to kick them out.

      Its more likely that we would come under attack by our neighbors like in Katrina with roving bands of thieves, or gangs coming out of the cities and scouring the burbs, and country side for food etc. ie Local and Regional Disasters etc

      Also I compete with mine so I have a lot of reasons to want one.

      I do agree, however, that we need to do more to try to keep them out of the hands of people who attack with them.

      As for these mass murders 2 things that can make an immediate difference are
      1 – Provide Armed Security at any Gun Free Zones
      2 – Other things like keeping these young men on drugs(especially) away from them

      But the Feinstein Bill now for debate in Congress calls for confiscation.

      And the general mood in here by many is to “ultimately” ban all guns, starting with AR’s.

      We can access the general mood in here and read between the lines.

      As for the larger problem of all gun violence
      1) Rifles account for only a small portion of that
      2) 95% of it is associated with city gangs and drugs

      Also, overall gun violence has been dropping in this country for the last 15-20 yrs. ie since gun permitting was started.

      I am fully permitted and highly trained, by the way.

      Considering all these factors and how many(AR’s) are already out there, I dont think a ban would have any effect for a very long time if ever. And thus dont see it as a viable solution to the mass killings.

      And that is one of the things I do, very much, want to stop.

      But viable solutions that will actually work in the near term.

      I am for developing solutions that will stop the mass killings but I am not for having to give up my AR and left defensless.

      I keep it secured when not in use, it is not a threat to anyone not attacking me.

      I have an inherent right to defend myself and family from attack with equal or greater force.

      A simple ban on them will not stop the killing.

      I dont plan on fighting the Govt but I dont plan to give up my gun either.

      Not sure what I will do if it comes to that.

      I do know people who would absolutly NOT give them up and would fight the govt, they would of course loose but many of them are x police and military and it would be very ugly. There are a lot of people out there now who are highly trained(even more than police) and have small arms almost equal to military, including body armor, etc including tactics training so it could get very ugly in many places.
      I train and compete with some of them.

      So(with a “ban”) you are talking about otherwise good people who would then become instant criminals.

      And of course the gangs are not going to give theirs up.

  • whodatbob

    Interesting read! Gun ownership by women is growing at an extremly fast rate. I grew up in a house without guns. Guns were never discussed at home. Two years ago my wife convinced me she needed a handgun. She and I both purchased guns, took safty and snooting classes. Wneh we told our children to our suprise both sons and 4 of our 5 daughters informed us that they too owned guns.

  • leadvillexp

    I agree and my wife is a better shot than myself. I am a Republican and a Life member of the NRA. The NRA has done much good with it’s safety training programs. I voted for President Obama and agree with background checks. What would help is licensing all people that want to own or use firearms like is done with Hazmat on CDLs. It could be done on the drivers license and a check done every five years. This would not interfere with the Second Amendment as it is not gun registration. As you can see I have my own opinions. I also do not believe in any gun or high capacity magazine bans. It is a fact most people are shot with handguns not rifles. Good legislation is done with commom sense not emotions. There is to much rhetoric on both sides of the fence to get this done. More women should own firearms.

    • WhutHeSaid

      Your post is an example of responsible and reasonable debate on the issue. If everyone could behave in this manner we’d be able to solve this issue pretty quickly, in my opinion.

    • whodatbob

      My wife is a much better shot than I. I practice a lot more then her in hopes of becoming as good as her.

  • Pi_Boson

    Low-esteem personalities are not just male attributes. There are females that manifest this same behavior and feel empowered by having a gun for “personal protection”. Like their male counter-parts, this perceived empowerment is a social disorder that leads to incidents like the former LA police officer that went on a killing venue – very serious mental health issues that are unfortunately enabled by “personal protection” gun neanderthals.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/QJHCZ2ZRQRLMJNSMWJM7ME5D2M Thomas

    I dont need a gun to feel anything you sons of a b–chs ! So you think you need to tell me about terrorism Blaze Or is it you wish women would give up their guns so people like you can more
    easyly do what you want with them and it pis-es you off knowing they are safer with a gun and you can’t get to them so easy ? Oh by the way I wanrt need a gun to beat your face in if you try to
    yank my crutch ! But if I lived in Alabama and some fool like you tried something like that I’d blow your G.D. brains out with it ! I know you meant symbolickly though ! I am just tired of your God da– s-it !
    Thomas from Alabama

    • WhutHeSaid

      Stop trying to talk tough, you sissy. Everybody knows that tough talk on the Internet means you are a sniveling coward.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/QJHCZ2ZRQRLMJNSMWJM7ME5D2M Thomas

    The National Memo or it shold be The National Red Book By Chairman Mao !
    Is there anyway I can keep your trash outta my Yahoo Mail ? YOU gang of red
    freaks !
    Thomas from Alabama

    • WhutHeSaid

      Go back inside your trailer and cuddle up with your sister. These ‘puters are way too advanced for you Alabama goobers anyway.

  • whodatbob

    Thomas good points! But, man you sure got carried away with your ranting.

  • whodatbob

    I hope you never experiance a home invasion. But if such a thing should occur and you do not have a way to protect your family, I hope you have hires guards to save your family. We all believe it willnot happen to us until it is too late.
    Low self esteem is no more a factor in buying home invasion, anti molestation insurance then in buying homeowners insurance to protect the loss of your property. In fact insurance against the possibility of an intruder or group of intruders taking the life of a family member makes more sense. Property is replacable a life is not.

  • whodatbob

    Those were the days! Win or lose in a couple of days all were friends again.

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_KOPKDFAUQPIIRAFI3HEXNMSHLQ Ed

      Yeah, I miss those days. But for the last 30 years the Repubs have worked to divide us and make us fear each other. I long for the days when we all believed we were AMERICANS!

    • old_blu

      Exactly, my oldest and dearest friend I met that way, and we have been friends 40+ years.

  • whodatbob

    Most states issue a Conceal Carry license. My state does, it is recorded on your drivers license. You have a choice as to weather you want it to appear on your drivers license or carry seperate CCW license. Most carry a seperate license so that if asked for ID your drivers license may be used without causing any problems. If law inforcement ask for ID you are to give both, explain where it is and how do they want to handle the situation. Even if you forget to inform the law officer when your license is run it will show that you have a license to carry. State requires CCW renewal every 3 years.

  • bchrista

    This is really starting to get ridiculous everybody has a plan to stop the gun violence and then again everybody is really lost on the subject because you have different types of gun violence, you have the incident at Newtown a young man killed his mother the took her guns which she owned legally and shot 26 adults and children with her high powered weapons, similar incidences at colombine and a couple of other places, then you have a massacure at Vt only this time it was done with a hand gun, then you have domestic violence turned tragic when one of the partners shot the other, and last but not least you have the everyday street shootings, and now you have all these know it alls that each have a different opinion on how to to stop the violence, well people to start with all these guns came from different places so there’s no one solution or plan that will work, the street guns you have to find the source and shut it down, domestic partners now that ‘s a good one you almost need a neighbor watch to try to control that one, if you hear your neighbor constantly having heated arguments and you think you can help then call the authorities and let them try to advice the couple in question to seek help and find out if they own guns then maybe the guns need to be taken until such time as they prove they can have a reasonable conversation without violence, and then return their guns and last but not least the parents of any minor that uses a gun taken from the home to commit a violent act should be advised that there are consecuensisand among those is jail time for allowing their kid to get his hands on their guns to commit a violent act, now I know this sounds far fetched and bordering on a police state but if you want to stop the violence then you have to resort to harsh methods anything less and all you’re doing is making ripples in the water

  • bchrista

    People wake up the only way that the government would be coming to take your guns away is, as was discussed in an other post that I read earlier whereby coroporations ,big business, the Oil Cartel and the One Percenters ever got control of this country, then they would want to confiacate all weapons so that you could not defend yourselves and so long as you don’t allow either party to take complete control of the country that won’t happen, it’s only if you let your guard down, but friends don’t bullshit yourselves if our government ever wanted to take your guns away believe me they could, that’s why we have the finest equipt military in the world and the puny weapons you possess are like using BB-guns against them. People keep bringing up the Second Amendment section about keeping guns and you keep misreading the meaning, the part where it states “the right of the people to bear guns was written at at time in our country when we had no military to protect us from foreign powers invading us so every citizen needed a weapon on the ready in case you were called to arms, that’s what was meant by a well armed militia but, to day we have the National Guard that is so that the people are not supposed to have to be well armed, if not everybody would be walking around with a gun with them, as civilization advanced laws were enacted against walking around with a gun, police forces came into being to protect the people, I agree with you the police are not aways around when you need them, but that was the origional intention a police force to protect the people, as the people became more educated the need for the Wild West style of living was abandomed, but through out History we have always had that one particular group of people that are different, who don’t want to work for a living, or who covets someone elses wife or daughter-(rapist) but we have laws against that. You know I have read several times where someone says they will have to pry my gun from my dead hands these are people who have not seen what the power of the government feels like if they come after you, people stop and think how many time have you heard of a shoot out between the full force of our gevernment when they get after a bank robber or someone that shoots one of them, (city and county cops, FBI,AFT, National Guard and anybody else they think they will need to get the job done) friends don’t bullshit yourselves if they want you, they’ll get you, and if they want your guns they’ll take them one way or the other.

    • DEFENDER88

      I am not in the group that thinks a new age revolution is in the works any time soon. And I do not advocate it.
      But – dont discount so glibly the potential.
      “Talk” of it is growing substantially in many areas.
      Before you completely discount it you need to understand and appreciate the, to the core, depth of feeling about this issue among millions out there today.
      And I am not talking about ignorant rednecks with a gun in both hands who think they are tough. I am talking about good, salt of the earth people all over this country. Some are your neighbors. Some are Vets. on and on
      It would likely not start as a full revolution. But rather as civil unrest in many areas then grow.

      I will try to explain below:

      Have you studied any of the history of the Revolutionary War?
      You talk about us having the best armed, most advanced military in the world and that is probably true for now anyway until China catches up with us.
      And how they would crush anyone here who challenges them.
      That is true, they would crush “anyone”. But the British had the most powerful, best trained army on earth in 1770 and look what happened. Actually just as powerful (in relative terms) as our military today.
      And the Brits thought exactly the same then as you do today. ie Cant happen.

      Thing is, if it ever got to the point of a full blown revolt, estimates are that a good 1/2 or more of the military people would side with the revolters and bring their weapons. That is what happened in 1770′s America. And what do you think the US govt is going to do, nuke itself?
      And as for the police, some of whom I train with. More than 1/2 of them would change sides and bring their weapons.

      The Americans had armed militias all over plus a much greater number of just people came out of the woods from all over. The brits headed to Lexington and Concord to confiscate their arms. It started with about 100 at Lexington against about 1,200 Brits. But by the time the Brits had gotten thru Concord and on the way back, americans were pouring in from every community around. By the end of that day there were about 10,000 revolters kicking the Brits ass all the way back into Boston. Next day Boston was surrounded by 15,000 rebels.
      Most of the leaders of the Colonial Army had previously served with and had been trained by the British but when the Revolution started they changed sides.
      So, I would not discount the potential completely or totally.

      Here is one account of what some old men(60+) did near Concord(mind you now against the most powerful and best trained army in the world) ”
      The Brits had “confiscated” some ammunition.
      “After Percy had left the city, Gage directed two ammunition wagons guarded by one officer and thirteen men to follow. This convoy was intercepted by a small party of older, former militiamen, still on the “alarm list” who could not join their militia companies because they were well over 60. These men rose up in ambush and demanded the surrender of the wagons, but the British regulars ignored them and drove their horses on. The old men opened fire, shot the lead horses, killed two sergeants, and wounded the officer. The survivors ran, and six of them threw their weapons into a pond before they surrendered.”

      Right or wrong, I tell you there are a lot, millions actually who are not going to stand to have their weapons confiscated. And that includes a lot of former military and “many” other highly trained and seriously armed constituants. That action could indeed prompt a new revolution. The new watch word is “if I am going to die anyway, die fighting for what I believe in”. (Same as in 1770)
      Not saying it “will” happen, or that I agree but just dont discount it completely.
      Its been done before. A modern example – It was done in Egypt, what, last year?
      And the military did nothing, stood aside.

      I dont advise it or promote it(Revolution), and think it highly unlikely, but I do hear more and more talk of it the more talk there is about banning weapons and maybe confiscation. There is a confiscation section in the Feinstein Bill now being considered in DC.

      Even in here people say “noone is coming after your weapons” then they promote a ban on rifles. And it is known that confiscation is desired by many in here.

      Why do you think gun and ammunition stores have been emptied in the last several weeks? They cant make it(ammo) and them(guns) fast enough right now?
      This is not an NRA scare tactic.
      Has nothing to do with the NRA.
      It is coming as a ground swell reaction to the potential of gun bans and potential confiscation – like many in here aspire too.

      People, fundamentaly, dont want to be left defenseless for whatever reason/s.

  • bchrista

    Hello Charleo1 it’s me again, bchrista, you just answered a question I have asking for, I can’t remember how long, why do we need assualt weapons of any kind? Everytime a person reads the National Memo someone has posted that they won’t give up their weapons because when the government comes to take them they will be armed and ready to stop them,and you stated that we wouldn’t be a bump in the road if they came after our guns and I agreed with you, yet why is it that we still have so many people that claim to be intellegent still saying that they would fight the government if they came to take their guns, don’t make sense does it, so that being said then there must be some other reason for claiming that they won’t surrender their weapons, they give all types of reasons for refusing to give up those damn assualt weapons and their high capacity magizines and the killings go on, I could be wrong but I would venture to say 85-90% have never been involved in a home invasion or had anyone break into their homes to rape someone in their family, that type of crime happens to people that usually are well to do and have told a friend or neighbor that they had something of value in their homes, in a majority of cases of homes being ransacked by a drug addict it is usually a home grown druggie that did it. Thieves don’t break into homes at random, they usually know what’s in there before they risk their lives and pull a home invasion, I mean why risk your life and take a chance that you might get shot to go on a scavanger hunt, when thieves come to your home they have advanced notice that you have valuable jewels, a large amount of cash or drugs and while they are there then other crimes are commited, but the average American is like me and doesn’t have a pot to piss in or a window to throw it out of , why take a chance of getting a long prison term for nothing or getting killed, like I said all cases are different but it still doesn’t justify gun ownership in 9 out of 10 times the gun owner is the loser when you pull a gun you can’t hesitate it’s shoot or be shot you only have a split second and most gun owners are taught to take aim and fire, folks thieves don’t have that mentality they shoot first and ask questions later, or in the melee someone in your family could get shot, why do you think the police, FBI and other law enforcement agencys tell bank tellers and other business people not to resist give the thieves what they want and observe so they can give an accurate discription of the perpretators later, don’t put your life on the line, whatever material thing you lose you can always replace and most thieves won’t risk a chance at getting caught for rape because that ups the crime for a normal breakin is maybe 5 years if caught, rape could bring the death penalty.

  • bchrista

    To Defender88 what country are you talking about, surely you are not talking about the United States of America everytime you turn around that guy Lapiere is urging the people to arm themselves he is a fear monger if there ever was one, he is the NRA, hell right after the Newtown killings he was advocating that people should go out and buy themselves a gun, armed guards in schools and even arming the teachers do you work for the NRA or are you just misinformed, gun sales have almost doubled since the Newtown slaughter and the leading advocate for getting more guns out there is the NRA, I can’t believe you made that statement in light of all the conversation that’s been going on about guns. You should have a conversation with Charleo1 about gun ownership he’ll be the first to tell you that people that have been told that you need a gun to protect yourselves from the government coming to take their guns live in a dream world, if the government wanted your guns, you would only be a bump in the road trying to stop them, so that bullshit is out, if they want your guns they’ll take them and won’t even break a sweat, they are just trying to find a happy medium where people can have their guns and stop the killings at the same time because the majority of the public is demanding it and putting the heat on them.

  • bchrista

    People there are no quick solutions to the gun problem to start with the problem goes way back to when the supreme court passed the law prohibiting parents from punishing their kids, spare the rod spoil the child, came down on us like a horde of locust, from that time on kids took off and did what they wanted because they lost the fear of being punished and what you see today is a product of that decision, disrespect for any kind of authority, stealing from their parents, disrespect for the adult generation disrespect for the law in general. The average under age teen knows the law better than their parents and know what they can get away with and what they can’t, this disrespect has bred a group of kids that harbor hate, they feel that if you say something to them that they don’t agree with that they don’t have to obey and if pushed it builds an anger within and eventually they strike back in some form, in some it don’t take much and yet in others they keep it in until they can no longer hold it in and then you have the Newtowns and the Columbines, the problem we have always had is we try to explain our troubles away through some kind of scientific logic we suggest it follows a pattern and put a number to it and that’s it, but it’s not that easy yes I know we make people like Dr. Phil rich because of this but the real problem starts in the home, these kids are schooled in the schools, the play grounds, the arcades, the soda parlors any where they hang out, they use the computers, the cell phones, the Ipods any way they can communicate to teach each other how to rebel against the adult generation because you are the enemy and you encourage it by buying them better ways to communicate don’t get me wrong not all kids are that way but if you don’t know every moment what your kids are up to you got a problem child. They exchange their inner most secrects among each other and in return give each other advice on how to handle the problems, if you could read their mind you would be horrified at what you would learn people kids of today are in trouble, it’s a shame but in order to start changing this problem they would have to be reprogramed, isolate them keep them from communicating with other kids and figuring out how to change their way of thinking, it’s sad to say but it’s only going to get worse, if you really pay attention you will notice that lets say you have one or two teenagers and one or two younger ones that the younger one pick up on the mannerisums of the older one quick so it’s a never ending chain. Some where this cycle has to stop.

  • bchrista

    What Thomas from Alabama forgets is that the other feller maybe arm as good or better so threatening to blow someones head off is the very reason we need to get rid of guns so that idiots don’t start a neighbor hood war and get a lot of innocents hurt because of two adults acting like children, does anybody need to read anymore on why we need to get rid of guns.

  • DEFENDER88

    So, anyone who takes responsibility for their own self-defense has a social disorder and is a neanderthal??
    Owning a gun is a social disorder???
    Hire guards??? Maybe you can afford that but most of us cannot.
    Where is it you live that you dont have to provide for your own self defense/protection? Or is that(protection/defense) something that others provide for you?

    And I dont want to hear “Police” God Bless Them. They cannot “protect” you, they cant most of us anyway unless they live with you. They can chalk line the scene, gather info and go after the perp, maybe get one off the street, but NOT “Protect” you.

    You sound like one of the arrogant, sanctimonious intellictuals who set up these Gun Free Killing Zones. Another one of your intellectual inspired ideas gone horribly wrong.
    One troubled cop out of thousands and thousands goes crazy and you use that as the foundational data base for your conjectures??
    You may be even more dangerous than a deranged person with a gun.
    You dont get out much do you?
    Are you a young student?
    This your 1st course in psychology?
    Apparently you have not been “around” this great country much either.
    By insurance to “protect” you family from molestation??? How does that work?
    ps Overall gun crime has been decreasing in this country for the last several years even with more guns being purchased.
    Your comments are basically unsupported and dangerous drivel from a left wing, anti-gun wingnut.
    You should leave this discussion to the grown ups who have to live in the real world.

  • DEFENDER88

    I dont advocate fighting the Govt and dont see that as being necessary anytime soon, I hope anyway. It would take a general uprising against oppression for me to participate and I dont see that anytime soon.

    The primary driver for the run on guns and ammo however IS all the talk about banning guns and ammo. Simple market forces. People dont buy things they dont think they may need or want. Try selling anything to people who dont think they need it or want it. Does not work.

    The NRA has some minor impact but the primary driver is simple market forces and the fear that people will not have the means to protect themselves with a weapon. The fear comes mostly from all the gun ban talk like in here and everywhere else. The need or at least perceived need comes from within each and everyone who feels it depending on their circumstance.

    As for needing an assault rifle – they also make for a very good DEFENSIVE weapon.
    Especially when you get shot at from intermediate and long ranges like I have been.

    They also make good hunting rifles, (in spite of what you have heard to the contrary)

    If you dont need one I am happy for you, but some of us do need them for threats we encounter. And, forget the 2nd amendment, I have a fundamental right to defend myself against attack with equal or greater force.

  • DEFENDER88

    Tell bank tellers not to resist. They also used to tell people on airplanes to not resist and look what happened. They dont say that anymore. And many armed thieves will just shoot you. There are plenty of stories and vids of that happening.
    9 out of 10 times the gun owner is the looser? where did you get that data? My data disagrees with that completely. Many, many incidents have been stopped by permit holder/carriers challenging an attacker, it just is not news and not normally shown or known. And some burglers will tie 2 women to a bed(mother and daughter), rape them, then set them on fire. Do you remember that one?

  • DEFENDER88

    I dont advocate fighting the Govt and dont see that as being necessary anytime soon, I hope anyway. It would take a general uprising against oppression for me to participate and I dont see that anytime soon.

    The primary driver for the run on guns and ammo however IS all the talk about banning guns and ammo. Simple market forces. People dont buy things they dont think they may need or want. Try selling anything to people who dont think they need it or want it. Does not work.

    The NRA has some minor impact but the primary driver is simple market forces and the fear that people will not have the means to protect themselves with a weapon. The fear comes mostly from all the gun ban talk like in here and everywhere else.
    You said it yourself, “in light of all the conversation that’s been going on about guns.

    The “need” or at least “perceived need” comes from within each and everyone who feels it depending on their circumstance.

    As for needing an assault rifle – they also make for a very good and sometimes necessary DEFENSIVE weapon.
    Especially when you get shot at from intermediate and long ranges like I have been.

    They also make good hunting rifles, (in spite of what you have heard to the contrary)

    If you dont need one I am happy for you, but some of us do need them for threats we encounter. And, forget the 2nd amendment, I have a fundamental right to defend myself against attack with equal or greater force.

  • DEFENDER88

    You need to “get real” about what will and will not work.
    Armed Security in schools “will” work.
    Bans on guns will not – we have already proved/tried that.

    I dont advocate fighting the Govt and dont see that as being necessary anytime soon, I hope anyway. It would take a general uprising against oppression for me to participate and I dont see that anytime soon.

    The primary driver for the run on guns and ammo however IS all the talk about banning guns and ammo. Simple market forces. People dont buy things they dont think they may need or want. Try selling anything to people who dont think they need it or want it. Does not work.

    The NRA has some minor impact but the primary driver is simple market forces and the fear that people will not have the means to protect themselves with a weapon. The fear comes mostly from all the gun ban talk like in here and everywhere else.
    You said it yourself ” in light of all the conversation that’s been going on about guns”
    The need or at least perceived need comes from within each and everyone who feels it depending on their circumstance.

    As for needing an assault rifle – they also make for a very good DEFENSIVE weapon.
    Especially when you get shot at from intermediate and long ranges like I have been.

    They also make good hunting rifles, (in spite of what you have heard to the contrary)

    If you dont need one I am happy for you, but some of us do need them for threats we encounter. And, forget the 2nd amendment, I have a fundamental right to defend myself against attack with equal or greater force.

  • DEFENDER88

    So, anyone who takes responsibility for their own self-defense has a social disorder and is a neanderthal??
    Owning a gun is a social disorder???
    Hire guards??? Maybe you can afford that but most of us cannot.
    Where is it you live that you dont have to provide for your own self defense/protection? Or is that(protection/defense) something that others provide for you?

    And I dont want to hear “Police” God Bless Them. They cannot “protect” you, they cant most of us anyway unless they live with you. They can chalk line the scene, gather info and go after the perp, maybe get one off the street, but NOT “Protect” you.

    You sound like one of the arrogant, sanctimonious intellictuals who set up these Gun Free Killing Zones. Another one of your intellectual inspired ideas gone horribly wrong.
    One troubled cop out of thousands and thousands goes crazy and you use that as the foundational data base for your conjectures??
    You may be even more dangerous than a deranged person with a gun.
    You dont get out much do you?
    Are you a young student?
    This your 1st course in psychology?
    Apparently you have not been “around” this great country much either.
    By insurance to “protect” you family from molestation??? How does that work?
    ps Overall gun crime has been decreasing in this country for the last several years even with more guns being purchased.
    Your comments are basically unsupported and dangerous drivel from a left wing, anti-gun wingnut.
    You should leave this discussion to the grown ups who have to live in the real world.

scroll to top