Gun control and you - Where do you stand?

[Stevil]

I think there was a study that stated that if you keep a gun in your house then the people who live in the house are much more likely to be harmed in a gun incident.
It actually makes sense to me. Very hard to be harmed in a gun incident if there are no guns.

For the most part I feel people aren't emotionally stable enough to be carrying guns around. People often do bad things when they are angry and bullets travel a long distance, easy for bystanders to get hit.

I don't even really see much need for hobbyists to gave guns, there are so many other sports or hobbies.
I feel Cops and military should have guns and thats about it.

The less there are in circulation, the less likely the crims will have them. Normal citizens should not be getting into gun fights with crims.

[fester30]

Occasionally there's a legal gun owner that perpetrates a gun crime.  The vast majority of gun crimes are people who have a gun illegally.  The vast majority of national media about gun crimes goes to the crimes that involve legal gun owners.  It's not really a fair basis through which to base on opinion.  Fact is, we already have laws.  It's already illegal for a felon to own a firearm, and for a kid in a gang to buy one without the appropriate background check.  There was a study in Kansas City not too long ago.  In most sections of town, the police went about their business as usual.  In the most violent section of town, they focused only on enforcing the gun laws.  That section of town saw a huge decrease in crime.  Gun control advocates said this was proof that we need stricter gun laws.  The flaw in that argument was that there wasn't a new law passed, just a focus on enforcement.

Cops spend way too much time going after marijuana users/dealers, parking violations, and chasing down offenders of other stupid laws.  Put the focus on enforcement of existing laws, and we'll be on our way.  Once that has had a chance to work, then we'll be in a better position to know which new gun laws would be the most effective.  As it is now, there are proposals for a wide variety of gun laws, without any idea which ones will work.  More focused legislation would be more effective, taking it one step at a time.

Personally, I would never get a gun for self defense or home protection.  I have met just one person who actually benefited from having a gun for home protection, and he lived in a very high drug/immigration traffic area of Tuscon.  It made sense for him.  Most of the time, unless you answer the door with a gun in your hand, and have it dangerously loaded at your side while you sleep, the gun won't be accessible in a situation like that.  I do love guns, however, for target shooting.  I love them in the same way I love a bow and arrow, and I would never try to carry a bow and arrow in public.  I don't shoot living things, just paper targets.  It wouldn't end my world to not be able to do that anymore, but I do enjoy it.  If they take that right away from me, I'll live, especially if they legalize weed to go with it.    I just want them to do it intelligently, not firing blindly, so to speak.

[BadPoison]

Most of the time, unless you answer the door with a gun in your hand, and have it dangerously loaded at your side while you sleep, the gun won't be accessible in a situation like that.  

We keep a gun loaded 24/7 very close to our bed where we sleep. It's there if we ever need it. We don't have any children and if we ever did I would reevaluate my decision to keep it there. Is that particular gun dangerous on its own? Absolutely not. The safeties on my modern firearm prevent it from going off accidentally. I could throw it across the room and it will not fire (I don't recommend anyone do this.) It will only shoot if the firing block safety is disengaged and the double action trigger is fully pressed (which disables a second safety.)

Are we safer because of this? Hopefully it will never make a difference, but like wearing a seat belt I will be glad to have it if the situation in which it's designed for ever were to occur.

[ForTheLoveOfAll]

I suggest that guns and exsplosives and all forms of modern weaponry be banned, gathered up, and then destroyed completely, and then everyone at the age of 13 be given a sword, and bows and arrows. And that's it. You want to fight a fucking war, you look the poor bastard you want to kill in the eye.

Violence, killing our own kind, is ultimately pointless. I hope we as a race evolve past it some day. It's a possibility. A dream, but a possibility.

[fester30]

Most of the time, unless you answer the door with a gun in your hand, and have it dangerously loaded at your side while you sleep, the gun won't be accessible in a situation like that.  

We keep a gun loaded 24/7 very close to our bed where we sleep. It's there if we ever need it. We don't have any children and if we ever did I would reevaluate my decision to keep it there. Is that particular gun dangerous on its own? Absolutely not. The safeties on my modern firearm prevent it from going off accidentally. I could throw it across the room and it will not fire (I don't recommend anyone do this.) It will only shoot if the firing block safety is disengaged and the double action trigger is fully pressed (which disables a second safety.)

Are we safer because of this? Hopefully it will never make a difference, but like wearing a seat belt I will be glad to have it if the situation in which it's designed for ever were to occur.

Beretta 9?  The safety block is the reason I kinda like those.  Other than that, though, I'd rather have a 1911 for myself and a Walther P22 for the wife (small hands).  When I said dangerously close to the bed, I wasn't considering the question of those without children.  Also, if I had a Beretta and no children, I wouldn't even keep the safety on during the night because of the double action and safety block.

As I said, I'm not a proponent of stricter gun laws.  However, they also wouldn't bother me.  Sort of like Glenn Beck or Keith Olbermann getting struck by lightning.  ehh.