Citizens have no reason to need a gun in their household
For many years I have been in the minority, and I may still be; but in my opinion we should make it unlawful for anyone to have a gun in his/her house.
When the Constitution was signed, we as citizens under the 2nd amendment were granted the right to bear arms with the express purpose of being able to protect ourselves from our government. Well, we have had a very good government for more than 230 years, and we have never had the desire or the ability to protect ourselves from our government. Now if we lived somewhere else, we may very well need guns to protect ourselves.
Don’t use the argument that the “bad guys” would still have guns, or that people living near the Mexican border need guns. These points are well-taken; but we can make and enforce laws that speak to these points, and, if we want to, we can clear the gangs from the border states and close the border to those attempting illegal entry. Personally, I would rather face a person wielding a tire iron than a firearm — at least I would have a chance.
England, a country one-fifth the size of the U.S., and with no capital punishment, had 58 firearms homicides from September, 2010 to September, 2011; while we had 8,775 in 2010. This statistic is shocking, but the real issue is, what are we going to do about it?
We have shown, apparently, that too many of us do not value life and cannot be trusted to use our guns as they are intended — just look at the senseless killings in our country during the past several years.
I realize that many people enjoy guns as many enjoy cars or other things; however to protect us from ourselves, we need to require that guns be banned from our houses. Perhaps they need to be checked in and out when one wishes to hunt, target shoot, or whatever.
One more thought — what is the value of life? How would one of us feel if our loved one was a senseless victim?
Don Horning
Ypsilanti
Comments
YpsiFrog
Fri, Mar 8, 2013 : 3:45 a.m.
I keep reading how police response can 10 minutes if you live out in a "rural" area ? Just yesterday on my way to work (5pm) I witnessed a women being assaulted by her boyfriend. While my wife called 911, I backed up the car and jumped out to help, he took off but only a little ways then continued to follow her home (with us guarding her) while still on the phone over 15 mins later she made it to her apt. I went to work Police never made it over. This was right downtown Ypsi.
Brandon
Tue, Jan 15, 2013 : 12:20 a.m.
I may be way off base, but how many violent gun crimes are committed by those who are supposed (licensed) to have them? What percentage are committed by legal owners of guns? Unfortunately, the horrific events most recently committed seem to have been by those who SHOULDN'T have had any access to guns. I am not asserting any argument, but my senses tell me that this may be a crucial question to be answered in this whole mess.
aamom
Mon, Jan 14, 2013 : 4:14 a.m.
I realize that most legal gun owners are law abiding citizens. One issue I have is that it seems we read almost weekly about criminals stealing guns from houses. How are people storing/hiding them at home that make them so easy to steal? Is there some apparatus that could be required to house the gun in when not in use by the homeowner that would make it unaccessible to a thief? It seems safes aren't working or aren't being used. I'm just starting to feel like we're arming the criminals when at the very least they should have to spend their own money on their guns!
Unusual Suspect
Tue, Jan 15, 2013 : 4:47 p.m.
But still, the problem was cause by irresponsibility and illegal behavior. The problem was not caused by any responsible gun owners, which is who all the gun-grabbers want to punish.
Unusual Suspect
Tue, Jan 15, 2013 : 4:45 p.m.
If a gun is in a home and the home is locked, the gun is locked. The problem is that somebody took it, not that it wasn't redundantly locked. If a home is locked, then everything in side it is locked. As far as restricting access to the gun for somebody who is granted access to the home, then an additional step is required. In the Newtown case, that wasn't done. They problem was the mother was irresponsible, and the son committed grand theft by taking them without her permission.
aamom
Tue, Jan 15, 2013 : 4:29 a.m.
Very snide comment Unusual. Actually, if you want to get into semantics, I never mentioned breaking into homes. The Sandy Hook killer stole from his own mother. I'm guessing he didn't have to break in. Aside from that, I am truly concerned about criminals acquiring guns illegally. Do you actually have a good idea for securing homes that you haven't shared? Cause right now you haven't contributed anything meaningful to this entire thread.
Unusual Suspect
Mon, Jan 14, 2013 : 9 p.m.
Did it ever occur to you that the real problem here is people breaking into homes, not people locking up their guns? Perhaps we should declare our town a "breaking into homes free zone" and that would stop everybody from doing it.
outdoor6709
Mon, Jan 14, 2013 : 12:48 a.m.
If you do not think our government willever turn on us ask the Hutaria. When Sen Levins reelection campaign was in trouble, the feds raided the Hutaria and took Levin off the front page until the issue against him was forgotten. Only one member was convicted of anything, rest spend 2 years in jail, only to have the charges dropped by a judge. The "Assistant U.S. Attorney Sheldon Light had conceded on Monday there was no proof of a "specific plan" to attack the government,"
outdoor6709
Mon, Jan 14, 2013 : 12:37 a.m.
If you want to look at an example of people defending themselves againt the government, the best example would be the Warsaw ghetto uprising. Outnumbered by the Nazies, a few determined armed citizens tried to hold off the Nazies in Warsaw until the Russians could drive the Germans from the city. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warsaw_Ghetto_Uprising The Warsaw Ghetto Uprising (Yiddish: ?????????? ??? ????????? ?????; Polish: powstanie w getcie warszawskim; German: Aufstand im Warschauer Ghetto) was the 1943 act of Jewish resistance that arose within the Warsaw Ghetto in German-occupied Poland during World War II, and which opposed Nazi Germany's final effort to transport the remaining Ghetto population to Treblinka extermination camp. The most significant portion of the rebellion took place from 19 April, and ended when the poorly armed and supplied resistance was crushed by the Germans, who officially finished their operation to liquidate the Ghetto on 16 May. It was the largest single revolt by the Jews during World War II.[3
outdoor6709
Mon, Jan 14, 2013 : 12:38 a.m.
Sorry tried to hold them off.
Ypsi.Support
Mon, Jan 14, 2013 : 12:17 a.m.
Wow. Such a hot topic. One that has devided us. I find peace in the fact that extremes, one way or another, will not be acceptable. Not in equitable fairness. Have you ever considered tougher punishment for offenders, not the release of our fundimental rights? As an individual highly trained in the use of firearms by the age of 16, so many thoughts have come to me in recent times. I sat looking into my closet the other day, staring at the locked box that containes my legally owned registered firearm, thankful for my Rights. Other thoughts accured to me. Had my family not been as strict and rigorous about the safe use of firearms would I be the same person? Will my children respect or fear firearms? Well, the truth is, it comes down to my family. Good parenting, and a respect for the country I live in and the laws the men of our home have sought to protect for generations taught me to be who I am today. Parents, and offenders, whos firearms are used against the good people of our country, THEY should be punished, heavily. I believe in corporal punishment, and life sentencing for parents. You did not do your duty as a Citizen of this great Nation. With our rights come responsibilites. Will my children have access to keys? NO, but more than that it will be my duty to train and punish them if neccessary. Zero tollerance. The safety of my home a first concern, I know that when an assailent steps through my door, we have safety. I fear for those who do not. Furthermore, speak for yourself, had you been paying attention you would realize, especially with the idea of our right to bear arms coming into question, MANY of us find the need to protect ourselves from our Government, and it's slow, corrupted decline.
outdoor6709
Sun, Jan 13, 2013 : 11:33 p.m.
When seconds count, the police will be there in 21 minutes.
APWBD123
Sat, Jan 12, 2013 : 8:57 p.m.
Setting aside the practical impossiblity of "banning" gun possession, as an educated individual who prefers to make decisions based on facts, I have yet to see any statistical evidence that stricter gun control measures actually leads to reduced homicide rates and indeed, in many cases within our country, it appears that the opposite is actually true and that homicide by firearms actually INCREASED in cities which implemented severe firearm restricions (Washington D.C., Chicago, etc.) then cities that maintained their current firearm laws. Despite many proponets of increased restrictions on firearm possession citing European nations as the shining examples of the benefits of gun control, their culture surronding firearm possession, their peoples willingness, to support it, the goverments ability to enforce these laws in such a small area, and that the while gun homicides when down, other homicide rates went up, all highlight why such a comparison is hardly persuasive and indeed unfairly compares what are two very unique cultures toward firearm possetion. Furthermore, despite a 600% increase in media coverage surronding gun crime reporting, the homicide by gun rate has dropped ENORMOUSLY over the past 20 years (DOJ annual crime statistics). I think that regardless of how emotional we become over the murder of innocent children, we must maintain some levelheadness and appreciate the enormously small percentage of deaths that occur each year from gun violence as compared to drunk driving, reckless driving, child abuse, drug ingestion, alcohol poising, etc. etc. all things we would cry Foul over. Despite the enormous benefit of requiring breathalizers in cars would have on reducing the deaths caused by drunk driving each year (substantially more then firearm homicides) we would consider this a gross infringement of our constitutional right to free speach and privacy. If we want to make society safer, gun control should be at the bottom of the laundry list.
picabia
Mon, Jan 14, 2013 : 6:59 p.m.
What a shock for you then, Ricebrnr, serveral times in its history, the 'gun-grabber' calling for 'reasonable' controls has been (gasp!) the NRA! http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/09/the-secret-history-of-guns/308608/3/
Ricebrnr
Mon, Jan 14, 2013 : 6:15 p.m.
And one thing that all gun grabbers have in common is stating they only want "reasonable restrictions" and don't want to take anyone's guns, while blatantly seeking to do so. "Need" - trying to reduce the argument to "need". The same vehicle by which may-issue states "test" if someone should be granted to right to own let alone carry a sidearm. Odd how in places like New York ans Chicago, those who alegedly "need" to have weapons happen to also be the rich and/or well connected. Those who can afford to and often do have armed bodyguards for themselves... There is a difference between Preparation and Paranoia, just as there is a difference between ignorance and mental deficiency.
picabia
Mon, Jan 14, 2013 : 5:55 p.m.
'Gun grabber', Ricebrnr? One consistent theme in the postings of pro-gunners is their rampant paranoia. If any one questions the need for high-powered semi-automatic weapons and high-capacity magazines, cries of 'gun grabber!' soon follow. One thing that seems to unite pro-gunners (other than their firearms fetish) is paranoia.
Ricebrnr
Mon, Jan 14, 2013 : 2:31 p.m.
No he's rebutting the notion that high rates of legal gun ownership correlate to high rate of violent crime and homicides. Funny how gun grabbbers always assume that position as given...
picabia
Mon, Jan 14, 2013 : 3:25 a.m.
"...the homicide by gun rate has dropped ENORMOUSLY over the past 20 years (DOJ annual crime statistics)." If you're trying to suggest a correlation between gun ownership and a lower homicide rate, you're going to be disappointed. No such correalation exists: http://www.factcheck.org/2008/03/violent-crimes-and-handgun-ownership/
Hemenway
Sat, Jan 12, 2013 : 3:55 p.m.
I'm pleased to learn there are still folks out there that believe everything the government and the media say. Please allow me a healthy bit of skepticism.
John
Sat, Jan 12, 2013 : 1:33 p.m.
Germany 1933 "you don't need guns" they said, "the police will protect you.' Germany 1939 "board the train!" Everyone is for gun control until they are the victim And a message to all the burglars out there, Don Hornings house is unarmed, therefor you will encounter no resistance because he doesn't believe in defending himself. I'm sure you could find his address online. Btw I hear he's got some nice silverware.
picabia
Sun, Jan 13, 2013 : 5:15 p.m.
John, your posts speak for themselves. I'll leave it at that.
John
Sun, Jan 13, 2013 : 1:47 p.m.
And I thought liberals were so easy going and anti judgmental Why do you judge my post and say how it indicates fear?? And I will use name calling all I want because for you I am only stating the facts.
John
Sun, Jan 13, 2013 : 1:45 p.m.
But this is where your stupidity comes into play You said that I said that the US would go the same path as Germany, now your saying that I am only referencing nazi Germany. You are a pro gun control person therefore you go against the 2nd amendment which leads to the conclusion that you are unconstitutional and unamerican.
picabia
Sun, Jan 13, 2013 : 4:50 a.m.
John, I don't care if you resort to name-calling and personal attacks - they reveal your desperation. What bothers me is your disingenuous attempt to distance yourself from your own posting. Despite your craven denial, the unattributed quotes were clearly references to Nazi Germany. None of the my postings contradict the US Constitution in any way.
John
Sun, Jan 13, 2013 : 3:33 a.m.
Well you obviously cannot read and retain information. Where in my post am I saying that what happened in Germany will happen here??? Also the link you provided is as flawed as you are, you must have not graduated collage because you would know about what an UNBIASED research article is. Nice try but you fail.
picabia
Sun, Jan 13, 2013 : 1:54 a.m.
It's fear alright - when you lead with unattributed quotes about Nazi Germany in your opening lines, you're selling fear. When you call up a vision of a police state, you're selling fear. The history you reference is flawed. http://www.salon.com/2013/01/11/stop_talking_about_hitler/ Sorry if I've interrupted you regularly scheduled paranoid fantasy.
John
Sat, Jan 12, 2013 : 10:23 p.m.
It's not fear, it a defense of my second amendment. Why is it that the first thing every dictator and communist government does/did Is take away people's firearms? That way the people will have to become reliant on the government programs to defend and feed them. If you want to live in a police state that's fine, but the majority of America, myself included would rather not.
picabia
Sat, Jan 12, 2013 : 3:01 p.m.
The idea that not having unfettered access to firearms means that the US will become like Nazi Germany is is typical pro-gun dualistic thinking; ignore the reality of gun violence and focus on some paranoid vision straight out of la-la land. For such a well-armed group, pro-gunners are a remarkably fearful lot.
PWJT8D
Sat, Jan 12, 2013 : 2:16 a.m.
This has got to be the dumbest thing I have ever read. And I don't even own a gun.
Ricardo Queso
Fri, Jan 11, 2013 : 9:43 p.m.
Guns are just the strawman in this argument. The relaxation of mental health laws allowing crazies to be put on the street rather than be institutionalized directly, yes directly led to Newton. The mother was going though hoops to get him committed. That process needs to be improved.
Hemenway
Sat, Jan 12, 2013 : 3:48 p.m.
Just yesterday a purse snatching drug addict was released from jail in Ann Arbor, after posting bail.
Ricardo Queso
Fri, Jan 11, 2013 : 9:24 p.m.
Funny how those willing to give up the second amendment often have no trouble with the millions of unborn who have been aborted.
shutthefrtdoor
Fri, Jan 11, 2013 : 6:11 p.m.
I'm almost at a loss for words regarding this op-ed. But I have enough left to say this is the dumbest thing I've ever read on AA.com...
Nicholas Urfe
Fri, Jan 11, 2013 : 5:55 p.m.
Do non-citizens have no reason to need a gun in their household?
JS
Fri, Jan 11, 2013 : 4:31 p.m.
Another question: where do all these illegal guns that legal gun owners are afraid of come from? Seems to me that many of them originated from a legal purchase. So that makes me think that you legal gun owners are not holding up your end of the bargain by keeping them out of the hands of criminals. Hmmmm. So it's your fault? No, couldn't be.
JS
Fri, Jan 18, 2013 : 6:39 a.m.
Funny how no one even attempted to answer the questions I posed, isn't it?
JS
Sun, Jan 13, 2013 : 3:50 p.m.
Also, APAWBD- not directed at you, but I love it when people give my comments a thumbs down, yet aren't willing to respond to the questions that I propose. Keep 'em coming, haters. lol. At least APWBD is willing to engage in some discussion that might eventually get somewhere.
JS
Sun, Jan 13, 2013 : 3:47 p.m.
I'm pretty confident in thinking that common thugs don't often steal large gun safes. This is exactly what I'm talking about. You sir, are one of the responsible ones. I'm referring to the gun in the nightstand, the one in the kitchen, the one in the underwear drawer, the one inside the hall closet, or taped under the kitchen table, etc.... Oh and yea, it's the thousands of guns brought over our borders causing the problem. Doubtful. It's more likely got a bit to do with the millions that are legally sold within our borders. I can't prove any of this per say, but to my knowledge neither can anyone disprove it and it's something worth talking about. Where do the illegally owned firearms come from?
APWBD123
Sat, Jan 12, 2013 : 9:11 p.m.
There is no bargin to hold up. I suppose if someone steals my gun safe then I am at fault. Wait, a second... Oh and lets not forget about the thousands of automatic firearms and semi-auto handguns that are brought over our borders each year by firearm traffikers. Definetly not made in america.
JS
Fri, Jan 11, 2013 : 4:26 p.m.
Well Don, now ya know. The hyper-masculine, media-influenced, and illogically fearful people in this country may have finally won.
JS
Sat, Jan 12, 2013 : 3:06 p.m.
You ma'am, have been brainwashed.
E Claire
Fri, Jan 11, 2013 : 9:51 p.m.
You, sir, seem to be suffering from a severe case of rectal-cranial inversion.
METL METL
Fri, Jan 11, 2013 : 4:01 p.m.
Man has armed himself since the beginning of time in order to protect himself and his family, so why should today be any different? Mr Horning's suggestion that no one should have a firearm to protect themselves because some people use them for crime is preposterous. Mr. Horning, what do you say to the possible hundreds of thousands of people who have successfully used a firearm to defend their own and their loved one's lives against men with weapons or multiple attackers? Defensive gun uses (DGUs) have been estimated to be in numbers ranging from 80,000 all the way up to 2.5 million per year. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defensive_gun_use Should those people have to be maimed and murdered so that Mr. Horning's unwarranted and irrational fear of guns can subside?
picabia
Sun, Jan 13, 2013 : 10:13 p.m.
Ricardo, if you don't like Salon, find another site. John Lott's activities are well-documented.
Ricardo Queso
Sun, Jan 13, 2013 : 5:28 p.m.
picaba, as if Salon is an impartial source.
picabia
Sat, Jan 12, 2013 : 6:05 p.m.
John Lott is the main source for the statistics cited in the Wikipedia article, and his work has been thoroughly discredited: http://www.salon.com/2012/12/21/why_is_the_media_rehabilitating_john_lott/
Tru2Blu76
Fri, Jan 11, 2013 : 7:19 a.m.
"We can close the borders..." HAH! (ROFL!) " however to protect us from ourselves..." Protect us from ourselves?? Hah! Speak for yourself , Don, as regards matters of ADULT COMPETENCE. "England, a country one-fifth the size of the U.S..." Yes, England - THE ISLAND on which authorities can more easily seal their borders (except against the IRA, etc.). THE ISLAND which is overcrowded so everyone has to get along better (like the ISLAND of Japan) and where criminals have fewer places to hide - making criminal control easier. So why don't you try comparing the U.S. to the U.S., which is the ONLY country like it in the world? Valid comparison-making is an essential part of proper reasoning - and you ain't there yet. "Personally, I would rather face a person wielding a tire iron than a firearm — at least I would have a chance." - the topper. What you would rather do, Don, is irrelevant to what other people "would rather do" - such as HAVING A REALISTIC chance of stopping such attacks as happen daily EVERYWHERE. And besides, Don, since when did your preferences become mandatory for the rest of the country?? Oh, that's right - your trying to raise support for your "wonderful theory of gunlessness." You hope, eventually, to have the government force the rest of us to give up our guns. So what you can't do yourself or with the help of your delusional cohorts, you want to use government power (backed by more guns than you can imagine) to do it for you. So you DO like guns: so long as you have "authorities" holding them and pointing them at OTHER people. There's a word for people like you, Don, but the censors here won't let it be used.
picabia
Fri, Jan 11, 2013 : 4:24 a.m.
Actually, it's not really gun control that's needed, it's foolishness control. The purpose of a semi-automatic rifle is to do a lot of damage quickly. (No, they weren't designed with target practice in mind.) It's foolish to think that anyone needs a semi-automatic rifle. It's also foolish to shrilly warn that if the assault weapons ban is reinstated, then it's only a matter of time before the government confiscate all firearms. Instead of freaking out about some paranoid idea, consider the carnage that's happening now. No one in his right mind would argue that the solution to alcoholism is more alcohol, but the gun lobby uses that argument regularly when the subject is guns.
picabia
Sat, Jan 12, 2013 : 2:46 a.m.
@Bcar Guess you're not paying attention Bcar, or else your threshold for what you consider 'carnage' is so high that the murders of 20 children and 6 adults at Sandy Hook do not phase you. The shooter used the semi-automatic Bushmaster rifle. Since it's "only 323' homicides, it's nothing for you to worry about. Your time is better spent in a dystopian fantasy of the govermment coming to confiscate your guns.
drewk
Fri, Jan 11, 2013 : 2:52 p.m.
Can you actually define "semi-automatic"? Almost every gun manufactured is a "semi-automatic". If a hunting rifle is not a bolt action it is a "semi-automatic".
Bcar
Fri, Jan 11, 2013 : 10:36 a.m.
please enlighten us all to the carnage that is happening now due to these semi automatic (assault) rifles? Because last I checked, out of the 12k or so firearm homicides last year, only 323 were committed with "Rifles" of which these scary black "ARs" are a subset...
genetracy
Fri, Jan 11, 2013 : 1:08 a.m.
I wonder what part of Ypsi the writer lives where he fells he does not need agun?
L. C. Burgundy
Fri, Jan 11, 2013 : 12:42 a.m.
It's because I value life highly that I have made plans for self-protection commensurate with what I believe is permitted by my belief system. I'm strictly pro-choice on the whole guns issue. If you hate them, you should never be compelled to touch one, as far as I'm concerned. Just keep in mind that well-established law in the U.S. is that police are in no way legally obligated to protect you or respond in time to help you, and, realistically, can't. Think about that very carefully when you talk about who might become a "senseless victim."
music to my ear
Fri, Jan 11, 2013 : 2:47 p.m.
lately there is a lot of open discussion on the guns and what laws we should take.we already have laws and some people are just not complying, those are the ones hurting people.why on earth would that mother in conn teach her child yo use an assault rifle was she desperate for a shooting partner, there is no reasonable answer. it took her life as well as others.
uabchris
Thu, Jan 10, 2013 : 11:26 p.m.
So Don, you really think that criminals and gangs will just walk on down to the police station to turn in their guns...think again. If someone really wants to kill someone they will use a knife, bat, car, hammer, etc...hey let's ban those too...
buvda fray
Thu, Jan 10, 2013 : 11:14 p.m.
If I quote more facts and proof do I win this? Do I convince you to change your mind? Comments show support, apathy, disgust and a little humor. Where was this guy 250 years ago? Sorry but it is not a clean slate. I don't like sunscreen and chances are good it wont be the one thing that saves my life but I know that there is risk and I'm smart enough to shield myself. I also use seatbelts and buy disability insurance and wear a bike helmet and file a flight plan before departure and am willing to disable an imminent threat. My kids think I can do anything and I won't disappoint them in an emergency. I don't want it to happen ever but I am not immune from anything. Nobody is required to arm themselves and that is OK. Healthcare and car seats and seat belts are required by law. The compromise is reasonable protection in the face of documented and unpredictable threats. It sucks but here we are. Together. If you hear the glass break and the footsteps coming right now it is too late to reconsider whether you are willing to disable the imminent threat before it hurts, rapes or kills you or those you treasure most.
Boo Radley
Thu, Jan 10, 2013 : 10:34 p.m.
Perfect timing for this opinion piece. I had just finished reading a news story on MSN.com about a woman who was able to save herself and her two 9 year old twins from a determined intruder who broke through several doors and finally into the crawl space where they were hiding. She shot the intruder at that point with the gun she kept in the house, while on the phone with police. I can only imagine what her fate would have been if she had not been armed. http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/10/16449815-911-tape-shoot-him-again-husband-tells-wife-hiding-from-home-intruder?lite&ocid=msnhp&pos=3
martini man
Thu, Jan 10, 2013 : 9:44 p.m.
After reading this article ..I had to take a minute to reflect ...then quickly re-up my NRA membership. I could type on but I'd only get censored by the liberals at AA.com.
outdoor6709
Thu, Jan 10, 2013 : 9:19 p.m.
Don, If you do not like the 2nd admentment there is a way in the constitution to change it. Maybe you can get Senator Levin to be a sponsor. Did you know more people in U.S. are killed with hammers each year than rifles? Also did you know that 17% of home invasions in US happen while someone is home while 40 % of home invasions in UK happen while someone is home? Think there might be a reason for that difference?
JS
Thu, Jan 10, 2013 : 8:50 p.m.
I think that if you wanna own a handgun, you should be required to carry it visibly on your hip whenever you leave the house. Assault rifle? Strap it over your shoulder when you're out in public. Doing that might (MIGHT) actually do some good in terms of reducing crime, violence, murder, etc. because the criminal will then KNOW that law abiding citizens in that area possess weapons for protection. I don't see why a gun owner wouldn't want to do this, unless of course they're ashamed of being brainwashed by the media into thinking that rape, murder, and whatever else is worthy of a bullet to the head is laying in wait just around the corner. Just my thoughts. Why all the secrecy gun owners? I'm really curious about this.
JS
Sat, Jan 12, 2013 : 3:27 p.m.
E Claire- You're right, I apologize for including rape in my previous statement, it was improper. New thought. How about this idea? If you legally purchase a gun which is later used in a crime, you get held partially liable seeing as you didn't do a good enough job securing it to keep it out of the hands of criminals. I think in most cases this is a valid idea. It is the responsibility of the gun owner to keep their guns out of the hands of criminals. Unless you are willing to admit that there is nothing you can do to prevent a criminal from stealing your guns. I'd go on about the open versus conceal debate, but I doubt I'll get anywhere.
Ricardo Queso
Fri, Jan 11, 2013 : 9:29 p.m.
None of you business!
Tru2Blu76
Fri, Jan 11, 2013 : 7:54 a.m.
" I don't see why a gun owner wouldn't want to do this..." -- IF you knew anything about defensive tactics you'd know that armed criminals seeing a legally armed citizen would either go somewhere else and STILL commit a crime OR would then know better how to take down the armed citizen. But nooo, dishonest as you are -instead you abandon knowledge and go for the insult directed at the very people who you should be praising and joining. Secrecy has it's merits: and the secrecy of your identity is one you'd better hold close to your bosom. People like you should boldly wear a sign (as a matter of legal requirement) which says "Unarmed Gun Phobic Here." That would prove your confidence in your belief, so why not start the next time your in public?
TommyJ
Fri, Jan 11, 2013 : 2:46 a.m.
Because open carrying makes you a greater target for criminals. I'd rather the criminal not know I was carrying and not make myself a target to have my weapon stolen and used in a crime. Which only goes to reinforce the point that gun free zones are just target zones. This is where the cowards go for their mass murders, they are unopposed. They don't do it in areas they know they will be opposed.
E Claire
Thu, Jan 10, 2013 : 9:30 p.m.
Where are you getting the impression that gun owners are ashamed and in hiding? Many gun owners shoot for sport, they do not need to carry the gun around when not participating in said sport. If open carry were legal EVERYWHERE and brainwashed citizens didn't freak at the sight of a gun, more gun owners would open carry. ps. rape is a very real threat in this country, and not just to women.
GoBlueInCT
Thu, Jan 10, 2013 : 9:02 p.m.
More often, than not, the public tends to get frightened by a mere glimpse of a handgun... August 08, 2012 NEW HAVEN — The lawyer arrested Tuesday after bringing a loaded handgun into a downtown movie theater showing "The Dark Knight Rises," the same movie showing last month when a gunman killed 12 in Colorado, said he felt the need to carry a weapon as protection. Sung-Ho Hwang, 46, said he normally doesn't carry his gun, but brought it with him Tuesday night because the movie didn't end until 1 a.m. He has a valid state permit to carry the gun. "There is no posting at [Criterion-Bow Tie Cinemas] that states that weapons are not permitted. As far as the law is concerned, I have a right to carry there," Hwang said during a news conference on Wednesday at his New Haven law office. "We should focus on the real question: Why is New Haven so unsafe? Why do law-abiding citizens feel that they need to carry a weapon?" Police had a different view at their own press conference. "We're not here because of an issue about a permit. We're here because customers were scared, they called for help and we came," New Haven Police Chief Dean M. Esserman said at a news conference on Wednesday.
GoBlueInCT
Thu, Jan 10, 2013 : 8:08 p.m.
My son is a national record-holding, champion sharpshooter on his way to the Olympics... should you take his guns out of my house? Why vilify all guns because unstable people commit horrific crimes? Shouldn't we outlaw automobiles, alcohol, and knives, since they are all instruments used by criminals which can also end lives? Is it fair, or right, that junior shooters all over the country have to wear t-shirts that say "I participate in an Olympic sport I can't talk about in school"? Don't forget, these kids are your future SWAT team members and Secret Service counter-snipers who will put their lives on the line so you can freely post your comments...
martini man
Thu, Jan 10, 2013 : 9:41 p.m.
Actually, there are liberals who would do exactly that..outlaw automobiles and force mass transit. They want to control what we eat,what we drink,what we think, and that's a fact.
DJBudSonic
Thu, Jan 10, 2013 : 9:36 p.m.
As a former member of the U of M Rifle Team ( Big Ten Champs) and a fellow competitive shooter I wish your son well, and couldn't agree more with your comments. We sport shooters are the unheard minority in this argument, but really the best example of responsible gun ownership. Air Rifle is the first Olympic medal awarded in the summer games.
E Claire
Thu, Jan 10, 2013 : 8:34 p.m.
I think his point is that what his child is doing is perfectly legal and a good thing. He is being a responsible gun user but, in this country, we use emotion rather than common sense so his son would get kicked out of school for talking about his sport. People are told they must be educated and responsible with guns but then we vilify kids like his son while media glorifies gun use in movies, records, even tv commercials. Same with sex and alcohol...We say to kids that they shouldn't be having sex or drinking but do nothing about the constant selling of sex and alcohol to kids in the media. And with all due respect ffej440, Japanese culture could not be more different from ours.
GoBlueInCT
Thu, Jan 10, 2013 : 8:33 p.m.
ffej440- I don't get your point. We should move to Japan? I like it right here in the United States, with our Constitution intact...
ffej440
Thu, Jan 10, 2013 : 8:20 p.m.
I don't get your point. Japan requires shooters to check guns in lockers and they have Olympic shooters. They also don't make anyone wear T shirts. Most important they still have cars, knives and SWAT teams.
David Briegel
Thu, Jan 10, 2013 : 7:25 p.m.
Most frequent uses of handguns. 1. Murder 2. Suicide 3. Accidents 4. Self Defense
METL METL
Fri, Jan 11, 2013 : 4:04 p.m.
Clearly you have not heard of defensive gun use. (DGU) Numbers are estimated to be anywhere from 80k (by anti-gun people) to 2.5 million (by pro-gun) people... settling on 100k seems pretty fair. There were 30,000ish gun deaths from suicide, accident, self defense, and murder in 2011. David Briegal, are you suggesting that those 100,000 or more people should have been maimed or murdered and unable to defend themselves? Are you suggesting that a large quantity of those 30,000 gun deaths would not have taken place without guns? I would argue that violent people who are going to commit murder with a gun would have likely found another weapon absent a firearm.
Bcar
Thu, Jan 10, 2013 : 10:08 p.m.
rad rad rad... Those pesky FACTS from FBI, CDC, DOJ always seem to get in the way dont they??? Please, what is your response to the below?? We'll all be waiting... Self defense use of a firearm against violent crime: 62,200 (ave annual) Firearm suicide: 18,735 (2009) Firearm homicide: 11,493 (2009) Firearm accident(unintentional): 554 (2009) again, 4,2,1,3... http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr60/nvsr60_03.pdf http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=dcdetail&iid=245 LOL, your ignorance on this issue is amazing.
Radlib2
Thu, Jan 10, 2013 : 8:27 p.m.
Bcar do some research before you rebuke others. Don't just assume you're right, because you are NOT.
SEC Fan
Thu, Jan 10, 2013 : 8:13 p.m.
I don't think anyone "uses" a handgun for Accidents...
Bcar
Thu, Jan 10, 2013 : 7:52 p.m.
LOL, and where did that come from? more like 4,2,1,3...
Mitch
Thu, Jan 10, 2013 : 6:40 p.m.
Why does Britain have ANY firearm death?? What about the 51,639 violent crimes??
Bcar
Thu, Jan 10, 2013 : 6:35 p.m.
How do you propose getting the guns from the gangs? Please enlighten us! Look at Chicago, the most restrictive gun laws in the nation, and then look at their murder and crime rate and tell us your plan would work... ignorance is bliss... You also failed to mention that England has a Violent Crime Rate 3 TIMES HIGHER than ours. I guess if you're ok with a beating and rape you're argument holds water. What is the value of life? How many are killed in automobile accidents each year? Lets ban cars while we're at it! You want the guns, I'll tell you what, you can have the bullets first.
dsponini
Thu, Jan 10, 2013 : 6:33 p.m.
Another school shooting is unfolding right now in Taft, California. All sensible Americans are asking for is stricter regulation and checks. No one is threatening to take your guns away. What happened to being sensible? http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/ story?section=news/ national_world&id=8949130
Ricebrnr
Fri, Jan 11, 2013 : 4:39 p.m.
"No one is threatening to take your guns away. What happened to being sensible?" Can't have a sensible debate unless you are honest. So Diane Feinstein & Gov Cuomo haven't OUTRIGHT stated guns should be confiscated? The new bill she submitted doesn't have the same grandfathering provisions as the last failed AWB. So if no grandfathering, millions of otherwise law abiding citizens should expect what if it passes? Need more examples?
L. C. Burgundy
Fri, Jan 11, 2013 : 12:44 a.m.
Looks like the perp was using a shotgun there. So, what are you going to do for shotgun control? You realize those aren't "assault weapons" right? You do know that even the gun control paradise that is the UK allows homeowners to buy shotguns? Stop seeking inanimate objects to blame.
TommyJ
Thu, Jan 10, 2013 : 7:48 p.m.
Funny, california has some of the strictest gun laws in the nation. Another shooting by a criminal not following the law in a 'gun free zone'. Might as well call it 'target zones'.
StopCrying
Thu, Jan 10, 2013 : 6:49 p.m.
Also shootings like this have happened in Detroit consistently for years and you very rarely see it in local news and you NEVER see it in national news. p.s. Annarbor.com needs to improve commenting so people can just edit and add rather than keep posting over and over again.
StopCrying
Thu, Jan 10, 2013 : 6:47 p.m.
Also, both links you have posted have been dead..not sure if it is just me or not though.
StopCrying
Thu, Jan 10, 2013 : 6:46 p.m.
What happened to parenting and showing your kid proper attention so they don't turn into sociopaths?
Bcar
Thu, Jan 10, 2013 : 6:39 p.m.
this clown IS talking about taking them away. 99% of gun owners I know are 100% OK with stronger background checks, adding mental health records to the checks, more training and education, closing the gun show loop holes etc. While I and many others think these actions alone will make a significant impact, thats not what is being talked about by our law makers...
GoNavy
Thu, Jan 10, 2013 : 6:12 p.m.
Don't keep a gun in YOUR house Mr. Horning - keep your moralizing out of mine.
Nunya
Thu, Jan 10, 2013 : 5:45 p.m.
Lets just cancel the Constitution. Oh, by the way ladies, you can't vote anymore
StopCrying
Thu, Jan 10, 2013 : 6:28 p.m.
Finally! I mean we can all agree that it was a failed experiment right? I joke I joke!
TommyJ
Thu, Jan 10, 2013 : 5:42 p.m.
"Don't use the argument that the "bad guys" would still have guns, or that people living near the Mexican border need guns. These points are well-taken; but we can make and enforce laws that speak to these points" Do you not want to hear that argument because it makes yours moot, or do you just choose to ignore it? Tell the woman who used a gun to protect herself and her family from an intruder just last week. Tell her that instead of hiding in the closet and shooting the bad guy with her gun when he broke into her house and pursued her to her hiding spot where her and her sons where hiding from him, in her own house, she just has to die or get raped or watch her family die instead of protecting herself. Because we have a 'good government' that will protect her. If you don't want a gun in your house, don't have one. If you don't want to protect yourself, please don't. But don't tell everyone else they can't either. Your logic is specious, your argument is flat out wrong, and you don't get to tell me how to live.
E Claire
Thu, Jan 10, 2013 : 7:38 p.m.
Since you brought up the whole choice thing, cmdvimes, do you also extend that freedom of choice when it comes to joining a union or are you against right to work?
Ricebrnr
Thu, Jan 10, 2013 : 7:13 p.m.
cmdvimes, as a matter of fact yes. Gun owners run the spectrum of faiths AND political ideology.
cmdvimes
Thu, Jan 10, 2013 : 5:50 p.m.
You extend this "don't want one, so don't have one" argument to abortion too right?
Grey Man
Thu, Jan 10, 2013 : 5:38 p.m.
Don Hornin, you cite the Second Amendment as if it were the only legal reference. And yet in Michigan, our own State Constitution Article 1, Section 6. clearly states that "every person has the right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of protecting himself and the State." Go look it up Don and if you don't like it, work to repeal it or amend either or both the Second Amendment or article 1., section 6 of our own Constitution. Like it or not, we have a right to own firearms in this State and in this Country. Why don't all of these laws that we have on the books already work? Because criminals don't follow the law Donald. Gun control is not about controlling guns Donald, it;s about controlling people. Just ask any Jew that has a tattoo from WW2, they can tell you.
E Claire
Thu, Jan 10, 2013 : 8:04 p.m.
Wouldn't it be nice if the public schools spent more time teaching children about WWII and how not only the Jews, mentally ill and handicapped, but also anyone who disagreed with the govt, were hauled off to the camps (if not beaten to death by the brown shirts first). Too busy handing out trophies I guess
DJBudSonic
Thu, Jan 10, 2013 : 5:18 p.m.
We have lost two loved ones, our parents, to a drunk driver. They were senseless victims. Following your logic, what would you have the government do to remedy this situation? Ban all cars? We could, there is no constitutional mention of the right to drive. Make it illegal for anyone to drive drunk? It already is, but it didn't stop their killer. License the operators of dangerous objects, like cars? You do need a license to operate a motor vehicle, and his was suspended for a second DUI, but it didn't stop him from getting a car and using it irresponsibly. My point is this; many people own and operate cars, and maybe just as many own and operate firearms. There are laws and practices that apply to the use of both, and these can be followed and enforced, leading to safe use, or they can be ignored and not enforced, leading to tragedy. So... What is the root of the problem here, the object or it's operator? To suggest that restricting the rights of those who own and responsibly use firearms will solve the problem of violence in our society to me seems as ridiculous as suggesting that no one be allowed to drive, because some drunk might get behind the wheel and kill somebody. Of course terrible things can happen, that is a part of living in a (relatively) free society. The solution to either problem is the same. Get the right laws in place and enforce them. Educate yourself and others about living safely in a dangerous world. And work towards a society that has its foundation in morality, equality and personal responsibility, so as to limit the bad choices that people continue to make.
E Claire
Thu, Jan 10, 2013 : 9:45 p.m.
First, sorry for your loss DJ. I'll never understand why a drunk driver is not charged with murder. Everyone knows the risks. You are making a point that everyone just ignores. More laws do not change behavior. It's culture and education that need to change, not laws. If people were as concerned about their neighbors as they are about the kardashians, we'd be off to a good start.
DJBudSonic
Thu, Jan 10, 2013 : 9:27 p.m.
Stricter penalties are not in place as far as we are concerned. For the following charges: driving with suspended license, fourth DUI, one count reckless driving causing injury (3 rd car involved), and two counts of vehicular manslaughter, (two deaths). He got less than five years, with time served taken off (8 months). But my point is that no matter how strict the laws, idiots and crazies will still do whatever they want, and that includes drive drunk, and possess weapons illegally. Why punish everyone for the actions of a few? And I am completely in favor of background checks for all firearm sales, no matter where they happen, and also enforcing the laws we have. I have never purchased a firearm from a shop or individual where a background check has not been run... there is a web site set up by the ATF that you can use to check on your sale... Believe me, I am as concerned as anyone about all the unaccounted for firearms floating around.
ffej440
Thu, Jan 10, 2013 : 7:17 p.m.
You assume that current gun laws are being enforced. This is not true- if the ATF did the job the local police have done with DUI enforcement we wouldn't be having this problem. The national database is a joke, and less than 10% of dealers are inspected. Google the Tiahrt act, then you can better understand the problem with enforcement. Mexico has been telling us this for years. No need to restrict any rights- just use what is already in place.
Bcar
Thu, Jan 10, 2013 : 6:33 p.m.
Sorry for your loss DJ, and thank you for your post.
GoNavy
Thu, Jan 10, 2013 : 6:13 p.m.
Check your facts Radlib2 - the "Australian Miracle" is not quite an accurate description of Australia's efforts to control gun violence.
Radlib2
Thu, Jan 10, 2013 : 5:43 p.m.
Drunk driving deaths have gone WAY down because of strict penalties. The same would happen, just like in Australia, if we would enact sensible restrictions.
Stephen Landes
Thu, Jan 10, 2013 : 5:10 p.m.
Mr. Horning, The text of the Second Amendment is as follows: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." This amendment does not create a right. The amendment acknowledges that we have a right and it forbids the Federal government from infringing in that right. As with all our rights, the Declaration of Independence tells us where are our rights originate -- from Nature and Nature's God. What the Constitution does is tell the Federal government what it may NOT do to us. If you choose to not own a firearm that is your right. What you may not do is prevent your neighbor from making a different choice.
A2James
Thu, Jan 10, 2013 : 5:07 p.m.
Also, the argument that "we have a good government that will protect us from gun violence" is a weak and invalid one. The U.S. government's solution to gun violence is either to flood other countries with guns (recent example: the Fast And Furious debacle, resulting in more U.S./Mexico border deaths and violence), or to hastily make gun control laws that may sound good to some, but are impossible to fully enforce. I am a proud American, but the U.S. government has a well known history of hypocrisy on the issue of controlling gun violence.
Honest Abe
Thu, Jan 10, 2013 : 5:01 p.m.
Don Horning- SO, you're just fine with us living in a 'police state'? Nobody will EVER take my firearms. EVER!
Ricardo Queso
Sat, Jan 12, 2013 : 5:53 a.m.
Just try to take my firearms! I'll meet you in court!
Bcar
Thu, Jan 10, 2013 : 6:30 p.m.
Rad, you still dont know what you're talking about. you say you want to ban ARs? well, there were only 323 RIFLE murders last year, and ARs are a subset of those. you're greatly mistaken...
Radlib2
Thu, Jan 10, 2013 : 5:40 p.m.
Nobody has proposed taking anybody's guns. We just want sensible restrictions on assault weapons and high-capacity ammo. We also need to curtail one's ability to clandestinely buy guns at gun shows, and restrictions for criminals and the mentally ill people. Thats it, nothing more.
E Claire
Thu, Jan 10, 2013 : 5:21 p.m.
paranoid of people who bow down to the government, no questions asked...YES
Honest Abe
Thu, Jan 10, 2013 : 5:21 p.m.
@Rad- When my rights may be violated, or even an attempt to violate - Not paranoid, more like prepared and using my 1st amendment too.
Radlib2
Thu, Jan 10, 2013 : 5:05 p.m.
Paranoid much?
music to my ear
Thu, Jan 10, 2013 : 4:59 p.m.
well I do not enjoy my gun as much as I care to protect my family, it is a different world today anything can happen anywhere at anytime BOTTEMLINE.
kris
Thu, Jan 10, 2013 : 4:37 p.m.
I'd like to hear from gun owners what their ideas are to help reduce the epidemic of mass shootings, which show no signs of slowing down in this country. How do you all feel about the NRA position calling for armed guards in every school in the nation? Is this really the answer?
Radlib2
Sat, Jan 12, 2013 : 7:21 p.m.
Nope, I'm right. Gun ownership is near all-time low. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/14/nine-facts-about-guns-and-mass-shootings-in-the-united-states/
EyeHeartA2
Sat, Jan 12, 2013 : 1:03 p.m.
@radlib2 Other than being totally wrong, you have a point. http://www.gallup.com/poll/150353/self-reported-gun-ownership-highest-1993.aspx Doesn't anybody even check before they spew any more?
Radlib2
Fri, Jan 11, 2013 : 4:10 p.m.
Gun crime has gone down because gun ownership has gone down.
Tru2Blu76
Fri, Jan 11, 2013 : 7:38 a.m.
Not enough space here to offer all my ideas (which happen to coincide with a few million others). But the first idea is a doozy: Instead of focusing on "the presence of guns" why not focus on the poor door designs which ALLOWED armed gunmen access to the theater in Aurora, CO. and Newtown, CT.?? Pretty much anyone could have gotten through EITHER of those doors. And it wouldn't have taken a Manhattan Project to replace them with (1980's technology) bullet proof, alarmed doors which would have thwarted BOTH mass killers. So there goes your "epidemic" right there. Second: like the aforementioned MISDIRECTED attention: focusing on what can be done (legally) to handle people who SHOW symptoms of potential violence so that they NEVER GET guns, explosives, flammable liquids, etc IN THE FIRST PLACE. See, disarming at least 80 million American is HARDER than disarming a few, rare individuals who show signs over going over the line between sanity and psychopathy. Think of it: at Sandy Hook school: a 20 year-old , unemployed basement dweller DEFEATED the "best minds" in Washington, in Connecticut and everywhere else in the country. That's EXACTLY what they don't want us thinking, it makes Congress, that President and every school superintendent in the country look like fools. The NRA "position" is one I criticize: JUST BECAUSE it was poorly thought out and presented. Armed "guards" need only be a couple of trained individuals (the equivalent of armed guards in armored cars) who can ACT IN COORDINATION once intrusion alarms (see above) ALERT THEM. See, tactically, it could have been pointed out that there would be PREPLANNED response, not just two people carrying guns with the idea of spraying bullets everywhere (as depicted continuously by gun phobics ) BTW: I checked about the door - with an architectural engineer who has worked on designing /building schools (among other buildings).
ffej440
Thu, Jan 10, 2013 : 6:38 p.m.
E Claire- I agree. We should start by using the laws already on the books.I've seen numbers as high as 2.7 million commited to mental health facilities yet the NICS database is just over 400,000. Why are the states not reporting to the Fed database? 18 guns per day "walk' out of gun plants and less then 10% of gun dealers are ever inspected. I think in 2007 the ATF found 3,000 guns missing from the less than 10% inspected. Most FFL dealers are not store front but "Collectors" The ATF has not had an offical head in six years.As we know in this area ATF time is being wasted on militia groups with little result. In 2008 Obama said he would repeal the Tiahrt Act- still not done. Washington has let the nation down once again.
Bcar
Thu, Jan 10, 2013 : 6:28 p.m.
Are they really on the rise? Or are you just drinking the media koolaid that is publishing these shootings more and more! Gun crime and violent crime has been reduced by 50% over the last 20 years. Don't believe me? Read the FBI stats...
StopCrying
Thu, Jan 10, 2013 : 6:22 p.m.
How about parents actually be better parents so their kid can deal with hardships in life without shooting up a school.
Hot Sam
Thu, Jan 10, 2013 : 5:53 p.m.
Folks with guns guard your politicians, your celebrities, most of your banks, and more... just sayin'
TommyJ
Thu, Jan 10, 2013 : 5:37 p.m.
Well, when Bill Clinton signed into law the COPS program that gave $millions to put armed police in school, Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer loved it and they still brag about it on their websites. I guess it was a good idea that the left got behind then, but now that the NRA proposes it, it's a horrible idea. http://dailymail.com/Opinion/HoppyKercheval/201301020138 The mass shootings in the country happen in so-called gun-free zones. The shooters pick these places on purpose because they know they will be unopposed and can kill as many people as they want. Why do you think they never go into places where they know people are armed? And what happened when a shooter went into a theater last month, where an off duty police officer WAS armed? She shot him and prevented him from killing people. Adam Lanza, as soon as he heard the sirens, killed himself. These people don't want to face opposition, they want to kill innocent unarmed people. Gun free zones aren't the solution, they cause the problem.
music to my ear
Thu, Jan 10, 2013 : 5:10 p.m.
I am a gun owner ,I have the right to bear arms .it is also my responsibility to make sure I know all the safety rules with my guns. it is not my intent to kill but to protect. I also believe we have no right to own assault rifles. that is for military use only (my opinion) armed guards in school no, teachers packing yes. I know when signed on to be a teachers this was not a requirement.not only will they protect students but also themselves. Now I wonder if we are going to have a shortage of teachers in the future.I to feel this problem wont go away we must protect our kids at any cost. and I believe teachers will step up to the plate.
E Claire
Thu, Jan 10, 2013 : 5:08 p.m.
kris, I'm not a gun owner, nor would I want to own one. I still feel that further restrictions on gun ownership is not the answer. There is no easy answer. People have a right and some do have a need to have a gun, whether anyone else likes it or not. Mass shootings all seem to have one thing in common, a mentally ill shooter (many of whom are suffering from medication side effects to boot). How do we balance the rights of the mentally ill with the rights of those who they may harm. We can't just lock people up and we also can't force medication and treatment in most cases. Armed guards in schools is just as knee-jerk a response as Biden calling for executive orders. Both are extreme and neither will do much. Education on responsible gun use, better treatment for the mentally ill and a push back from the violence so prevalent (and glorified) in our culture are good starting points. Unfortunately, only the extreme positions get any attention.
smokeblwr
Thu, Jan 10, 2013 : 4:30 p.m.
What about hammers? Most people can't use a hammer but they still have one in their house. A deadly hammer that should only be entrusted to a specialist, not a civilian. Do you know how many people died in hammer attacks last year? More than died by guns let me tell you!
aaisaplus
Fri, Jan 11, 2013 : 4:37 p.m.
Since, as you stated, hammers are more dangerous than guns, a gun ban shouldn't be a problem -- just keep a hammer with you at all times and you are just a safe as you would be with a gun. Right? I keep hearing others state that cars, knives, hammers, etc are just as dangerous as guns and therefore should be outlawed too if you applied the same logic. So, keeping a knife next to your bed in case of a nighttime home invasion shouldn't be a problem. Its just as lethal! Or, since cars are also lethal, keep your keys on you at all times so that you can quickly start your car and run down any perpetrator. Since these items are so prevalent already in our society, the good news is that we don't need guns anymore. This is a win-win for everyone since the other items actually have other uses than killing and destruction.
Gargoyle
Thu, Jan 10, 2013 : 4:29 p.m.
The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it away - Thomas Jefferson So much for your comment about "we've had a very good government for more than 230 years".
picabia
Tue, Jan 15, 2013 : 4:53 a.m.
That's a really good quote. Too bad Thomas Jefferson never said it. http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution "Falsely attributed to Thomas Jefferson; first reported in Matt Carson, On A Hill They Call Capital: A Revolution Is Coming? (2007), p. 131. Not found prior to 2007."
DonBee
Thu, Jan 10, 2013 : 4:07 p.m.
Mr Horning - I think you will find this enlightening, at least I hope you will: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland
Radlib2
Thu, Jan 10, 2013 : 4:20 p.m.
Switzerland is an uber rich, insular country nestled in the mountains. There's not much to be learned by using them as a sample.
Mike
Thu, Jan 10, 2013 : 4:05 p.m.
Both Mr. Horning and the posters below, who attempt to provide cogent arguments to his publication miss one very important fact. The constitution specifically states that congress shall make no law--. That is the only argument that anyone needs. All of the talk about federal controls is unnecessary. The reality is that any attempt at legislation or executive orders are unconstitutional and must be litigated as such.
Tru2Blu76
Fri, Jan 11, 2013 : 7:46 a.m.
Furthermore: by Michigan's Constitution, the right to defend oneself, one's family (etc) is explicitly stated (unlike the U.S. version which is muddled). The right to self-defense transcends everything. That some people argue that they can go defenseless and expect everyone to be forced to follow suit is absurd.
picabia
Fri, Jan 11, 2013 : 3:58 a.m.
Way to go with taking the First Amendment out of context. How about quoting it in its entirety? Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
bunnyabbot
Thu, Jan 10, 2013 : 3:55 p.m.
As a female living alone I want the option to protect myself as much as possible. If someone breaks in I would not like to be raped because someone out there deems citizens have no reason to need a gun in their household. the writer states "One more thought — what is the value of life? How would one of us feel if our loved one was a senseless victim?" excuse me? so rape then is acceptable to shooting someone? or rape is acceptable because a relatively low percentage of gun violence per the general population is the best alternative? So woman should be ok with not defending themselves against rape because someones kid may or may not get shot by a crazy person?
Richard Lindsay
Thu, Jan 10, 2013 : 3:48 p.m.
4 Home invasions this week and two other attempts in Ann Arbor. Just sayin'
Unusual Suspect
Mon, Jan 14, 2013 : 2:27 a.m.
Yeah, but if we got rid of guns, none of those would have happened (well, according to the author of this editorial). Instead, those criminals would have just stopped by with a place of cookies, looking for a game of cribbage.
bunnyabbot
Thu, Jan 10, 2013 : 3:48 p.m.
The letter writer assumes that the government has never nor would ever abuse it's power or it's citizens. This mentality that everything has been ok within my lifetime (so far) so why would it not continue to be so? The country is very divided, on many issues, so much so that almost every issue is 50/50. You can't get more divided than that. And as the saying goes, United We Stand, Divided We Fall. What better way then to give 50% of the people a bunch of "rights" like medical marijauna, gay marriage/gays in the military, "free" health care, "free" phones, "free" education, "free" etc. Then while they are PACIFIED you steamroll them with taking away a real imparitive right, LIBERTY that makes them the MOST subservient to the government? (and easily defeatable). Please I wish every person would wake up, not just those I would or wouldn't hang out with. In the battle for our constitution and our 2nd amendment rights this is about, the Bill of Rights, the Constitution, about our entire nation, even about those I do not agree with, that attack my religion and my personal beliefs on social issues (and please lets not mistake social issues with issues of LIBERTY). For those that want to give up their rights and want to abolish the constitution I don't know what they are thinking or what kind of world they want to live in, one would have to wonder if they were suicidal because in my view they must have their head in the sand or have no will to live at all. The right to keep and bear arms is imparitive to the balance of power. Just like there are three branches of government (checks and balances). The government serves the people, not the other way around, period. It is by our free will that they have those jobs. They want to limit the peoples ability to DEFEND themselves. THis isn't about hunting, or a hobby. This is about the government being OUR servent.
Technojunkie
Thu, Jan 10, 2013 : 3:45 p.m.
I'll let this recent essay from the former Soviet Union spell it out for you: http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/28-12-2012/123335-americans_guns-0/
1959Viking
Fri, Jan 11, 2013 : 2:46 a.m.
Amazing, thanks for posting!
dsponini
Thu, Jan 10, 2013 : 3:41 p.m.
This just in. Another "responsible" gun owner exercising his 2nd amendment rights! http://www.clickondetroit.com/news /Gunman-arrested-after-firing -shots-in-Walled-Lake-neighborhood /-/1719418/18078614/-/format /rss_2.0/-/14d11qr/-/index.html
kris
Thu, Jan 10, 2013 : 4:19 p.m.
Since you're citing statistics do you know which is more common regarding guns at home: successful shootings of intruders in self-defense or accidental shootings that occur when kids play with guns or people shoot loved ones they thought was an intruder?
StopCrying
Thu, Jan 10, 2013 : 3:57 p.m.
This also just in, a responsible gun owner shoots intruder. http://abcnews.go.com/US/georgia-mom-hiding-kids-shoots-intruder/story?id=18164812
Major
Thu, Jan 10, 2013 : 3:37 p.m.
One persons opinion, not even remotely in the majority. YOU may not need a gun, YOU may think what you want. I will think what I want, I will always need guns, for hunting, target shooting, and personal protection. I will legaly, safely control my own gun thank you very much. Better idea than the so called "gun control"....enforce those many laws already on the books. What should be talked about is working toward ending the extrememly high recidivism rate with convicted, violent criminals. Enforce the laws on the books to the fullest, the fact the courts don't proves "gun control" laws don't work. Just like everyone else, I want the violence to stop. Taking law abiding peoples guns and rights away is not the answer, they are not the criminal, and criminals don't care a bit about the law. Another big problem on this topic is the media's agenda of creating hysteria for profit, it is offensive and wrong. At the end of the day, when seconds count, the law is only minutes away. Which do you want in your hand when you find an intruder in your house...a phone, or a gun? In the 30 + years I've owned a gun, I've used it twice for protection from criminals, not even having to fire it. One time in AA (Dellwood) at 2 am an intruder, who also had just broken in to the house next door, was kicking my back door in, wife and two babies sleeping, dialed 911, then screamed out I had a gun flung open the door.. showed gun...crook dropped pry bar and ran...problem solved, cops showed up 6 minutes later. Second time in AA, at a Packard quarter wash one evening, two hoodie wearing men walked up from the dark while I was spraying down my car, with hands in pockets inferring a weapon, they demanded money..I reached for my wallet and...you guessed it. I have a CPL, all I did was show the gun (even though I was in my rights to drop them both)...problem solved..no one hurt, no one robbed. You live in your reality, I live in mine, you control your gun, I will control mine
Radlib2
Thu, Jan 10, 2013 : 3:36 p.m.
Since one is much more likely to be shot by one's own gun than to shoot an invader, I'd say it is not a good idea to posses a gun. Since we account for 80% of gun deaths out of the 23 richest countries, and those other countries have stringent gun laws, clearly we can say more guns equals more gun deaths.
libertarian.viking
Thu, Jan 10, 2013 : 9:06 p.m.
Radlib2; What about homicides PREVENTED by a gun in the home? Also, you say that, "clearly we can say more guns equals more gun deaths". We can also say that more pools means more pool deaths; and more multi-story buildings means more stair deaths. Shall we outlaw pools and stairs as well?
Radlib2
Thu, Jan 10, 2013 : 8:19 p.m.
Since the data is so well-known and been widely reported for at least two decades, I didn't bother citing it. A 4 second google search, however, verified what I said. If you have a gun at home, you're almost twice as likely to die in a gun related homicide, and owning a gun is not associated with decreased risk of homicite of any sort. Owning a gun substantially increases the risk of death by a firearm to everyone in the house. For every case of self-protection homicide by a gun kept at home, there were 1.3 accidental deaths, 4.6 criminal homicides, and 37 sucides. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/03/26/1077930/-Statistics-Guns-and-Wishful-Thinking
Bcar
Thu, Jan 10, 2013 : 6:17 p.m.
really rad? really? Please cite! we'll be waiting, LOL! oh wait, I guess suicide is "getting shot with your own gun."
GoNavy
Thu, Jan 10, 2013 : 6:17 p.m.
We account for a lot of things among the 23 richest countries - some good, some bad. However, the United States is a unique culture in that we welcome all the people of the world here as an immigrant nation.
DonBee
Thu, Jan 10, 2013 : 4:10 p.m.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland
Radlib2
Thu, Jan 10, 2013 : 3:50 p.m.
I'm just relaying facts. Sorry they are inconvenient for you.
Major
Thu, Jan 10, 2013 : 3:44 p.m.
Wrong
a2citizen
Thu, Jan 10, 2013 : 3:23 p.m.
Don, it's not a gun problem...it's a crime problem. What are you views on lethal injection?
chapmaja
Thu, Jan 10, 2013 : 3:22 p.m.
I have a couple other questions for Mr. Horning. It may be true that England had 85 firearm homicides during the same period that the United States had 8775. What causes that difference? Was it due to the fact they they have less people in the country? They have roughly 16% of the population of the United States. That alone is a major factor in why they have a lot less firearm related homicides, but that doesn't full explain the difference. What else can explain the difference? Also what is the rate of violent crime in England compared with the United States? The violent crime rate in the UK is roughly 10 times that of the U.S. Yes, the US has more murders, which is a problem that needs to be addressed, The UK is by far a more dangerous country in terms of violent crime than the US is. Murder may kill someone, but an attempted murder, rape, or other violent crime can have a very negative and serious impact on a person as well. One final comment, then I need to go to work. I also have one other question for Mr, Horning. Why is it that the states with the toughest gun control laws don't have the lowest gun related murder rates? There is only a limited correlation at best between gun control laws and gun related deaths. Many states with strict gun laws have below national average gun death rates, but at the same time many states with weak gun laws have below average gun related death rates. There needs to be some gun control, however to think gun control will prevent all gun related crimes is stupid. The saying may be cliche, but it is true. "If we outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns". The simple fact is gun control is not the end all be all answer to ending gun violence. There needs to be a change in society from what we currently have. The current thinking process in too many people is that violence is a good way to solve a problem. Violence doesn't solve anything and it only creates more problems. We need to educate, simple as that.
SEC Fan
Thu, Jan 10, 2013 : 8:12 p.m.
you can't compare raw numbers. The overall murder rate for the U.S. is 4.8 per 100,000. For the UK it's 1.2 per 100,000 for reference, Japan's is 0.4 per 100,000. Per the UNODC thru 2011.
Radlib2
Thu, Jan 10, 2013 : 3:48 p.m.
You're wrong! According to an analysis printed last year in the Washington Post, "firearm deaths are singnificantly lower in states with firearm regulation." http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/07/23/six-facts-about-guns-violence-and-gun-control/
Rizzle
Thu, Jan 10, 2013 : 3:21 p.m.
If I had a gun I would be more comfortable facing the person wielding a tire iron about to bash my head in.
Cory C
Thu, Jan 10, 2013 : 3:16 p.m.
I was going to write a reply, but I reached the 2000 character limit. So I think I'll just send my response as another letter to the editor. Maybe I'll even back up my facts with data. (Shocking!)
glimmertwin
Thu, Jan 10, 2013 : 3:15 p.m.
Yeah, right. Government has such a great track record. How's the war on drugs going? Borders secure? How did that prohibition thing work out? SEC does a great job curbing Wall Street crime, doesn't it? I pray for you that you never need to truly exercise your 2nd amendment right, and have it no longer be available to you.
Mr. Ed
Thu, Jan 10, 2013 : 3:14 p.m.
Im completly dumb founded by this opinion. But I guess the world needs vicitms.
E Claire
Thu, Jan 10, 2013 : 4:41 p.m.
False radlib. Those people died due to their government deeming them to be "undesirables". Jews, mentally ill individuals, many still children, and the elderly were being murdered in the late 30s, well before the war started. The war just made it easier to hide what was happening from the rest of the world. Not sure, but I think it was Harry Belfonte who recently said Obama needs to arrest those who don't agree with him. We all know Harry's a fool but still...
Radlib2
Thu, Jan 10, 2013 : 4:01 p.m.
False correlation. You can't just throw statistics around like that. Those people died due to a WAR.
Mr. Ed
Thu, Jan 10, 2013 : 3:19 p.m.
I think Hitler said the same thing. So he disarmed the people, 2 million died as a result.
public official
Thu, Jan 10, 2013 : 3:11 p.m.
Spend a little time listening to the police scanner some evening. Hopefully, you'll never witness hearing the dispatch repeating the frantic pleas of a homeowner who has awaken to a noise at the back door at 4am. The moments click by and the dispatch repeats the homeowners whispered, frantic pleas for the police to hurry. All the while the police are trying desperately to rush to the homeowner, who lives 10-14 minutes away, out in the township. A minute later, dispatch advises the officer the homeowner now reports the intuder is in the house, walking the hallway toward the bedroom door of the caller. Dont worry my fellow unarmed citizen, when every second counts, help will arrive in just a few minutes.
Atticus F.
Thu, Jan 10, 2013 : 3:07 p.m.
The top 2 reasons this is a flawwed argument: 1) people use guns for hunting, particularly in rural areas. This can hinder ones ability to feed their family. Sometimes people make suggestions like this without considering anybodies point of view other than their own. 2) Sometimes the responce time from police can be 10 minutes in an emergency. If some thug is trying to kick my front door in, I would like to be able to defend myself immediately upon the breaching of my front door.
Unusual Suspect
Mon, Jan 14, 2013 : 2:23 a.m.
"1) people use guns for hunting, particularly in rural areas. This can hinder ones ability to feed their family." That's the way they want it. They don't want us to be able to defend OR feed ourselves, making us totally reliant on the government. It's the classic progressive plan.
John of Saline
Thu, Jan 10, 2013 : 3:26 p.m.
Police response can be much longer in rural areas. Assuming good phone coverage, even.
brimble
Thu, Jan 10, 2013 : 3:04 p.m.
Mr. Horning's argument is unfortunately framed. The fact of the matter is that gun ownership is very deeply inculturated into the American psyche, irrespective of the intent of the Second Amendment as it was written. The notion of banning personal gun ownership is quite genuinely unimaginable, and presents a ready straw man argument for opponents of gun control. He's right -- guns are not necessary, any more than internet access or cable TV are, but the sensible approach to the challenge of guns in American society today turns on the phrase "well-regulated" in the Amendment. Banning private ownership is very likely not tenable under any interpretation of the Second Amendment.
Scylding
Fri, Jan 11, 2013 : 1:44 p.m.
I agree with much of your post, brimble, but no, he's not right that "guns are not necessary, any more than internet access and cable TV." If one lives in a high crime area, a gun could well save one's life from the imminent threat of death. It could anywhere, but in inner-city Detroit or Chicago, the chances are quite high, far higher than any convoluted argument can make for web access or cable TV.
A2James
Thu, Jan 10, 2013 : 3:03 p.m.
So, you want to ban ALL guns, huh? Good luck with that one. As long as there are criminals, I will exercise my right (yes, right) to defend myself by any means necessary. One cannot rely on the police to protect themselves all the time, nor is it even realistic. As for bans, we tried that with drugs and alcohol, and we all know how well that worked...
SEC Fan
Thu, Jan 10, 2013 : 8:06 p.m.
yeah, like most of the drugs sold in the U.S. is home-grown...
Rizzle
Thu, Jan 10, 2013 : 4:32 p.m.
actually, they can. It's called manufacturing. And the technology is actually not that advanced. Also, 3D printing (essentially an antique pre Star Trek replicator) has come along way and you will soon be able to make a firearm that can at least get a few shots off with just some money. Also cheap guns can be made with a few simple tools.
Radlib2
Thu, Jan 10, 2013 : 3:58 p.m.
People can't bootleg or grow guns.
Psudolus
Thu, Jan 10, 2013 : 3:03 p.m.
Yes, England has few gun homicides than the US, but a higher violent crime rate. Meaning you are way more likely to be a victim of violent crime in the UK than the US. Don't believe me, here is an article from the Guardian. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-25671/Violent-crime-worse-Britain-US.html
ManA2
Sat, Jan 12, 2013 : 2:42 p.m.
Wow. I've never seen those statistics before. That forces you to think more than a bit. Thanks for posting.
JS
Fri, Jan 11, 2013 : 4:23 p.m.
Ummm, because it would then be called murder.
E Claire
Thu, Jan 10, 2013 : 9:37 p.m.
Who said all of these victims lived? Are you really that naive JS?
JS
Thu, Jan 10, 2013 : 8:44 p.m.
At least they're not dead.
Bcar
Thu, Jan 10, 2013 : 6:11 p.m.
hey now!! its ONLY 3 times higher, thats not that much, come on...
Hot Sam
Thu, Jan 10, 2013 : 3 p.m.
"""Well, we have had a very good government for more than 230 years, and we have never had the desire or the ability to protect ourselves from our government. Now if we lived somewhere else, we may very well need guns to protect ourselves. """ Like Fooland???
Hemenway
Sat, Jan 12, 2013 : 4:23 p.m.
...please add to the list, Bosnia, Libya, Egypt, Syria, Uganda, Zimbabwe, Rwanda, Cambodia, North Korea, and Kurdistan. The list could be longer, I stopped at genocides less then 1/2 million.
Hot Sam
Thu, Jan 10, 2013 : 4:04 p.m.
My point exactly Riz
Rizzle
Thu, Jan 10, 2013 : 3:17 p.m.
Germany had a good government for awhile, then Hitler came along and took all the guns. Many people died after that.
chapmaja
Thu, Jan 10, 2013 : 2:56 p.m.
I only have one thing to say regarding Mr. Horning's thought. In regards to this comment " One more thought — what is the value of life? How would one of us feel if our loved one was a senseless victim?" How would you feel if someone broke into your house, and injured or killed a family member and you could not protect them because you gave up your firearms? I have several firearms in my house and they are present for protection of myself and my family. If someone wishes to do harm to my family, they sure as hell better be prepared to die, because I am not letting someone in my house die unprotected.
chapmaja
Fri, Jan 11, 2013 : 2:49 a.m.
cmdvimes, Here is a question for you. What will a dog do? It might scare off an attacker. Depending on the breed of dog, it also could be easily overcome and disposed of as well. Another question, what good would an alarm do? It might alert police that there is a break in at your home, and could even alert your neighbors (if you live in an area with other homes close by, which I do not). So let's say the alarm alerts the police. They will take several minutes to arrive on the scene, after which they are investigating a crime that occurred, not preventing a crime from occurring. Let's also not forget that the police have no legal responsibility to protect the citizens. I believe the SC case was Gonzalez vs Castle Rock. The simple fact is that people need to defending themselves against crime rather than expecting someone else to prevent crimes from happening to them. Since you seem so anti-firearm, here are a couple other things for you. You seem to be stuck on the firearm related deaths issue. What is the rate of all violent crimes in the UK compared to the US per100,000? What has happened to the violent crime rate in Australia since they passed massive gun control laws? Yes gun control may lower the number of gun related deaths, but at the same time it will lead to an increase in other violent crimes. Is that really any better? Finally, what percentage of the gun related deaths are self inflicted gunshot wounds? Those people will find a way to kill themselves if they want to. They may use a gun, or they may use a rope, a bridge, a car of any number of other methods to kill themselves. I have unfortunately had too many people among my family and friends affected by suicide attempts. I had 3 classmates in HS kill themselves either in or just after HS. I has a friend in college kill himself. I had two relatives either kill or attempt to kill themselves. In total 6 people I knew well either killed themselves or attempt. Only 1 used a firearm.
zigziggityzoo
Fri, Jan 11, 2013 : 1:53 a.m.
JS: Correlation does not imply causation. It stands to reason that many people who carry guns day-to-day may be in a career or life situation that is more dangerous than yours. There are also statistics (put out by the National Institute for Justice https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/165476.pdf , and others) that show anywhere from 110k (Brady Campaign numbers) to 2.5 million (Privately funded study) people use firearms to stop immediate threats death, rape or severe bodily harm, often without firing a shot. Even the Brady Campaign numbers on self-defense are 1000%+ higher than the total amount of gun murders. So a gun is more than 10X more likely to be used to SAVE a life than take one.
Bcar
Thu, Jan 10, 2013 : 11:10 p.m.
Thank you Ec, And JS, 70ish% of firearm homicides are gang/major urban center related, not even counting injured ("shot"). oh and the fact suicides by firearm are greater in number than homicides.
E Claire
Thu, Jan 10, 2013 : 9:35 p.m.
Citations, JS? And keep in mind that we're discussing LEGAL gun owners, not illegal (or should I say "undocumented")
JS
Thu, Jan 10, 2013 : 8:43 p.m.
Please explain to me the statistic that shows that people who carry guns are 4.5 times MORE likely to be shot, because I've been doing some research and it seems pretty solid and it kinda shoots your argument about safety to the ground. Pun definitely intended.
Bcar
Thu, Jan 10, 2013 : 7:08 p.m.
well, what about the mother who protected her kids and herself from someone who broke into her house last week? Guess you'd like to just tell her to...??? what exactly?? Stats also show that out of over 500k crimes, over 100k people used a firearm to defend themselves... That father was an idiot, plan and simple. he NEEDED more education and he also broke 3 of the major, major, gun rules.
cmdvimes
Thu, Jan 10, 2013 : 6:51 p.m.
I wear a seatbelt because the statistics show it could save my life. Maybe we ask the father who accidentally shot and killed his 7 year old son outside Twiggs Gunshop in Pittsburgh just a couple of weeks ago. State police said Loughrey told them he had emptied the magazine of the gun, but had no idea a bullet was still in the chamber. "This happens all too often where people think the gun was empty," said state police Lt. Eric Hermick. Maybe try googling "Killed playing with gun" and see how many hits you get.
Bcar
Thu, Jan 10, 2013 : 6:10 p.m.
Cmdvimes, do you wear your seatbelt? Why? Are you paranoid about getting into an accident? Leaving a brown stain? Ask the Doc in CT who had his wife and two daughters raped and murdered and ask him if the only aftermath was a brown stain... No sane or smart person leaves a gun accessible to a child, guess what, 50,000,000 households didn't have a child shoot themselves yesterday, and someone bent on suicide will find another way... your ignorance is amazing. You really don't know anything about how firearms are stored safely with quick access...
cmdvimes
Thu, Jan 10, 2013 : 4 p.m.
I'd rather leave a brown stain all over the place than accidentally blowing away my own kids who came home at an odd hour. I'd rather leave a brown stain than make a weapon available for a grandchild to discover and play with. I'd rather leave a brown stain than have a weapon available to a depressed and suicidal teen. Sure you can lock the weapon away safely but are you really going have time to find it, unlock it and load it when there are perps already in your house? Just for argument sake, say you are able to acquire your *properly* stored weapon. What if intruders (plural) see you armed and point their own guns at your family? Are you that good of a shot to risk having a family member killed in a shootout with some burglar? Honestly, I'd rather invest in an alarm system or a dog.
cmdvimes
Thu, Jan 10, 2013 : 3:07 p.m.
What is it like to live in a constant state of fear? Or do you spend long hours on edge, hoping and praying that a bad guy will kick down your door so that you can pull out *your* gun and kill them first. If you are that afraid and paranoid of intruders, maybe you'd be better off moving somewhere more safe.
sigdiamond
Thu, Jan 10, 2013 : 2:54 p.m.
Was this letter purposely written and published to make supporters of gun control look bad? If so, well done.