How do some liberals/Democrats protect themselves without a gun?

[Crumpets]

Same answer as Torie, although 40 something fewer years. There's never been a time in my life when, looking back on in, I thought "wow, I really wish I had a gun just then." And I don't exactly live a risk-averse life. Just a couple of days ago, some random dude who was clearly drugged out of his mind decided he wanted to beat me up on my way home from work. All it really took to get out of that situation was ducking and out-running him. One time I was hiking, I came across a bear on the trail in front of me. All it took to get out of that situation was slowly backing away and then running once I got out of site. Sometimes I work as a cashier, and although I've never been held up at gun point, there's no way I'd want to keep a gun behind the register because I know it would be a magnet for thieves, and keeping it in a safe would kind of defeat the purpose. Really, it just comes down to the fact that any scenario I could try to conceive of where a gun is the ideal weapon to have, law enforcement isn't available, and there is no choice but to harm the other person/animal, is such an outlandish scenario that it simply isn't worth my time or money to invest in buying a gun and learning how to use it.

Please tell me, gun owners (and I'm not trying to be snarky, I'm actually curious) have any of you ever used your gun in a non-hunting, non-military combat situation? As in, for legitimately protecting yourself? If so, what precipitated that?

[Crumpets]

I have a gun.  Actually, I own more than one.  I also own many pocket knives.

No sensible person is calling for a ban on all guns.  What we want are assault weapons bans, better background checks, raising the age from 18 to 21, etc.

Gun control does not mean taking away people's guns.  Guns should be available for purchase, but that doesn't mean it needs to be anywhere near as easy as it is currently to purchase one.  We are pro-2nd amendment.  Military grade weapons shouldn't be available; AR-15's shouldn't be available; background checks should be more extensive; people with mental illness shouldn't be allowed to purchase; an 18 year old high school student shouldn't be allowed to buy one; there should be some kind of training required or some way that you can show you know how to respect, handle, and operate a firearm.  There's more steps you have to go thru in order to legally drive a car.

Seriously, what does your side not understand about this?

Because there are many peaceful, decent, law-abiding people of all backgrounds and walks of life who own AR-15s (and weapons of similar caliber), and they've never used it to kill anyone in the manner that these shooters do.  Why punish them?

For the same reason that tens of thousands of people who safely drive 130 miles an hour on the highway harming anyone car, as you put it, punished by limiting the speed limit to 75 or 80 miles an hour.

About 1.3 million people die in car accidents per year, with speeding being a factor in about 30% of those.

Compare this to about 30,000 people who die from guns per year, the majority actually being from suicide (about 60%). The numbers are much smaller when it comes to murders, and even smaller than that when it comes to mass shootings.

Not to mention there's other factors at play that increase the risks of an accident and death while speeding that can't even be compared to guns.

Your comparison is bad and you should feel bad.

I think that's a fair criticism, so here's a comparison that I think is more apt: pseudoephedrine. I don't know what the ratio of people who took pseudoephedrine back when it was commonly available for cold and sinus problems vs. the number of people who used it to make meth, but I imagine it's around the same ratio as the number of responsible gun owners to people who shouldn't have a gun but do.

That being said, in 2005 under a Republican president and a Republican congress, the US passed a law for stores that sold pseudoephedrine that:
- Required a retrievable record of all purchases, identifying the name and address of each party, to be kept for two years
- Required verification of proof of identity of all purchasers
- Required protection and disclosure methods in the collection of personal information
- Required reports to the Attorney General of any suspicious payments or disappearances of the regulated products
- Required training of employees with regard to the requirements of the CMEA. Retailers must self-certify as to training and compliance.
- The non-liquid dose form of regulated products may only be sold in unit dose blister packs
Regulated products must be stored behind the counter or in a locked cabinet in such a way as to restrict public access
- Sales limits (per customer):
--Daily sales limit—must not exceed 3.6 grams of pseudoephedrine base without regard to the number of transactions
--30-day (not monthly) sales limit—must not exceed 7.5 grams of pseudoephedrine base if sold by mail order or "mobile retail vendor"
--30-day purchase limit—must not exceed 9 grams of pseudoephedrine base. (A misdemeanor possession offense under 21 U.S.C. § 844a for the person who buys it.)

Personally, I'm of the opinion that Americans have a right to access basic medicine. If we made cold medicine illegal on the 1/1,000,000 chance that it's used to make meth, that would be ridiculous. And yet, I'm sure pretty much nobody looks back on the Combat Methamphetamine Epidemic Act of 2005 as a violation of our basic human rights. As a matter of fact, most companies that were effected just invested in a bit of R+D and found a way to make cough medicine without pseudoephedrine. Maybe if we put similar basic levels of regulation on all gun and ammunition sales, we might see a bit more investment by gun manufacturers in making guns safer to use and harder to misuse (imagine, for example, being able to "cancel" a stolen gun in the way one cancels a stolen credit card, so that it is unusable).

[Crumpets]

I have a gun.  Actually, I own more than one.  I also own many pocket knives.

No sensible person is calling for a ban on all guns.  What we want are assault weapons bans, better background checks, raising the age from 18 to 21, etc.

Gun control does not mean taking away people's guns.  Guns should be available for purchase, but that doesn't mean it needs to be anywhere near as easy as it is currently to purchase one.  We are pro-2nd amendment.  Military grade weapons shouldn't be available; AR-15's shouldn't be available; background checks should be more extensive; people with mental illness shouldn't be allowed to purchase; an 18 year old high school student shouldn't be allowed to buy one; there should be some kind of training required or some way that you can show you know how to respect, handle, and operate a firearm.  There's more steps you have to go thru in order to legally drive a car.

Seriously, what does your side not understand about this?

Because there are many peaceful, decent, law-abiding people of all backgrounds and walks of life who own AR-15s (and weapons of similar caliber), and they've never used it to kill anyone in the manner that these shooters do.  Why punish them?

For the same reason that tens of thousands of people who safely drive 130 miles an hour on the highway harming anyone car, as you put it, punished by limiting the speed limit to 75 or 80 miles an hour.

About 1.3 million people die in car accidents per year, with speeding being a factor in about 30% of those.

Compare this to about 30,000 people who die from guns per year, the majority actually being from suicide (about 60%). The numbers are much smaller when it comes to murders, and even smaller than that when it comes to mass shootings.

Not to mention there's other factors at play that increase the risks of an accident and death while speeding that can't even be compared to guns.

Your comparison is bad and you should feel bad.

I think that's a fair criticism, so here's a comparison that I think is more apt: pseudoephedrine. I don't know what the ratio of people who took pseudoephedrine back when it was commonly available for cold and sinus problems vs. the number of people who used it to make meth, but I imagine it's around the same ratio as the number of responsible gun owners to people who shouldn't have a gun but do.

That being said, in 2005 under a Republican president and a Republican congress, the US passed a law for stores that sold pseudoephedrine that:
- Required a retrievable record of all purchases, identifying the name and address of each party, to be kept for two years
- Required verification of proof of identity of all purchasers
- Required protection and disclosure methods in the collection of personal information
- Required reports to the Attorney General of any suspicious payments or disappearances of the regulated products
- Required training of employees with regard to the requirements of the CMEA. Retailers must self-certify as to training and compliance.
- The non-liquid dose form of regulated products may only be sold in unit dose blister packs
Regulated products must be stored behind the counter or in a locked cabinet in such a way as to restrict public access
- Sales limits (per customer):
--Daily sales limit—must not exceed 3.6 grams of pseudoephedrine base without regard to the number of transactions
--30-day (not monthly) sales limit—must not exceed 7.5 grams of pseudoephedrine base if sold by mail order or "mobile retail vendor"
--30-day purchase limit—must not exceed 9 grams of pseudoephedrine base. (A misdemeanor possession offense under 21 U.S.C. § 844a for the person who buys it.)

Personally, I'm of the opinion that Americans have a right to access basic medicine. If we made cold medicine illegal on the 1/1,000,000 chance that it's used to make meth, that would be ridiculous. And yet, I'm sure pretty much nobody looks back on the Combat Methamphetamine Epidemic Act of 2005 as a violation of our basic human rights. As a matter of fact, most companies that were effected just invested in a bit of R+D and found a way to make cough medicine without pseudoephedrine. Maybe if we put similar basic levels of regulation on all gun and ammunition sales, we might see a bit more investment by gun manufacturers in making guns safer to use and harder to misuse (imagine, for example, being able to "cancel" a stolen gun in the way one cancels a stolen credit card, so that it is unusable).

There is plenty of cold medicine available over the counter that does not contain pseudoephedrine. I'm not sure if you were criticizing, but I can assure you that it is wise law, and perhaps a good analogy and model for potential gun laws

Yeah, that was pretty much my point. It really didn't take very much regulation to almost eliminate the problem for good. The problem is that any regulation of guns is portrayed as anti-gun, even though I don't remember anybody saying anti-pseudoephedrine laws were "pro-common cold" or "anti-pharmacist" or something.

[Crumpets]

We'll need to start referring to Atlas member fhtagn as the guy who goes duck hunting with an assault gun.

Conversation over.
You are adding nothing to this thread with your pro-NRA, gun semantics drivel.
We need to get back on topic.
Duck hunting! Good-God. LOL.

You do know fhtagn is a girl, right?