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

[Suburbia]

Some American observers say that most gun owners in America are Republicans, Independents and some Democrats.

Most law-abiding American gun owners have a gun for protection and for hunting, while some sick people use it mainly for killing. 

How do the rabid anti-gun liberals and Democrats protect themselves, this is a serious question. Do they rely on the police (law enforcement), which some of them despise due to racial profiling, police brutality?

Or do some of them use baseball bats, etc. as protection?

America isn't some peace-loving nation. We have dangerous people and we should have handguns for protection.

But back to the question, how do some liberals and Democrats protect themselves?

[Inmate Trump]

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?

[Suburbia]

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?

I agree with you, I want an assault weapons ban now, but I hope some liberals don't overreach on gun control.

[TheLeftwardTide]

I defend my family by wielding and mastering my trusted katana, you baka.

Example

[Devout Centrist]

Haha holy f**k

[Torie]

I have wondered around with no gun or other form of protection whatsoever (even my fists are so puny that they would serve no pugilistic purpose whatsoever) for the entire 67.3 years of my existence, including some rougher neighborhoods, and am still alive to post this post. In fact, I have had no altercations whatsoever. Amazing isn't it?  Am I blessed by God or what? Sure I am a Baysian and try to intelligently balance the risk/reward ratio. So I won't be wandering around Mogadishu, Somalia at 1 am any time soon.

[Joey1996]

One of the first things I did when I got my own apartment and turned 21 was purchase a gun for my home.

I also wouldn't need a gun if we punished private sellers for not conducting background checks and moving guns in bulk from states/counties with lax gun laws into urban centers.

[Suburbia]

One of the first things I did when I got my own apartment and turned 21 was purchase a gun for my home.

I also wouldn't need a gun if we punished private sellers for not conducting background checks and moving guns in bulk from states/counties with lax gun laws into urban centers.

Excellent! It keeps you safe and secure. Did you do gun training?

[Citizen (The) Doctor]

I learned how to shoot when I was a kid. I enjoy shooting. I have no interest in buying a gun to carry around with me nor do I feel I need one for self-defense purposes despite living in a relatively unsafe area.

[libertpaulian]

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?

[Badger]

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.

[libertpaulian]

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.

Deaths or serious injuries from car accidents occur more frequently than deaths from semiautos.

[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?

[fhtagn]

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.

[Badger]

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.

Now compare the ratio of car owners in the country to the number of gun owners in apply your same facts. And yes, suicides are a factor there as well.

Your comparison is bad, and what you feel or shouldn't feel is irrelevant as this is simply another day that ends in y for your posts.

[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).

[Badger]

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

[MAINEiac4434]

Because I don't live my life quaking in fear?

[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.

[DINGO Joe]

I know kung fu.

The OP has no grasp of the real world.

[AtorBoltox]

Protect themselves from what? Some non existent epidemic of home invasions?

[Joey1996]

One of the first things I did when I got my own apartment and turned 21 was purchase a gun for my home.

I also wouldn't need a gun if we punished private sellers for not conducting background checks and moving guns in bulk from states/counties with lax gun laws into urban centers.

Excellent! It keeps you safe and secure. Did you do gun training?

Yes, I used to go to the range with my brother in-law for up to 2 years before I purchased my gun.

[Joey1996]

Protect themselves from what? Some non existent epidemic of home invasions?

Lol home invasions, armed robberies and car jackings happen quite often where I live.

Ultimately this is an issue about poverty, though guns being smuggled in from more lax counties doesn't help....still you have to be pretty sheltered to think these things aren't happening, daily in some places.

[Inmate Trump]

Protect themselves from what? Some non existent epidemic of home invasions?

My grandfather was murdered during a home invasion (by someone who shouldn’t have had a gun in the first place).

I keep a gun for security.  They may not happen often but they do happen.

[7,052,770]

Never touched a gun (beyond a little bit of target shooting in Scouts) and never will. The idea of needing "protection" is just not something that has entered my mind. Possibly one of those brain chemistry differences between conservatives and liberals.