Talking with people about guns

[gabosaurus]

In the light of the Colorado theater tragedy, I decided to enlighten myself about guns and gun owners. My sister and I went to a discussion group led by a guy who said he wanted to "demystify the gun culture."
The host was not what I expected. He was an average size guy, in his mid-50's, who had been a gun enthusiast all his life. He was a hunter, a competitive skeet shooter and once owned a gun shop and shooting range. He spoke in a low, deliberate tone and explained things extremely well.
I was surprised at how many women were there, since I always considered weapons enthusiasts to be primarily male. But there were about 40 percent women and they all owned guns. Like my sister and I, they all knew how to shoot and had taken courses in gun safety.

The speaker started out introducing one of his closest friends. A short man who worked as a tax consultant. He had a wife, two adult children and a home in a really nice part of town. His wife breeded poodles and bichons and also did landscaping. They might come off as a totally wimpy couple until you saw pictures of his weapons collection -- well over 100 guns of all kinds. He wasn't a military veteran or an NRA member. Just an average guy with a large weapons collection.

Another speaker had a similar collection. Some of the largest, most destructive weapons I had ever seen. All of which were registered with law enforcement. He had no problem with registering guns. As long as he got to keep them. He (and a few others) registered their weapons primarily as an aid in case they are stolen.

One speaker wanted all of us to differentiate between gun owners and crazy people who own guns. For it is the latter who cause the trouble. He talked of the Aurora theater shooter, who bought his guns legally. He noted that the shooter bought guns at numerous locations, along with ammo. He talked about a tip off that was missed -- why is a man who has never handled guns or had an interest in them suddenly stockpiling weapons and ammo?

We agreed to disagree about background checks. To join the military, they do psychological profiles. If you want to join the police, they do the same along with a background check. Yes, you can kill someone with a knife, or a can opener, but not from 20 feet away. If someone has just been dumped from a long relationship, had a heated disagreement with someone or been fired from a job, they shouldn't have access to a weapon. If you have a long history of depression or instability, you shouldn't be able to buy a gun.
Yes, I know that violates the Second Amendment. But do you want that guy around your family?

I found tonight to be a huge eye opener in my view of gun rights. Who would have thought they would be normal people?

[Anton Chigurh]

If guns were as commonly carried as camera phones, there would be alot fewer mass shootings and mass shooting victims. The mass shooter is essentially a coward, knowing fully well his targets are probably going to be defenseless.

Body armor and all, the Aurora shooter would most likely have RAN AWAY if he received any return fire.

More government isn't the answer to anything, ever.

[Dilloduck]

In the light of the Colorado theater tragedy, I decided to enlighten myself about guns and gun owners. My sister and I went to a discussion group led by a guy who said he wanted to "demystify the gun culture."
The host was not what I expected. He was an average size guy, in his mid-50's, who had been a gun enthusiast all his life. He was a hunter, a competitive skeet shooter and once owned a gun shop and shooting range. He spoke in a low, deliberate tone and explained things extremely well.
I was surprised at how many women were there, since I always considered weapons enthusiasts to be primarily male. But there were about 40 percent women and they all owned guns. Like my sister and I, they all knew how to shoot and had taken courses in gun safety.

The speaker started out introducing one of his closest friends. A short man who worked as a tax consultant. He had a wife, two adult children and a home in a really nice part of town. His wife breeded poodles and bichons and also did landscaping. They might come off as a totally wimpy couple until you saw pictures of his weapons collection -- well over 100 guns of all kinds. He wasn't a military veteran or an NRA member. Just an average guy with a large weapons collection.

Another speaker had a similar collection. Some of the largest, most destructive weapons I had ever seen. All of which were registered with law enforcement. He had no problem with registering guns. As long as he got to keep them. He (and a few others) registered their weapons primarily as an aid in case they are stolen.

One speaker wanted all of us to differentiate between gun owners and crazy people who own guns. For it is the latter who cause the trouble. He talked of the Aurora theater shooter, who bought his guns legally. He noted that the shooter bought guns at numerous locations, along with ammo. He talked about a tip off that was missed -- why is a man who has never handled guns or had an interest in them suddenly stockpiling weapons and ammo?

We agreed to disagree about background checks. To join the military, they do psychological profiles. If you want to join the police, they do the same along with a background check. Yes, you can kill someone with a knife, or a can opener, but not from 20 feet away. If someone has just been dumped from a long relationship, had a heated disagreement with someone or been fired from a job, they shouldn't have access to a weapon. If you have a long history of depression or instability, you shouldn't be able to buy a gun.
Yes, I know that violates the Second Amendment. But do you want that guy around your family?

I found tonight to be a huge eye opener in my view of gun rights. Who would have thought they would be normal people?

Sane people with experience have always known that gun owners don't have flames shooting out of their ears. He's to hoping for more sane posts about guns from you now that you are experienced and everything.

[gabosaurus]

Dillo, you are quite correct. If you dislike or fear a group of people, sometimes all you need to do is find out more about them. My sister's idea (of course) was to go in with a completely open mind and think as a student instead of an educator. Sometimes you need to meet the "enemy" in order to find they are no different than you are.

As to the shooter being a "coward," that couldn't be further from the truth. The Aurora shooter was a brilliant scholar with a twisted mind. Most mass murderers are. Look at his plan -- go into a dark movie theater, throw out tear gas to get people out of their seats and then pick them off as they try to flee. If someone else takes out a gun, they are more likely to harm a bystander than the shooter. Because the shooter has everything planned and the bystander does not.

In today's society, there is a lot of stress. The average working parent, or unemployed person seeking a job, is burdened with all sorts of worries. What if all of those people carried guns on them? Would it become the Wild West of the 1800s. where the slightest perceived transgression was answered with a bullet? If the counter guy at Burger King shorts you on change and then refuses to own up, do you shoot him? How about the driver who cuts you off in traffic? You are sane, but what about him?

[Kathianne]

Dillo, you are quite correct. If you dislike or fear a group of people, sometimes all you need to do is find out more about them. My sister's idea (of course) was to go in with a completely open mind and think as a student instead of an educator. Sometimes you need to meet the "enemy" in order to find they are no different than you are.

As to the shooter being a "coward," that couldn't be further from the truth. The Aurora shooter was a brilliant scholar with a twisted mind. Most mass murderers are. Look at his plan -- go into a dark movie theater, throw out tear gas to get people out of their seats and then pick them off as they try to flee. If someone else takes out a gun, they are more likely to harm a bystander than the shooter. Because the shooter has everything planned and the bystander does not.

In today's society, there is a lot of stress. The average working parent, or unemployed person seeking a job, is burdened with all sorts of worries. What if all of those people carried guns on them? Would it become the Wild West of the 1800s. where the slightest perceived transgression was answered with a bullet? If the counter guy at Burger King shorts you on change and then refuses to own up, do you shoot him? How about the driver who cuts you off in traffic? You are sane, but what about him?

Here's the thing Gabby, most of us 'law abiding' folks that are under financial stress, the last thing we're thinking of 'buying' is a gun.

Mental folks going 'off' has happened for centuries, no doubt about that. However, their carnage pales in comparison to those who would never register their guns. Note that this mass murderer followed 'the law,' regarding guns.

[SassyLady]

Mass murderers don't always use guns. How about arson?

Anyone remember the Happy Land fire? The arsonist got mad at his girlfriend and set the place on fire and killed 87 people. Are we going to regulate matches and lighters?

[Anton Chigurh]

As to the shooter being a "coward," that couldn't be further from the truth. The Aurora shooter was a brilliant scholar with a twisted mind. Most mass murderers are. Look at his plan -- go into a dark movie theater, throw out tear gas to get people out of their seats and then pick them off as they try to flee.

Couldn't possibly be more cowardly than that. "Brilliance" and planning is no indicator, if anything it's a verifier of cowardice. The dude was and is a coward. His whole plan was to get out of it unscathed.

If someone else takes out a gun, they are more likely to harm a bystander than the shooter. Because the shooter has everything planned and the bystander does not.

Nonsense. There are many such cases documented where a shooter is stopped by one of the targets having a gun, with NO bystanders injured by the defender. In MOST ALL of these instances, the attacker FLEES when shot back at.

[red state]

Dillo, you are quite correct. If you dislike or fear a group of people, sometimes all you need to do is find out more about them. My sister's idea (of course) was to go in with a completely open mind and think as a student instead of an educator. Sometimes you need to meet the "enemy" in order to find they are no different than you are.

As to the shooter NOT being a "coward," that couldn't be further from the truth.The Aurora shooter was a brilliant scholar with a twisted mind. Most mass murderers are. Look at his plan -- go into a dark movie theater, throw out tear gas to get people out of their seats and then pick them off as they try to flee. If someone else takes out a gun, they are more likely to harm a bystander than the shooter. Because the shooter has everything planned and the bystander does not.

In today's society, there is a lot of stress. The average working parent, or unemployed person seeking a job, is burdened with all sorts of worries. What if all of those people carried guns on them? Would it become the Wild West of the 1800s. where the slightest perceived transgression was answered with a bullet? If the counter guy at Burger King shorts you on change and then refuses to own up, do you shoot him? How about the driver who cuts you off in traffic? You are sane, but what about him?

COAST, you couldn't be more wrong....and on so many levels. Firstly, I now assume that the shooter is definitely a liberal since he, by your own words; "The Aurora shooter was a brilliant scholar with a twisted mind. Most mass murderers are."

Most mass murderers are, indeed, brilliant and dangerously liberal in their way of thinking and the horrors of their actions...EX: (mao, stalin, hitler, Columnbine twerps, jeffrey dahmer, etc).

Secondly, meet the "enemy"....really, those gun owners are the enemy huh? Well, that is no surprise since liberals usually see AMERICA as the enemy and would side with AMERICA'S ENEMY in a heartbeat (because liberals are the enemy from within that our founding fathers warned us about). It is also the liberal minded that goes off to train under is-SLUM-ists.

Thirdly, your analysis of a guy shooting someone at Burger King for being short changed or cut off in traffic on the hwy is a typical liberal response that has NO common sense because it is the guy without a 'permit' or legal standing in having a gun that I worry about (IF) I do not have my gun to refute his "DEBATE". Liberals all too often strive to silence difference of opinion through "fairness doctrines" or make us all lil' defenseless lemmings (just as lil' libbie losers usually are) when it is those who care nothing for laws that will have a gun (AND USE IT). Your wild west analogy hold no water because there are too many stories out there to refute what you believe "would have happened" if one, two or 20 had been armed in that theater the other night.

In closing, ask yourself this (everyone answer if you will)...Would you rather have a guy pointing a gun, with intent to use is on you or your loved one WITH or WITHOUT a gun toting, God fearing PATRIOT next in line with a gun? You only have 5 seconds....the cops, at the fastest time, will be there in ONE SOLID minute that found you dead (like a few at the theater the other night) DEAD before the cops arrived. I just wasted my time (AGAIN) cuz I doubt VERY seriously that you or anyone you hang (occupy your time with) has gone to a meeting where REAL patriots attend. So, there's two topics that I'd like to hear from others about: (1) Would you rather wait on the cops? and, (2) Do you believe CESS COAST ever attended such a meeting...other than within the confines of his/her/its distorted reality?

[Roo]

Gun owners are just norma lpeople, and while I applaud your effort to try and understand....I do take issue with the "getting to know your enemy" statement....really?

[Dilloduck]

Dillo, you are quite correct. If you dislike or fear a group of people, sometimes all you need to do is find out more about them. My sister's idea (of course) was to go in with a completely open mind and think as a student instead of an educator. Sometimes you need to meet the "enemy" in order to find they are no different than you are.

As to the shooter being a "coward," that couldn't be further from the truth. The Aurora shooter was a brilliant scholar with a twisted mind. Most mass murderers are. Look at his plan -- go into a dark movie theater, throw out tear gas to get people out of their seats and then pick them off as they try to flee. If someone else takes out a gun, they are more likely to harm a bystander than the shooter. Because the shooter has everything planned and the bystander does not.

In today's society, there is a lot of stress. The average working parent, or unemployed person seeking a job, is burdened with all sorts of worries. What if all of those people carried guns on them? Would it become the Wild West of the 1800s. where the slightest perceived transgression was answered with a bullet? If the counter guy at Burger King shorts you on change and then refuses to own up, do you shoot him? How about the driver who cuts you off in traffic? You are sane, but what about him?

Alas. Another learning opportunity wasted on someone who really doesn't want to know the truth. You have no idea what would would have happened if there had been a bystander there with a permit to carry yet you want us to believe that more innocent people would have been killed because this theoretical person had not planned properly. Responsible gun owners plan and practice with their firearm for situations where they might be forced to use it to protect themselves or others close to them. Write off your trip to visit "gun people" as a huge fail.

[Anton Chigurh]

And I'll add to what I said above: The shooters tactical position was good ONLY if the entire crowd is unarmed. If someone there had been armed and chose to shoot, the shooter made a perfect target of himself, standing there by the screen, below any armed defender. This is also I imagine, why he stayed pretty much near the door he came in. He had his escape planned for if he had to flee return fire.

[Gaffer]

And I'll add to what I said above: The shooters tactical position was good ONLY if the entire crowd is unarmed. If someone there had been armed and chose to shoot, the shooter made a perfect target of himself, standing there by the screen, below any armed defender. This is also I imagine, why he stayed pretty much near the door he came in. He had his escape planned for if he had to flee return fire.

He went to the expense and trouble to wear body armor. He had no intention of getting hurt in any way. He gave up without a struggle as well. This is a coward of the highest degree.

[red state]

He went to the expense and trouble to wear body armor. He had no intention of getting hurt in any way. He gave up without a struggle as well. This is a coward of the highest degree.

Yep, the guy was obviously a lil' libbie loser lemming cuz of his brilliance (according to CESS COAST's bright assumption that THEY are brilliant and WE the PEOPLE, who make up the majority are ignorant, gun toting, God fearing PATRIOTS (aka terrorists).

I've said it twice BUT I'll say it once more cuz three times is usually a charm. The guy getting pelted with empty shell casings was close enough to practically touch the guy. He could have shot BUT it would have been MUCH better for him (or someone else in his position) to have tackled the guy...with or without a gun. Sad truth is....most lil' libbie loser lemmings would have sought to prosecute the guy for defending himself. FACT! Google all the episodes where a TRUE PATRIOT was within his/her God given rights to self preservation and the lil' libbie loser lemming system sought to prosecute in the name of heir agenda to first disarm and then take over as so many other dictatorships/communists have done.

My question a bit earlier still applies...Anyone care to respond.

[Anton Chigurh]

He went to the expense and trouble to wear body armor. He had no intention of getting hurt in any way. He gave up without a struggle as well. This is a coward of the highest degree.

Yep, he for sure didn't want to shoot it out with anybody.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Dillo, you are quite correct. If you dislike or fear a group of people, sometimes all you need to do is find out more about them. My sister's idea (of course) was to go in with a completely open mind and think as a student instead of an educator. Sometimes you need to meet the "enemy" in order to find they are no different than you are.

As to the shooter being a "coward," that couldn't be further from the truth. The Aurora shooter was a brilliant scholar with a twisted mind. Most mass murderers are. Look at his plan -- go into a dark movie theater, throw out tear gas to get people out of their seats and then pick them off as they try to flee. If someone else takes out a gun, they are more likely to harm a bystander than the shooter. Because the shooter has everything planned and the bystander does not.

In today's society, there is a lot of stress. The average working parent, or unemployed person seeking a job, is burdened with all sorts of worries. What if all of those people carried guns on them? Would it become the Wild West of the 1800s. where the slightest perceived transgression was answered with a bullet? If the counter guy at Burger King shorts you on change and then refuses to own up, do you shoot him? How about the driver who cuts you off in traffic? You are sane, but what about him?

The bolded STATEMENT IN THE QUOTE ABOVE THAT YOU MADE IS INSANITY IMHO!
How is it that a man plans and shoots that many unarmed defenseless innocent people not the act of a damn ffing graven coward? For as sure as water is wet it is just that, the act of cowardice!
Then you praise him in your zeal to what?-- to praise him!!?
According to that praise you must get your jollies off when the Islamic terrorist does his/her heroic act!
Its quite apparent to me that you have a few screws loose IMO.-Tyr