Lol, you folks keep dissing and before long there won't be anything to comment on, and then what're you going to do to kill time? Complain and diss Obummer, Obumble, whatever he's being called now? Lol, where you gonna post, on Messenger?

It seems to me that they reported the facts, and the facts show people support gun rights. Furthermore, most liberals I know own firearms. I think this is an episode of paranoia.

Yeah.....I read a few more of your posts......this is what I am talking about. I support gun rights, but a few terrified/paranoid people ruin it for everyone.

Chicago,,, Morning

MSNBC wouldn't know "FACTS" it they hit them in the head with them

OH, If you turned that kind of altered report into your college Prof. you'd FAIL

------------------

Well maybe not in Chicago.

What exactly do you think your paranoid and snarky comments are adding to the dialogue or are you just trolling?

"Obviously you don't read the news much do you? Lots of bad things happening in those places, not all but enough of them. Welcome to the real world."

The news does not reflect the real world. The news is the result of agencies combing the landscape and featuring reports that garner attention and controversy.

The public gets the news they want. No one cares about anything that might support something worthwhile and constructive.

You are paranoid. I've been around 63 years coast to coast in the US and Canada in major cities and small towns from penthouse to minority ghetto and have never ever had the need for a gun. I guess you get the world you project. Think trouble, you get it.

Culheath, consider yourself extremely fortunate, lol. I left Chicago, moved to Nashville, TN in 1974. One day, driving up a main road, in a Black area, I stopped for a light. Three guys came running up and started yanking on the door handles; "Hey, you White MF'er, get out of that truck!" I picked up my gun and aimed it. They ran off. So, just another everyday event. Well, there was a funny part to it, some guy on the sidewalk started yelling; "Don't shoot, don't shoot, they don't mean anything, be cool man, be cool." Lol, they didn't mean anything? I was born in Chicago, reared on the South Side, went through public school in the city, I know better. Anyway, while I don't think a gun is necessary in daily life there are those few times when a gun is handy to have around, if, emotion can be kept under control. I fully intended to shoot those guys, glad I didn't. Lol, I can just imagine the headlines; "White motorist shoots three unarmed Black youths."

mellowfello1526615,

Good post.

But I disagree with you that my circumstance is one of being extremely fortunate. I think my situation is exactly what a vast majority of people experience during their lifetimes; most people never do encounter situations that require the use of a gun to protect themselves or their loved ones.

I believe that too many "gun rights" people live in a media-hyped world where the incidence of actual violent crime has little bearing on reality. And that their paranoid view of things exacerbates and too often is responsible for initiating the very situations they fear; the recent profiling of Trayvon Martin by George Zimmerman being a case in point.

Even if we remove the racial component, Zimmerman's interpretation of Martin's presence in the community was a paranoid one and his attendant profiling of the Martin is what initiated the entire course of events that led to the kid's death. Martin and Zimmerman may have both been in the same gated community that evening, but they were perceiving quite different worlds up to the point of Zimmerman acting his paranoid one.

Here's my question regarding the huge increase in the last couple of years of gun purchases:

The wild west days of American folklore is one where guns were everywhere and taken as matter of fact and each individual was expected to be a law unto themselves. But eventually, as the west grew more populous, sheriff's were elected to represent enforcement of order and regulations about gun play the right to carry a weapon openly was diminished - either by those explicit laws against it or by social pressure from people who wanted to reduce the potential violence in their communities.

What makes this period of time any different? Since most people will never encounter a situation that requires a gun, why do the gun rights people and their push for "Stand Your Ground" laws want to return to that earlier wild west period where everyone is armed and a law unto themselves? How real is the need for more guns?

The need for guns is very real because in the minds of a lot of people it's real and that makes it real because they have the guns. I posted before that one of the reasons I carry is because of those folks, folks who because they have guns feel compelled to go to places where they wouldn't ordinarily go if unarmed. They do that because; "By gawd, I got the right to go anywhere I want to go." And, if a person is Black or White and doing it, it just pours more gas on the fire. It seems that some people have a need to prove something, prove that they can be as bad as the baddest. A gun makes them badder. When you posted that you had been in places you didn't say that it was out of necessity. For a lot of people necessity dictates for various reasons, like economics or employment. As I posted before I've lived in areas in Chicago that were predominantly Black, went to grade school, Holmes Elementary, started high school at Englewood. All on the South Side of Chicago. I had no choice, my stepfather, the drunken bum, lol, chose those places out of economic necessity. I was along for the ride and paid the price of being attacked on my way to school, in school and coming home from school. I grew up hating Blacks, but, as time went by maturity took control. Hell, I even supported the Civil Rights movement.

You mentioned the Trayvon matter. Both, Zimmerman and Trayvon, were on a collision course because of programmed mentality. Zimmerman profiled Trayvon as a Black young man up to no good and Trayvon profiled Zimmerman as just another White man playing the role of "DA MAN." Did Zimmerman have the right to stop Trayvon, ask him what he was doing in the area? Yes. Did Trayvon have the right to be where he was? Yes. Things went downhill quickly.

I have to agree that the majority of people won't encounter situations where a gun is needed for self-defense, and, given the times we live it's also possible that they will. Most folks know better than to be in areas that they shouldn't be in, because of race. And, because of the threat of crime. Race isn't a factor then, it's a economic thing, people don't have so some take by force. That can happen anywhere, in bad and good neighborhoods, and, that's a valid reason for having a gun. Thing is, a valid reason expands to encompass reasons that aren't so valid, like the psychological need to be the baddest of the bad, lol. That is what groups like the NRA play on, stake their whole existence on. Lol, "You don't mess with the man who has a gun." They play on, depend on, the fear that Man has for his fellow Man, so to alleviate that fear, to feel secure, a Real man carries a gun, the biggest and baddest gun, ala Clint Eastwood. A Real man doesn't swallow insults, like getting the "Finger." He can get a gun and shoot the finger off. "Stand your ground" means different things to different people. To some it means using a gun to defend against a robbery, rape, etc. And, to some, it means responding with a gun when cut-off in traffic, or, lol, being called an idiot. Just think, if it weren't for the 'Net how many more killings would happen? People wanting to be all that they wish they could be in real life, be as obnoxious and bad as they want to be, but, doing so might get them shot. So, online is safe. Well, that's just an observation of course, but, lol, it seems from some of the comments I've read it's a valid observation. Yeah well, I appreciate your reply, and, lol, for not calling me an idiot. That seems to be a favorite charge for some.

Excellent post and the last thing I would call you is an idiot. I appreciate your view and agree with much of it. We differ on some small aspects, but hey spice of life...viva la difference and all that.

Thanks for your engagement and lucidity. It's nice to have adult conversations.

Thankeeeeee soooooooo much. I've been called, labelled; "Socially challenged." Lol, maybe because I take things seriously. There are chat rooms for a lot of the stuff I read here. I was just commenting on another news report, something about a Secret Service scandal. Man, folks were really going at each other and if they were on the street there would be a lot of fat lips.

But you differ with the vast majority of Americans as well. Thankfully, I may carry my Glock .45, or my Ruger SP-101, or my Ruger LCP concealed whenever I like.

Wow, Hunter, quite an arsenal. You made sure to post what breed they are, what, they're some kind of macho, manly weapons? Reminds me of when I was a kid, wanting a fast car. I had a little Rambler so I had a stick on plaque made up for it; Super XYZ Turbo. Stuck it on the rear and sure in hell, lol, kids would ask me; "Hey, is that XYZ Turbo fast?" Lol, it was fun for a while.

She would clearly be more intelligent than you.......

While I fully understand it must have been extremely difficult to take another human life, knowing it was to be his own death, or the thugs, I find it hard to understand the regret.

Perhaps that is a signal that empathy gland is not functioning as well as it could.

He, your father, sounds like he was a good man and a good police officer. But, it might have been better if he had chosen a different line of work. I know that if I killed someone, for good cause, it definitely would not haunt me for the rest of my life. If that makes me a poor Human being, well, so be it. Lol, it sure doesn't seem to bother murderers when they go out, killing people for a few bucks, or, for the thrill of seeing them on the ground crawling, scratching around and squalling.

mellowfello , you are clueless . taking someones life for a good cause can haunt some people , the rest of there life . it is not like stepping on a bug, it is a human life ever heard of ptsd a lot of good men and women suffer from this, please get a clue.....

Yeah sure USA. I have a clue, it was made apparent to me quickly when I was growing up. Sure, guys came home from war with PTSS, Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome. And, many more weren't affected. So what? I've known people who have killed, in self-defense and they were damn glad that it wasn't them. Years later they felt the same way. I don't discount the psychological factor, it's valid. Well, to some it is. Label a problem and if it's a mental health problem it's not so much of a problem anymore, it becomes an excuse: "Yes, we understand why you did what you did, you're just a victim too." Your argument is used a lot in connection with traffic enforcement. Some feel that they have the right to drive as recklessly as they want. They also kill while driving. So, lol, it will haunt them for the rest of their lives, so, they have suffered and will suffer, let them go. More likely the person feels that the dumb sumbitch shouldn't have gotten in his way. Same with shooting someone, better him than me and I'm glad I was able to get him first. Shadenfreude at work. As for the police officer, well, it's evident that he chose a line of work that he wasn't psychologically ready for.

From what? I will wager that if you polled the entire population of gun owners that very, very few of them could honestly report that they had ever had the occasion to protect themselves with it.

You would probably win that wager. It must be frustrating as hell to go to all the trouble of getting a permit, getting a gun, and then not have an opportunity to use the thing, lol. Hell, might as well stay around home, start something with the neighbors, beat the wife and dog. Well, they can always go online, call people idiots, etc.

Criminals end up with guns because the laws can not be enforced. Too many people and not enough enforcers. Same with drugs, child pornography, littering, hell you name it. There could be thousands of laws for guns alone, but if they can not be enforced, what good do they do except in the few rare cases !

True....and the difference with guns is this. Since with drugs, you can only kill yourself (unless you drive a car, for which there are other pertinent laws), if you make them legal, people will just buy them legally. However, the black market for guns will always exist, as there will always be people who shouldn't have them, and there is too much money to be made (this is why we still burn oil out the a** end of cars, because of the "money to be made" factor). It's like, unless we allow law enforcement to search EVERY house for weapons, we'll always have illegal weapons- in other words, we need a change in the CULTURE, or else we'll always be stuck with this problem. As this survey proves, that isn't going to happen....and so we roll on. As I said- the one choice which IS possible is to crank up the price of ammo for any weapon that isn't truly considered a hunting weapon. That will at least help a little, but it won't solve the problem.

DB, I don't know what you mean about a "Change in culture." I do believe however that it's not possible to enforce a "No hand gun" law because there are just too many of them around, and, too many people who want them. Just like drugs, too many people want to use drugs. The only practical way to stop the proliferatiion of guns in society is to make it illegal to manufacture them. Lol, ok, marijuana is grown so almost anybody that wants it can grow it. Guns are not grown, they are manufactured. As for a change in culture, well, guns have been a part of American culture since colonists first landed. They were necessary, but were considered tools. Are they necessary today? Yes and no. Yes, because people have a need for self-protection, no because most people will not become a victim of a physical crime. It's a tough situation, if our society was more law-abiding there would be no need for guns, for self protection. It isn't, too many predators exist to prey on other people. Gun control existed, and worked in places, believe it or not, in our "Wild West." Many towns had an ordnance, "Check your firearms when you enter town." Even back then when guns were considered tools people understood the danger of having everyone walking around armed. Anyway, if we really want to eliminate guns from our daily lives we have to make it illegal to manufacture them. Lol, then, even the criminals won't be able to get guns. 'Course, they could be brought across the border illegally, and, that's another topic; Secure borders.

mellowfello1526615,

I see "changing the culture" to mean teaching kids that violence is not to be celebrated as the most plausible solution.

We are a culture at present that finds violence delicious - that fact is revealed everywhere in our fantasies about it, whether in films celebrating heroic vigilantism or in our penchant for demonstrating military might and technological prowess.

Blow @!$%# Up is as valid as a national motto as In God We Trust.

What I find odd is the most strident support for such violence comes most often from the community that claims to worship a pacifist.

Culheath, you're right on about that. Teach kids that violence is not good, not to be celebrated. Thing is though, Man is violent by nature and evolution has made him so. With all that kids see and experience in their social environment, and not necessarily portrayed by the Media or in the movies, but just naturally like bullying, it's no wonder then that a kid being taught that violence is bad will probably respond; "Be for real, get real." They understand that violence is both bad and good. When I was a kid I loved it when RoadRunner beat Wily Coyote, using violence. Lol, Tweety Bird used violence to get over on Sylvester. Our society teaches that when evil is overcome it's usually by violent means; Gene Autry or Roy Rogers kicking some bad guy ass. Dirty Harry is a good example, and, violence is also taught as a means to solve social wrongs, like Robin Hood taking from the rich to give to the poor. Lol, personally I prefer to refer to him as Robin the Hood. The problem facing Sociiologists is; "How can we teach that violence is bad when it sppears that violence is also good?"

I hear you...as I said earlier, we find violence "delicious", like salt, fat and sugar. But as a culture we are overdosing on all of it to our detriment.

"How can we teach that violence is bad when it sppears that violence is also good?"

Maybe if we taught violence more along the line of the martial arts ideal where the instruction and training in precisely applied violence was coupled with restraint and and high diplomatic skills.

The Japanese for example are a highly aggressive culture at times but have made extreme politeness a central tenet of their day to day encounters because of the aggression and population density.

Perhaps that sort of thing taught to kids from the get go might lower the incidence of the more blatant forms of violence.

Right, and the Japanese are a good example of what high density does to a culture. They do have a way of being extremely polite. My oldest daughter lived in Japan for a year teaching English to businessmen who would be visiting here. The level of politeness in everyday life amazed her. One of her degrees is in Sociolology so she had an interest. She came to the conclusion that the Japanese could have gone one of two ways; Be nice or kill each other. 'Course, all that politeness might just be a cover, to cover the real them, a society just waiting to set the wolf loose. Maybe their martial arts is like that, treat your opponent with respect, then strike and strike to kill. What, lol, a polite and managed form of violence? Well, it works for them I guess. Americans seem to go about managing violence a bit differently; Just grab a gun and kill the sumbitch! No standing around and being nice in a confrontation, get right to it. Well, martial arts is like a sport, and, so is violence to a lot of us. Some folks are big on "Talking things over." That would be nice if it worked, but it's been my experience that when I was walking to school, or someplace and a couple of bad guys came up; "Hey, you White so and so, what're you doing around here, looking for trouble?" it wasn't the time to get into a philosophical discussion about how things shouldn't be like that.

@CFU Agree with many points you have posted. I think the caveman analogy breaks down though. One on One with sticks and rocks is different. If a caveman went whacko maybe one would die. Today a firearm can kill many innocent bystanders.

Hard to believe the Gabby shootings were so recent, yet now we are still debating. And the list of innocent people being gunned down en mass doesn't make headlines like it used to.

For the record I am a gun owner. Small rifle and a handgun. I would never join the NRA. Their propaganda sickens me.

Your emotional, silly rhetoric sicken ME candy. Freedom comes with risks. YOU want zero risks, so by default, you simply cannot be for freedom. I seriously doubt you actually own a single firearm, but it`s a moot point even if you do. You`re a liberal troll is all.

Maintaining a free country, in a world of aggressive nations does have risks, like the slogan says; "Freedom isn't free, it comes with a price." But, a free society where people are free to move around daily without being threatened, that's something else. Citizens have every right to live in a risk free society, that's what we pay taxes for. Why shouldn't citizens be able to live free without risk to freedom? Is being asked what you are doing to great a price to pay for personal freedom? What did you mean when you said that someone can't be for freedom if the person want's zero risk? Well, ok, we may have different views about what "Freedom" is.

No but we do have laws to separate alcohol from cars and guns from cars and we should have laws to separate alcohol from guns.

Some states have recently passed gun rights laws that allow guns to be carried into bars. Given that NRA members are constantly claiming the the virtues of an alert and responsible mindset as part and parcel of gun ownership and the fact that alcohol is famous for reducing and hindering both of those things, it should be readily apparent that allowing guns in bars is begging for trouble.

Good post Culheath. Where I live now, in Tennessee, a Real man drinks, and carries a gun. Man, talk about a formula for trouble. Wait, lol, I left one out. A Real man, by gawd, drives his truck as fast as he wants too and anywhere he wants too. Ha! The trouble formula is now complete. I was going to add "Hunts" but that's another topic and I've had my share of catching hell over it.

lol...I see your point.

You served to protect ones right yet you question ones rights? Or don't you care about that, and only joined only to take advantage of the college money?

My guess, you were in the National Guard.

So HALO, what's the deal with being in the National Guard? I was in for six years and it served a purpose. I was in the Regular Army, 5th Special Forces Group (Airborne) back in the early 1960's. Got out, got married and joined the Tennessee army guard to get the G.I. benefits. There's nothing wrong or bad about being in the National Guard.

Whatever your reading of the 2nd Ammendment is, its irrelevant, because the US Supreme Court in recent cases has specifically ruled that the right to bear arms is not just a privilege of the State, but is an individual right to be enjoyed by all citizens. Sorry about that. Maybe you would be happier if you moved to some Police State like China.

Settle down mellofello. don't read into it too much. I see where you are trying to go with this.

The only reason I took a guess at it was because he referenced the National Guard twice.

Even though a National Guardsman is not committed to the armed forces full time, when deployed, does not mean they bleed any less when hit by and IED.

With that said, there are a noticeable difference between National Guard soldiers than Active Duty Soldiers. If you try to tell me any different, you are only trying to kid yourself.

A major problem with your assertion is that the National Guard didn't exist when the 2nd Amendment was written. The "militia Act" of 1903 created the National Guard. In colonial times, the "militia" was just a pool of ARMED and able-bodied men from the local town or city. In case you've been asleep forthe last couple of years, the Supremt Court of the United States just affirmed that the 2nd Amendment conveys an INDIVIDUAL right to keep and bear arms, with no requirement for formal military service.

Pensacola, the Supreme Court considers many things when it decides whether or not something is Constitutional. People today think that they have a sort of special insight on what the Founding Fathers had in mind when the Constitution was written and adopted as the law of the land. In those times guns were necessary, tools of survival. I think that what the Founding Fathers had in mind was a local militia, one that would be called out for an emergency, like Indian attacks, roving bands of marauders, or, a invasion. Lol, much cheaper than having a large standing army, which is also the basis of the army National Guard. So, people had the right to bear arms, to be ready for a call up. Today, and in the past large cities, that isn't and wasn't necessary. There were large police forces to handle emergencies. Is there a need for guns today, for self-protection? Yes, because there will always be those who prey upon others and no amount of law enforcement will change that. So, make it illegal to manufacture guns and at least that tool will be eliminated, leaving us with only knives and clubs to worry about. Or, and this is the hard part and why people want guns, give up a little individual freedom like being free from search and seizure. Meantime, all we can do is have our guns and hope that we won't be found guilty of man-slaughter should they be used in self-defense. Lol, I carry because I think it's better to be tried by twelve than be carried by six.

the militia, was designed to protect us from the government, in case they over stepped there boundries check it out, also try reading the constitution it is very interesting , you may even learn something...

You're right about that USA. I've read the document and I'm just glad that there are folks a hell of a lot smarter than I am to decide, interpret the meaning of the Constitution. The Justices have made it their lifes work, their career, to study the Constitution from all angles. Personally, I don't agree with some of the decisions, and, some do agree. We are all products of our social environment, some say that nobody should have a gun and some say that it should be allowed. The Justices decided in favor of having guns. Some don't think that people should be allowed to march in protest. The justices decided that any group; Black power advocates, Civil Rights advocates, Women's Lib advocates, the Klan, the American Nazi Party, may march, demonstrate. All are protected by the Constitution. Well, in light of popular opinion on many subjects that the Justices have to rule on, those folks have my respect and admiration. Hell, if it weren't for the Justices interpreting the Constitution America would have gangs of thugs shooting it out in the streets. Ok, sorry if I wandered from the point of your comment, but, it may fit in. You say that the militia was organized to protect citizens from the government? The government that allows a militia, to protect from itself? That hardly seems logical. "You may have a militia to protect you from us."

MA Tom, interesting thing about a carry permit, and having a gun at home. In the class I had to take we were given scenarios, like; If you catch someone breaking in you can shoot. But, if you catch someone already in your home you have to allow him to escape. Seems odd, but that's what we were told in class. Basically, a life is worth more than material possessions, unless, it's your life that is threatened and in that case you had better have witnesses if you shoot. Lol, our town Constable told me that if I shoot someone coming in a window to call him, he'll help drag him all the way in. Anyway, I've only had to show my gun once and that pretty much ended that situation, hope it never happens again and that's why I'm careful about where I am. Too many people legally carrying guns have the attitude that since they're armed and have the right of free movement that they'll go anywhere they damn well want to go, lol. What that means to me; They're purposely looking for an excuse to use a gun. And, lol, in some cases a couple of shaky punks will jump out, take it away from him and stick it up his ass. I've also been in situations where I wanted a gun, like; Back home once coming from work, 2nd shift, on a dark night walking home from the bus stop I saw two Black guys cross the street, heading for me. Man, if I had had a gun I would have been shooting when they got close. Lol, when they got close one started laughing; "Be cool, relax, you're ok." They walked on by. If I had had a gun I would have shot two men, just because they looked threatening. It's the emotion thing, I was pretty tense. I imagined things, they crossed the street to get me, they were Black so they were threatening. Lol, well, where I grew up in Chicago you had to be ready for anything, and, that's why people get shot.

you have no clue what you are talking about...Mr. Obama's actions have been the opposite of what you are implying.

We are all products of our social environment, so, when Obama was elected President I wondered what his plans would be. Would he try to implement policies designed to help his "People?" would he act as a President for all the people? One thing stayed in my mind, his experience as a Illinois State Senator from the South Side of Chicago, a area known for it's crime and racial turmoil. He knows the area and he knows the problems, so, if he is indeed trying to remove guns he's doing it because it's the best option available. Personally, I think he's doing the best job he can, given all the things working against him. Lol, I wish the folks with their "Obummer, Obumble, etc." sat in his chair for a week, dealing with what he has to deal with. And, to get the full effect, they would have to suddenly turn Black.

bdowns -

it is obvious you don't understand statistically significant sample sizes protocol and that is ok but with about 150 million adults in this country what do you think your chances are of being surveyed?

In actuality this survey has not changed much over the many years..the opinions are about the same.

Chances are your concerns with drunks (and even the Travon Martin), although valid, are an insignificant problem, don't happen that often and is an insignificant occurrence. A bigger concern are the many times others have been hurt or killed and never had the chance to defend their Constitutional right to life because they did not and could not carry a weapon.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion, and I have a degree in Communications and know exactly how surveys are conducted and I can assure you a sample of 1209 is not a substantial sample to quantify the results. I also have no problem with anyone owning, or carrying a weapon, but when wego to the extreme of allowing people who are intoxicated to carry a weapon it's no different than the guy who gets behind the wheel of a vehicle intoxicated. The thinking and the logic are all gone and he/she is an accident waiting to happen. The odds might be insignificant, but are you willing to be the one caught in the crossfire? I really don't care to make orphans out of my kids because I WAS IN THE WRONG BAR AT THE WRONG TIME.

you don't understand sampling theory, I have an economics/mathematics degree....statistical significance and margin of error....read up on it.

unless you totally outlaw guns you can't stop drunk issues from occurring, you hopefully can only minimize it....what about the person who gets drunk at home. No doubt a drunk with a gun is a big concern but how do you make a good and reasonable rule...it is no different than DWI, we can't positively stop it but we have minimized it to an acceptable level...even tough 100% compliance is the goal.

Most people walking out of bars are sober, how about I stop to have dinner with my wife and kids and I went to the bar in the restaurant and got a glass of wine....so I should not legally be allowed to carry my gun into the restaurant? slippery slope for sure.

It all depends on how you test out on the meter. Some folks have a high tolerance for alcohol, some don't. A glass of wine may be too much for some. Lol, I always considered myself as having a high tolerance, until I had a few and wound up picking myself up off the sidewalk, after, having my ribs almost kicked in. And, robbed. Anyway, that being a few days before my release from active duty in 1964, I quit drinking.