fatalsaint: I realize that most of the people that you know think the same way as you do regarding government regulation and "interference" in people's lives when it comes to gun control. But in most other western nations, the American way of looking at gun control seems more than a little bizarre. This is not meant as a criticism of you or your way of thinking, I'm just pointing out that you might be in the majority in your neighbourhood, city, state, whatever, but among stable, wealthy nations, the NRA approach to gun ownership gets puzzled looks and blank stares. They just don't get why Americans all need to be cowboys and have a gun on their hip.

For instance, why not have a law that insists that your guns are kept locked up? The government still can't bust into your house to make sure you're doing it, but if there's a law, it's more likely that people will do it, and that can't be a bad thing, can it?

I was watching Judge Judy the other day.

These parents had bought their son a bee-bee gun. He used it to shoot up his neighbor's property, causing extensive damage.

The parents swore they were responsible people. But the mother was caught in a lie about supervision-- turns out the kid wasn't really supervised.

It's one thing to think that responsibility can be confined within a family-- but it can't. It's truly naive to think that we can all rely on each other to exercise proper judgment in the absence of nanny-style regulations. It's a nice libertarian theory, but it collapses in practice. Which is why we have civil constraints like speed limits, zoning laws, etc. Yes, people violate them. Yes, they can be a pain in the ***. But the anarchy you lean towards would, in reality, be an ugly thing that in short order would reduce the human race to a handful of surviving savages. Those who would voluntarily exercise good judgment and self-restraint would be in the first wave of extinction. That would, ostensibly, include you.

I was raised on a farm. We were given guns at very early ages and expected to be responsible by a stepfather who also saw himself as responsible.

But we weren't. And he wasn't. We abused our guns, as kids will. It is naive to think that doesn't happen (and on a larger scale than theorists would like to believe). It is a miracle we all survived, given some of the stunts pulled.

We make choices about our living conditions after adolescence. We are born into societies with laws. If one dislikes those laws, one can work to change them or find an environment more conducive to their preferences. It all comes down to how extreme one will act based on their beliefs.

Fatalsaint, you say you will take your beliefs to their farthest extreme but I don't believe you. If that was true, you would already be living on some lawless frontier, trusting solely in your own capabilities and the wisdom of your nearest neighbors. But you chose to stay in a crowded society of restrictive laws. If the frontier is not an option, how much work will you put into changing those laws? How much change do you expect for that effort? Have you ever really sat down and conducted those thought experiments? I am guessing no.

I am not saying any of this to be mean or nasty. This is a philosophical issue and I am simply asking you to philosophize... to an extreme. Have fun.

The Libertarians have it right. (Please take a look...)

actually.. I couldn't begin to tell you what people around me think about gun control. I'm more a recluse.. (I did mention: I don't leave the house all that often.) I do know that other countries think our insistence on the right to keep our silly little guns is strange. I respectfully, disagree.

I never said everyone was responsible.. I said they should be. If they're not.. that is their fault.. and I should not be blamed for it. If their irresponsibility affects me.. I blame them.. not society - but that specific person(s) responsible.

That was you. I was raised around guns, had access to my fathers guns since I was 10 years old. I never once showed it off to my friends.. certainly never loaded it.. and only rarely ever went in to look at them when the parents were away. Let's be honest.. they were cool - but I understood also that they killed.. and even at a young age I had witnessed someone else have an accidental discharge with their firearm.. so the first rule of safety "Always assume a gun is loaded" always stuck with me.

Now.. where I was an idiot like you were is not with the guns.. it was with the off road motorcycle my parents bought for me when I was 14-16 for our annual camping trip. I can't tell you how many cliffs I nearly went over, how many cars I nearly hit... I guess that means we should outlaw motorcycles too?

I said I have contemplated my beliefs to the extreme, and said that should they happen I have decided they are better than the alternative on the opposite end of the spectrum. I have not said I have lived it; and chose it after the fact.

HOWEVER ... believe me.. I really do wish I had my own 5-10 acre land that I could fence and close off from the rest of the world, including the federal .gov (hell; disney as their own LEO).. I also have a very small group of very tight friends that would love such a thing as well. One's a doctor, his father the Sheriff of a county, ones an engineer, there's me the geek, and a few others. I myself have no farming experience.. some of the others do.. but in theory the group of us could actually make our own little tight-nit society away from everyone and not bothering anybody. (Did you know they sell Missile Silo's?? Atlas silo's are for sale for building homes and such out of: Talk about my DREAM HOUSE.)

Unfortunately one has to take into account practicality... I have to make money.. I have kids to feed.. and I have a wife. I don't have the luxury of just dropping everything and vanishing into no where.

What am I doing to change the laws?? Easy .. I am here, and everywhere else I've seen active gun discussions trying to educate those who don't actually know jack about guns - and buy the BS and crap the news and politicians feed them. Hopefully, I can give at least some people, an insight to the insanity of punishing the many for the crimes of a few.

And Tex - Thank you. That post didn't make me feel like a pathetic 4 year old with an IQ of a Dolt. It was well worded, and made sense even to my small mind. So I appreciate the change in tactic there.

Oh and...

What Aisu said.

No, they're driven by a host of those things that are taken into account in their unwitting analysis; "careful" is all that's really lacking there.

I thought it was obvious that was not intended to be complete; you're saying you wanted that uber-thick sentence filled out more?

Yes, all those are issues, to be added into any such analysis.

FWIW, While it obviously varies with age, I think the best approach to kids and guns is to make sure they know as early as reasonable:

• How to use them
  Squirrel hunting with a 22 LR is great, as is tin-can plinking, especially with larger calibers. Paper-punching's not bad, but blowing holes in paper doesn't leave a ~8 year old with near the impression of guns' power as firing a .44 Magnum at a coffee can and watching it go flying. Yes, after a few rounds with Dad steadying the gun (and controlling the recoil), he let me fire one all on my own, which I did on my third attempts at holding the (positively enormous ) pistol steady enough to aim. (Dad reloaded his own ammo for 44 mag; used a .357 soft lead bullet with a plastic sabot, which yielded more energy with lighter recoil than most factory loads. It wasn't going to harm anyone, but it was still quite noticeable.)
• how to handle them
  for activities not involving a loaded gun, always keep the guns physically separate from the ammo, and of course the four rules
• never to handle them without permission, at peril of effective punishment; but being liberal in granting that permission, when you're around to supervise, and with no ammo

At least this combo worked for us when we were kids. No guns were locked up, although some of the handguns were kept in out-of-the-way places nearer the ceiling than kids can handily reach. We handled guns (rifles mainly, but also some handguns), we got to cycle the different actions and understand how they work, and we never had an accidental discharge, and always had the gun pointed in a safe direction in case one had happened. IMHO, this approach works a lot better than the notion of simply preventing kids from accessing firearms that seems prevalent these days, because it fails safe. If you depend on locking the guns up, as soon as they find a gun unlocked, you've got a kid playing with a firearm. Maybe even a little kid, who can only make the trigger on that double-action go by grasping the butt in both hands, with both thumbs on the trigger. This tragedy happens all too often, and I don't think locks or safes are a complete solution.

But if you rely on kids knowing guns, and being forbidden, if they ignore the rule and get a gun down to work with, they know how it works, they know to keep it pointed safely, and even if their goal is to take it, load it, and shoot it, they have the skills they need to do that without hurting anyone. Besides, if their curiosity is satisfied from firing and manipulating the guns regularly, and if they understand that these guns can bring death -- that they can turn frisky furry animals into lifeless (and tasty) meat, they've suddenly got much less reason to grab a gun, and more reason to remember the safety rules.

And I need to practice my insane-driving car-wrecking skills, too.


(Looks like fatalsaint beat me with somewhat similar experience while I was fiddling with formatting... As for that compound idea, it'd be nice, till Janet Waco sends in the stormtroopers.)

Awww...cmon Benson.. You don't think a dozen armed crazies bunkered in a missile silo with only two controllable entrances and built to withstand the direct hit of a nuclear strike could put up a good fight against a few stormtroopers

And whether i beat you or not..you're definitely more eloquent than I. You tend to get the point across more fully and with less rambling than I do .

Libertarians also believe that markets correct themselves, and no regulations are needed.

Tell that to US taxpayers now footing the bill for the biggest bank and insurance bailouts in history. Tell that to each of us losing his job thanks to that greed and stupidity (that list includes me).

Look, I actually start off libertarian in my own approach to any subject. It's just that pure libertarian beliefs are often great in theory but poor in practice, so like society in general I accept that civil laws are a necessary evil and have to stop short of absolute libertarianism.

FYI, I voted for more Libertarians on this year's ballot than any other group-- and that includes Bob Barr for president. I'd rather see Libertarians as judges than anyone else. But they're not perfect as a party. They just think they are.

Well, good luck with that one, Don Quixote. What you're saying there applies to most if not all civil laws. So... would you completely strike down ALL such burdensome civil laws due to that nature?

Careful! That way be dragons.

Nobody is perfect... But I still pick the one CLOSEST to what I think is right. I actually didn't even realize I was libertarian (or at least..more so than rep/dem) until this election...never really paid attention to what they stood for. Everyone is always so focused on rep/dem... but this time around with the two complete failures of candidates (my opinion all..) made me actually pay attention to the alternatives.

But back again...Nobody is perfect...I just think the failures of the libertarian (assuming, again, a 100% libertrian run society) would be better than the alternatives. The all suck... just one sucks less..and gives me more control to fix the suckage

I tend to agree to an extent, which again, is why I voted mostly libertarian (on principle).

But to me the best party is one that doesn't even exist: The TRULY Fair-and-Balanced, Common-sense, Liberty-First party. Ah, one can dream...