My wife is demanding I get rid of my guns

[GHook93]

I caved. Dropped my guns off at my buddies place last weekend.

Side note: Note it never got even close to this point, I just thought it was interesting. I talked to a cop buddy of mine and he stated that if she called the police (which she has’t threatened nor do I think she will do) and tells them she feels threatened they can confiscate my guns and remove me from the house.

I see why, but still messed up!


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[Skull Pilot]

I caved. Dropped my guns off at my buddies place last weekend.

Side note: Note it never got even close to this point, I just thought it was interesting. I talked to a cop buddy of mine and he stated that if she called the police (which she has’t threatened nor do I think she will do) and tells them she feels threatened they can confiscate my guns and remove me from the house.

I see why, but still messed up!


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[DrLove]

My suggestion: Don't be a hothead about it unless you want to lose her. Talk it out and compromise.

You only need one gun to defend your home - Start the negotiations by asking to keep two of them.

She balks, then compromise for the one you feel best works for home defense.

Never mind - I see you gave 'em up .. always choose a good woman over a gun ;-)

 

[Skull Pilot]

My suggestion: Don't be a hothead about it unless you want to lose her. Talk it out and compromise.

You only need one gun to defend your home - Start the negotiations by asking to keep two of them.

She balks, then compromise for the one you feel best works for home defense.

Never mind - I see you gave 'em up .. always choose a good woman over a gun ;-)

Better yet choose a woman who shoots

 

[strollingbones]

That happens to a friend.. police took all the guns in the house including his sons then the kids had to go to court to get their guns back

 

[Pop23]

This is funny.

Got rid of all my guns when we got married and had young children in the house because of the wife.

2 years ago SHE insisted I get guns. (Who am I to fight with her?), so gut 3.

She's now happy

Different strokes I guess

 

[joaquinmiller]

There are a lot of sides to the issues, but they break down to two basic camps. Either you are for, or against. Either you love, or hate guns, depending on the hyperbole of the other side.

Not so. I grew up hunting in a rural area, I'm an Army veteran, and I own long guns. I like guns. Always have. I think many, if not most, who have fired a rifle, like it. And to many, there is an element of primal satisfaction in holding an instrument of death, or knowing it gives one the power to deal death. But my opinion is that enough is enough. The gun culture that has been marketed in the past 25 years is insane. We need to outlaw concealed carry, with an eye toward the eventual ban of handguns, and we need to outlaw high-capacity magazines in high-velocity weapons. For someone who isn't in frequent combat-style training, a double-barrel shotgun is the optimum home-defense weapon. I'm fine with long guns.

 

[miketx]

There are a lot of sides to the issues, but they break down to two basic camps. Either you are for, or against. Either you love, or hate guns, depending on the hyperbole of the other side.

Not so. I grew up hunting in a rural area, I'm an Army veteran, and I own long guns. I like guns. Always have. I think many, if not most, who have fired a rifle, like it. And to many, there is an element of primal satisfaction in holding an instrument of death, or knowing it gives one the power to deal death. But my opinion is that enough is enough. The gun culture that has been marketed in the past 25 years is insane. We need to outlaw concealed carry, with an eye toward the eventual ban of handguns, and we need to outlaw high-capacity magazines in high-velocity weapons. For someone who isn't in frequent combat-style training, a double-barrel is the optimum home-defense weapon. I'm fine with long guns.

Total commie post. Conceal carry works. The only reason we have so much crime is dim scum will not punish the criminals.

 

[joaquinmiller]

There are a lot of sides to the issues, but they break down to two basic camps. Either you are for, or against. Either you love, or hate guns, depending on the hyperbole of the other side.

Not so. I grew up hunting in a rural area, I'm an Army veteran, and I own long guns. I like guns. Always have. I think many, if not most, who have fired a rifle, like it. And to many, there is an element of primal satisfaction in holding an instrument of death, or knowing it gives one the power to deal death. But my opinion is that enough is enough. The gun culture that has been marketed in the past 25 years is insane. We need to outlaw concealed carry, with an eye toward the eventual ban of handguns, and we need to outlaw high-capacity magazines in high-velocity weapons. For someone who isn't in frequent combat-style training, a double-barrel is the optimum home-defense weapon. I'm fine with long guns.

Total commie post. Conceal carry works. The only reason we have so much crime is dim scum will not punish the criminals.

Total idiot post. The purpose of concealed carry is murder and deception, your Rambo fantasies notwithstanding.

 

[SavannahMann]

There are a lot of sides to the issues, but they break down to two basic camps. Either you are for, or against. Either you love, or hate guns, depending on the hyperbole of the other side.

Not so. I grew up hunting in a rural area, I'm an Army veteran, and I own long guns. I like guns. Always have. I think many, if not most, who have fired a rifle, like it. And to many, there is an element of primal satisfaction in holding an instrument of death, or knowing it gives one the power to deal death. But my opinion is that enough is enough. The gun culture that has been marketed in the past 25 years is insane. We need to outlaw concealed carry, with an eye toward the eventual ban of handguns, and we need to outlaw high-capacity magazines in high-velocity weapons. For someone who isn't in frequent combat-style training, a double-barrel is the optimum home-defense weapon. I'm fine with long guns.

I can and do say nonsense. I could think of other stronger words to express the reaction, but hopefully you get the point.

A weapon is dangerous, especially if handled carelessly. However, it is not viewed as an instrument of death by most gun owners. I know quite a few, and while the purpose of the weapon, hunting, might include lethality as part of the calculation, the accuracy tends to be far more important. The most leather round in the world sailing by the target is just as useless as the least effective sailing by. This alone tells me that there is something seriously wrong with your story, and approach.

The next problem is your stated desire to both concealed carry, and home defense. Joe Biden made the argument that a double barrel shotgun was the perfect home defense weapon, and was roundly and easily criticized by pretty much everyone who had ever shot a target, or thought about home defense for more than ten seconds. A few days ago we had the story of a homeowner who killed three people who had broken into his home. He used an AR-15 to kill them. But let’s pretend that in your scenario there are only two. And you fire and hit one of two baddies. Now you have a heavy and somewhat unwieldy club to defend yourself. At a 50% hit ratio, you are doing much better than the average for police, who at ten feet managed to hit four times out of ten shots at ten feet. A shotgun is not a magic wand of death, and just pointing it in the general direction of the baddies does not guarantee a hit, much less a kill. Something you would know if you were a shooter. Or something you don’t care about if you are trying to disarm the population.

Concealed carry. It is well established that the concealed carry portion of the population is the least criminal subset of the American citizenry. They commit crimes at a rate of ten percent to what even cops are convicted of. So you are ten times less likely to commit a crime if your are a concealed carry holder, over a cop. Oh and the most common crime of the concealed carry holders was forgetting to have their permit/license on them while carrying. Yeah, it’s sort of like leaving your driving license at home when you go cruising to buy some Kale. Only with a weapon, it’s a crime that gets you locked up and gets your permit/license revoked.

So your goals towards increasing safety is to disarm the least criminal elements of our society, and allow them to be armed with a weapon at the home only that is one step up from a baseball bat, thus insuring that they might be able to defend their homes and families from one attacker, but are totally victimized by a larger group of baddies.

This is why I said that your reply was nonsense. I won’t bother asking you silly questions about firearms to either confirm or deny your claim about your history with firearms. I don’t know if you made it up, or if you are telling the truth. It doesn’t matter. Everything else in your reply is discredited nonsense. Discredited statistically, discredited factually, and it does not bear the scrutiny of common sense consideration for even a moment.

So other than getting rid of the noisy items that scare you, what is your plan?

 

[joaquinmiller]

There are a lot of sides to the issues, but they break down to two basic camps. Either you are for, or against. Either you love, or hate guns, depending on the hyperbole of the other side.

Not so. I grew up hunting in a rural area, I'm an Army veteran, and I own long guns. I like guns. Always have. I think many, if not most, who have fired a rifle, like it. And to many, there is an element of primal satisfaction in holding an instrument of death, or knowing it gives one the power to deal death. But my opinion is that enough is enough. The gun culture that has been marketed in the past 25 years is insane. We need to outlaw concealed carry, with an eye toward the eventual ban of handguns, and we need to outlaw high-capacity magazines in high-velocity weapons. For someone who isn't in frequent combat-style training, a double-barrel is the optimum home-defense weapon. I'm fine with long guns.

I can and do say nonsense. I could think of other stronger words to express the reaction, but hopefully you get the point.

A weapon is dangerous, especially if handled carelessly. However, it is not viewed as an instrument of death by most gun owners. I know quite a few, and while the purpose of the weapon, hunting, might include lethality as part of the calculation, the accuracy tends to be far more important. The most leather round in the world sailing by the target is just as useless as the least effective sailing by. This alone tells me that there is something seriously wrong with your story, and approach.

The next problem is your stated desire to both concealed carry, and home defense. Joe Biden made the argument that a double barrel shotgun was the perfect home defense weapon, and was roundly and easily criticized by pretty much everyone who had ever shot a target, or thought about home defense for more than ten seconds. A few days ago we had the story of a homeowner who killed three people who had broken into his home. He used an AR-15 to kill them. But let’s pretend that in your scenario there are only two. And you fire and hit one of two baddies. Now you have a heavy and somewhat unwieldy club to defend yourself. At a 50% hit ratio, you are doing much better than the average for police, who at ten feet managed to hit four times out of ten shots at ten feet. A shotgun is not a magic wand of death, and just pointing it in the general direction of the baddies does not guarantee a hit, much less a kill. Something you would know if you were a shooter. Or something you don’t care about if you are trying to disarm the population.

Concealed carry. It is well established that the concealed carry portion of the population is the least criminal subset of the American citizenry. They commit crimes at a rate of ten percent to what even cops are convicted of. So you are ten times less likely to commit a crime if your are a concealed carry holder, over a cop. Oh and the most common crime of the concealed carry holders was forgetting to have their permit/license on them while carrying. Yeah, it’s sort of like leaving your driving license at home when you go cruising to buy some Kale. Only with a weapon, it’s a crime that gets you locked up and gets your permit/license revoked.

So your goals towards increasing safety is to disarm the least criminal elements of our society, and allow them to be armed with a weapon at the home only that is one step up from a baseball bat, thus insuring that they might be able to defend their homes and families from one attacker, but are totally victimized by a larger group of baddies.

This is why I said that your reply was nonsense. I won’t bother asking you silly questions about firearms to either confirm or deny your claim about your history with firearms. I don’t know if you made it up, or if you are telling the truth. It doesn’t matter. Everything else in your reply is discredited nonsense. Discredited statistically, discredited factually, and it does not bear the scrutiny of common sense consideration for even a moment.

So other than getting rid of the noisy items that scare you, what is your plan?

Noisy items that scare me? Emotion-driven goofball. I don't care what you believe or don't.

 

[miketx]

There are a lot of sides to the issues, but they break down to two basic camps. Either you are for, or against. Either you love, or hate guns, depending on the hyperbole of the other side.

Not so. I grew up hunting in a rural area, I'm an Army veteran, and I own long guns. I like guns. Always have. I think many, if not most, who have fired a rifle, like it. And to many, there is an element of primal satisfaction in holding an instrument of death, or knowing it gives one the power to deal death. But my opinion is that enough is enough. The gun culture that has been marketed in the past 25 years is insane. We need to outlaw concealed carry, with an eye toward the eventual ban of handguns, and we need to outlaw high-capacity magazines in high-velocity weapons. For someone who isn't in frequent combat-style training, a double-barrel is the optimum home-defense weapon. I'm fine with long guns.

Total commie post. Conceal carry works. The only reason we have so much crime is dim scum will not punish the criminals.

Total idiot post. The purpose of concealed carry is murder and deception, your Rambo fantasies notwithstanding.

Another loon jumps off the cliff. Must not be working to well then. How many have murdered?

 

[joaquinmiller]

I know a number of gun nuts personally, and in cyberspace. Some were lifelong gun nuts, but for most of them, it was a mid-life crisis. Times past, they'd have bought a sports car and started chasing new trim. Instead, they started accumulating an arsenal and fantasizing about using it. And this was after plenty of them passed up the chance to carry an M-16, when their Uncle would have loaned them one for free, and then paid them to carry it.

 

[miketx]

I know a number of gun nuts personally, and in cyberspace. Some were lifelong gun nuts, but for most of them, it was a mid-life crisis. Times past, they'd have bought a sports car and started chasing new trim. Instead, they started accumulating an arsenal and fantasizing about using it. And this was after plenty of them passed up the chance to carry an M-16, when their Uncle would have loaned them one for free, and then paid them to carry it.

How many chl holders have committed murder liar?

 

[SavannahMann]

I know a number of gun nuts personally, and in cyberspace. Some were lifelong gun nuts, but for most of them, it was a mid-life crisis. Times past, they'd have bought a sports car and started chasing new trim. Instead, they started accumulating an arsenal and fantasizing about using it. And this was after plenty of them passed up the chance to carry an M-16, when their Uncle would have loaned them one for free, and then paid them to carry it.

And the truth starts to slip out. M-16 is a military rifle not available to the public.

 

[joaquinmiller]

I know a number of gun nuts personally, and in cyberspace. Some were lifelong gun nuts, but for most of them, it was a mid-life crisis. Times past, they'd have bought a sports car and started chasing new trim. Instead, they started accumulating an arsenal and fantasizing about using it. And this was after plenty of them passed up the chance to carry an M-16, when their Uncle would have loaned them one for free, and then paid them to carry it.

And the truth starts to slip out. M-16 is a military rifle not available to the public.

Slips out? I said I was a veteran. I've fired umpty thousands of rounds through an M-16. Hundreds thru an M-60, and a handful with an M-14.

 

[SavannahMann]

There are a lot of sides to the issues, but they break down to two basic camps. Either you are for, or against. Either you love, or hate guns, depending on the hyperbole of the other side.

Not so. I grew up hunting in a rural area, I'm an Army veteran, and I own long guns. I like guns. Always have. I think many, if not most, who have fired a rifle, like it. And to many, there is an element of primal satisfaction in holding an instrument of death, or knowing it gives one the power to deal death. But my opinion is that enough is enough. The gun culture that has been marketed in the past 25 years is insane. We need to outlaw concealed carry, with an eye toward the eventual ban of handguns, and we need to outlaw high-capacity magazines in high-velocity weapons. For someone who isn't in frequent combat-style training, a double-barrel is the optimum home-defense weapon. I'm fine with long guns.

I can and do say nonsense. I could think of other stronger words to express the reaction, but hopefully you get the point.

A weapon is dangerous, especially if handled carelessly. However, it is not viewed as an instrument of death by most gun owners. I know quite a few, and while the purpose of the weapon, hunting, might include lethality as part of the calculation, the accuracy tends to be far more important. The most leather round in the world sailing by the target is just as useless as the least effective sailing by. This alone tells me that there is something seriously wrong with your story, and approach.

The next problem is your stated desire to both concealed carry, and home defense. Joe Biden made the argument that a double barrel shotgun was the perfect home defense weapon, and was roundly and easily criticized by pretty much everyone who had ever shot a target, or thought about home defense for more than ten seconds. A few days ago we had the story of a homeowner who killed three people who had broken into his home. He used an AR-15 to kill them. But let’s pretend that in your scenario there are only two. And you fire and hit one of two baddies. Now you have a heavy and somewhat unwieldy club to defend yourself. At a 50% hit ratio, you are doing much better than the average for police, who at ten feet managed to hit four times out of ten shots at ten feet. A shotgun is not a magic wand of death, and just pointing it in the general direction of the baddies does not guarantee a hit, much less a kill. Something you would know if you were a shooter. Or something you don’t care about if you are trying to disarm the population.

Concealed carry. It is well established that the concealed carry portion of the population is the least criminal subset of the American citizenry. They commit crimes at a rate of ten percent to what even cops are convicted of. So you are ten times less likely to commit a crime if your are a concealed carry holder, over a cop. Oh and the most common crime of the concealed carry holders was forgetting to have their permit/license on them while carrying. Yeah, it’s sort of like leaving your driving license at home when you go cruising to buy some Kale. Only with a weapon, it’s a crime that gets you locked up and gets your permit/license revoked.

So your goals towards increasing safety is to disarm the least criminal elements of our society, and allow them to be armed with a weapon at the home only that is one step up from a baseball bat, thus insuring that they might be able to defend their homes and families from one attacker, but are totally victimized by a larger group of baddies.

This is why I said that your reply was nonsense. I won’t bother asking you silly questions about firearms to either confirm or deny your claim about your history with firearms. I don’t know if you made it up, or if you are telling the truth. It doesn’t matter. Everything else in your reply is discredited nonsense. Discredited statistically, discredited factually, and it does not bear the scrutiny of common sense consideration for even a moment.

So other than getting rid of the noisy items that scare you, what is your plan?

Noisy items that scare me? Emotion-driven goofball. I don't care what you believe or don't.

The more you talk the more you reveal an ignorance about firearms, and your rejection of factual information shows you are dealing with it emotionally.

 

[joaquinmiller]

There are a lot of sides to the issues, but they break down to two basic camps. Either you are for, or against. Either you love, or hate guns, depending on the hyperbole of the other side.

Not so. I grew up hunting in a rural area, I'm an Army veteran, and I own long guns. I like guns. Always have. I think many, if not most, who have fired a rifle, like it. And to many, there is an element of primal satisfaction in holding an instrument of death, or knowing it gives one the power to deal death. But my opinion is that enough is enough. The gun culture that has been marketed in the past 25 years is insane. We need to outlaw concealed carry, with an eye toward the eventual ban of handguns, and we need to outlaw high-capacity magazines in high-velocity weapons. For someone who isn't in frequent combat-style training, a double-barrel is the optimum home-defense weapon. I'm fine with long guns.

I can and do say nonsense. I could think of other stronger words to express the reaction, but hopefully you get the point.

A weapon is dangerous, especially if handled carelessly. However, it is not viewed as an instrument of death by most gun owners. I know quite a few, and while the purpose of the weapon, hunting, might include lethality as part of the calculation, the accuracy tends to be far more important. The most leather round in the world sailing by the target is just as useless as the least effective sailing by. This alone tells me that there is something seriously wrong with your story, and approach.

The next problem is your stated desire to both concealed carry, and home defense. Joe Biden made the argument that a double barrel shotgun was the perfect home defense weapon, and was roundly and easily criticized by pretty much everyone who had ever shot a target, or thought about home defense for more than ten seconds. A few days ago we had the story of a homeowner who killed three people who had broken into his home. He used an AR-15 to kill them. But let’s pretend that in your scenario there are only two. And you fire and hit one of two baddies. Now you have a heavy and somewhat unwieldy club to defend yourself. At a 50% hit ratio, you are doing much better than the average for police, who at ten feet managed to hit four times out of ten shots at ten feet. A shotgun is not a magic wand of death, and just pointing it in the general direction of the baddies does not guarantee a hit, much less a kill. Something you would know if you were a shooter. Or something you don’t care about if you are trying to disarm the population.

Concealed carry. It is well established that the concealed carry portion of the population is the least criminal subset of the American citizenry. They commit crimes at a rate of ten percent to what even cops are convicted of. So you are ten times less likely to commit a crime if your are a concealed carry holder, over a cop. Oh and the most common crime of the concealed carry holders was forgetting to have their permit/license on them while carrying. Yeah, it’s sort of like leaving your driving license at home when you go cruising to buy some Kale. Only with a weapon, it’s a crime that gets you locked up and gets your permit/license revoked.

So your goals towards increasing safety is to disarm the least criminal elements of our society, and allow them to be armed with a weapon at the home only that is one step up from a baseball bat, thus insuring that they might be able to defend their homes and families from one attacker, but are totally victimized by a larger group of baddies.

This is why I said that your reply was nonsense. I won’t bother asking you silly questions about firearms to either confirm or deny your claim about your history with firearms. I don’t know if you made it up, or if you are telling the truth. It doesn’t matter. Everything else in your reply is discredited nonsense. Discredited statistically, discredited factually, and it does not bear the scrutiny of common sense consideration for even a moment.

So other than getting rid of the noisy items that scare you, what is your plan?

Noisy items that scare me? Emotion-driven goofball. I don't care what you believe or don't.

The more you talk the more you reveal an ignorance about firearms, and your rejection of factual information shows you are dealing with it emotionally.

Dude. I said I like guns, but would like more regulation. Your response was that I'm a liar, and/or ignorant about guns. I subsequently say some gun nuts passed up the chance to be in the military (carry an M-16, provided by their Uncle, and get paid to do it), and you think saying M-16 is the truth slipping out.

I can't have an opinion without being a liar? Re-think that.

 

[SavannahMann]

I know a number of gun nuts personally, and in cyberspace. Some were lifelong gun nuts, but for most of them, it was a mid-life crisis. Times past, they'd have bought a sports car and started chasing new trim. Instead, they started accumulating an arsenal and fantasizing about using it. And this was after plenty of them passed up the chance to carry an M-16, when their Uncle would have loaned them one for free, and then paid them to carry it.

And the truth starts to slip out. M-16 is a military rifle not available to the public.

Slips out? I said I was a veteran. I've fired umpty thousands of rounds through an M-16. Hundreds thru an M-60, and a handful with an M-14.

Then how is it that the difference between fully automatic and semiautomatic evades you? The military rifles, the M-16 for example, fire fully automatic. The rifle your friends who own them can buy are semiautomatic. Fully Automatic is restricted to us civilians. I would doubt that one of your friends has gone through the process to get a stamp for even one fully automatic rifle. I would find it very difficult to believe you know more than one who has gone through the process.

You ignore factual information. Either you are ignorant and just pretending. Or you are somewhat informed and terrified of the scary things that make noise. As one example, police overwhelmingly support concealed carry which you are opposed to. Police Gun Control Survey: Are legally-armed citizens the best solution to gun violence?

Now I am no fan of cops. I have posted often about routine lies and my opposition to the LEOBR. But even I know that cops support concealed carry.

As far as home defense. Like Biden, your assertion that double barrel is more than enough has been utterly destroyed. Yet you do not admit it.

Two of your contentions have been utterly refuted using facts and logic. Yet you stubbornly refuse to admit it. If you had facts, you would post them. If your arguments were based on logic. Again you would explain it. Instead you claim my arguments are based in emotion, when I posted facts.

You may have served in the military. I don’t know, and don’t care. I am not one of those offended when someone claims it who never was. Again it is based on logic, and facts. Factually one of the things I fought for was your first amendment rights. What kind of hypocrite would I be to deny you that right?

In the end, it does not affect the assertions all of which were demonstrably false.

 

[SavannahMann]

There are a lot of sides to the issues, but they break down to two basic camps. Either you are for, or against. Either you love, or hate guns, depending on the hyperbole of the other side.

Not so. I grew up hunting in a rural area, I'm an Army veteran, and I own long guns. I like guns. Always have. I think many, if not most, who have fired a rifle, like it. And to many, there is an element of primal satisfaction in holding an instrument of death, or knowing it gives one the power to deal death. But my opinion is that enough is enough. The gun culture that has been marketed in the past 25 years is insane. We need to outlaw concealed carry, with an eye toward the eventual ban of handguns, and we need to outlaw high-capacity magazines in high-velocity weapons. For someone who isn't in frequent combat-style training, a double-barrel is the optimum home-defense weapon. I'm fine with long guns.

I can and do say nonsense. I could think of other stronger words to express the reaction, but hopefully you get the point.

A weapon is dangerous, especially if handled carelessly. However, it is not viewed as an instrument of death by most gun owners. I know quite a few, and while the purpose of the weapon, hunting, might include lethality as part of the calculation, the accuracy tends to be far more important. The most leather round in the world sailing by the target is just as useless as the least effective sailing by. This alone tells me that there is something seriously wrong with your story, and approach.

The next problem is your stated desire to both concealed carry, and home defense. Joe Biden made the argument that a double barrel shotgun was the perfect home defense weapon, and was roundly and easily criticized by pretty much everyone who had ever shot a target, or thought about home defense for more than ten seconds. A few days ago we had the story of a homeowner who killed three people who had broken into his home. He used an AR-15 to kill them. But let’s pretend that in your scenario there are only two. And you fire and hit one of two baddies. Now you have a heavy and somewhat unwieldy club to defend yourself. At a 50% hit ratio, you are doing much better than the average for police, who at ten feet managed to hit four times out of ten shots at ten feet. A shotgun is not a magic wand of death, and just pointing it in the general direction of the baddies does not guarantee a hit, much less a kill. Something you would know if you were a shooter. Or something you don’t care about if you are trying to disarm the population.

Concealed carry. It is well established that the concealed carry portion of the population is the least criminal subset of the American citizenry. They commit crimes at a rate of ten percent to what even cops are convicted of. So you are ten times less likely to commit a crime if your are a concealed carry holder, over a cop. Oh and the most common crime of the concealed carry holders was forgetting to have their permit/license on them while carrying. Yeah, it’s sort of like leaving your driving license at home when you go cruising to buy some Kale. Only with a weapon, it’s a crime that gets you locked up and gets your permit/license revoked.

So your goals towards increasing safety is to disarm the least criminal elements of our society, and allow them to be armed with a weapon at the home only that is one step up from a baseball bat, thus insuring that they might be able to defend their homes and families from one attacker, but are totally victimized by a larger group of baddies.

This is why I said that your reply was nonsense. I won’t bother asking you silly questions about firearms to either confirm or deny your claim about your history with firearms. I don’t know if you made it up, or if you are telling the truth. It doesn’t matter. Everything else in your reply is discredited nonsense. Discredited statistically, discredited factually, and it does not bear the scrutiny of common sense consideration for even a moment.

So other than getting rid of the noisy items that scare you, what is your plan?

Noisy items that scare me? Emotion-driven goofball. I don't care what you believe or don't.

The more you talk the more you reveal an ignorance about firearms, and your rejection of factual information shows you are dealing with it emotionally.

Dude. I said I like guns, but would like more regulation. Your response was that I'm a liar, and/or ignorant about guns. I subsequently say some gun nuts passed up the chance to be in the military (carry an M-16, provided by their Uncle, and get paid to do it), and you think saying M-16 is the truth slipping out.

I can't have an opinion without being a liar? Re-think that.

You said you wanted handguns banned and home defense limited to double barrel shotguns. You said you wanted an end to concealed carry. That is not merely more regulation. That is a ban.