Thanks for the concern. But I have a concealed weapon permit.
I have collected guns for over thirty years and sold off all of my long gun collection (rifles and shotguns) about five years ago. I decided at that time to only own handguns of larger calibers. I have a Clint Eastwood Dirty Harry .44 magnum in my collection, .357 magnum and another 28 handguns. I have had professional training in the use of firearms and have range fired all of the weapons I own. All of my weapons are kept in a vault with the exception of one. My place is fully alarmed and has a camera system installed as well. I am a member of the NRA and am responsible to see that my guns do not fall in the hands of people that should not have them. I recently bought a SLR camera and the first thing I did was photogragh each one and send one copy to my insurance agent. I am now photographing each and every RR book I have in my collection for the same purpose. Previously I used just a list of my books and DVDs and now think that is not enough.
Al - in - Stockton
Actually 3/4s (38 states) would have to OK repealing the 2nd amendment. And at least 2/3 if not 3/4 of the U.S. Senate.
The Chicago Tribune wants guns banned because of the violence there. Most of the guns used in these crimes are NOT legally obtained to begin with.
As far as Canada, Toronto has had a huge upsurge in handgun violence, it spite of the fact that getting a carry permit up there is next to impossible.
Australlia BANNED PRIVATE POSSESSION OF ALL FIREARMS a couple of years back. The first year after the ban, gun homocides went UP 300%.
Making something illegal to possess doesn't make it vaporize.
Here in South Dakota, you can get a carry permit if you're over 18, haven't commited a felony or have not been declared mentally incompetent. Basically anyone qualified to buy a gun is legal to carry, but you still have to be interviewed by the Sheriff's Dept. A lot of people have permits but never carry, they just want to be able to driving an hour or 2 and buy a gun and not have to drive back 3 days later to pick up the gun.
There are numerous restrictions. No carrying in businesses that get more than 60% of their gross income from alcohol sales (bars), no carrying at sporting events, no carrying at anything at all even vaguely resembling a school function or event. And ESPECIALLY, no possession while intoxicated. No handguns inside of a vehicle in plain sight. Carrying a handgun in a vehicle, plain sight or not, without a carry permit is a violation.
Until the 1980s it was impossible to get a permit in lots of counties unless you were a personal friend of the sheriff, so the state loosened things up.
Gun violence has NOT gone up since. And only the paranoid .1% legally carry on their person 100% of the time. Cold blooded murder is rare. What little violence that does occur are for the usual rural reasons, domestic disputes, or somebody gets drunk and stupid.
Reality TV is to reality, what Professional Wrestling is to Professional Brain Surgery.
tree68 wrote: OK, class this as a "friend of a friend" story, but... A former paramedic I met who had worked in the DC area had her partner shot while they were sitting in their rig. No warning - just a shot in the dark. A gun under the seat would have made zero difference. He didn't make it, which is one reason why she was a former paramedic.I have no problem with gun ownership by individuals. Were it not for the hassle, some international transportation logistics, and the fact that I have no real reason to own a pistol, I'd probably have my late father's two pistols in my possession right now.The only folks I have an issue with are those who use the 2nd amendment to justify actions that many of us would consider outrageous.I just saw an article somewhere about a place that allows "open carry" and folks who are starting to do so. Wish I could remember where...
OK, class this as a "friend of a friend" story, but...
A former paramedic I met who had worked in the DC area had her partner shot while they were sitting in their rig. No warning - just a shot in the dark. A gun under the seat would have made zero difference. He didn't make it, which is one reason why she was a former paramedic.
I have no problem with gun ownership by individuals. Were it not for the hassle, some international transportation logistics, and the fact that I have no real reason to own a pistol, I'd probably have my late father's two pistols in my possession right now.
The only folks I have an issue with are those who use the 2nd amendment to justify actions that many of us would consider outrageous.
I just saw an article somewhere about a place that allows "open carry" and folks who are starting to do so. Wish I could remember where...
Unless their laws have changed, which my Brother-in-Law likely would have told me about, Vermont allows unrestricted carry, open or concealed, without a permit required, by anyone resident or not, unless you are a convicted felon, have been shown mentally incompetent, or in certain places such as those that serve alcohol(can't deny the logic on this)
Arizona, allows open carry without a permit, and state law prohibits cities from enacting gun laws more restrictive than state laws. AZ, does require a permit for concealed carry, it was a different feeling visiting my Father several years ago, and walking the streets of downtown Phoenix, with a .44 Magnum on my hip, and nobody even bat an eye over it.
My home state of Oregon, state law allows open carry, but cities are allowed to enact regulations prohibiting open carry with out a permit, which is actually harder to get than a concealed carry permit, you must PROVE a need for an open carry permit, where as Oregon is a "Shall Issue" State regarding concealed carry permits, no felonies or mental issues on your record, with the proper training certificate, they HAVE to issue a concealed carry permit.
Often when hiking seldom used trails in the mountains I will openly carry a 5 1/2" Ruger Red hawk .44, and on busier trails, some get uncomfortable seeing open carry, so I carry a concealed 4" S&W model 69 .44 I lived in these mountains for 5 years, and Bears are a very real concern, we even had them in the neighborhood on occasion, once even in a neighbors garage one evening, a surprise that Dwight found less than enjoyable, but with no injuries to either him or the bear.
Doug
May your flanges always stay BETWEEN the rails
edblysard wrote: Al,Trust me...shooting someone is nothing like you might imagine.The cops don't show up, look things over and thank you for taking out a bad guy for them.You will be, at the least, questioned for several hours.Your home will be searched, your neighbors questioned.Depending on the circumstances, you most likely will detained, taken to a police station, questioned more, your gun will be seized as possible evidence.You will be sued by the bad guy's survivors.If the police can not clearly determine that it is a case of self defense, but there is not enough evidence for them to charge you with a crime, then the case will most likely be referred to a grand jury.You should be prepared to be questioned by a grand jury, which is nothing like a court room questioning...they pretty much have free rein to ask you anything they want, you can not have your attorney present, nor can you refuse to answer their questions...the fifth amendment applies, but you have to be careful how you choose to use it.They can hold you in contempt, and you can be detained until you answer them.If, as in my case, the grand jury returns a no bill, you still have to defend yourself against the lawsuit.Just because you are not charged with a crime doesn't mean you can't be sued.Even if you win, you are still out the time spent, the lost wages, attorney fees, court fees, clerk fees, PI fees, plus all the stress.Be prepared to spend no less than $60,000.00 to $100,000.00 staying free. Add to all of that the fact that you can be held liable for any collateral damage...say you do fire a .50 caliber gun at someone...and the round continues through and through the perp, then ends up in the apartment complex across the street, lodged in someone's chest?Guess who gets arrested and gets sued for a wrongful death.... Owning a firearm is one thing....using it on a person is a whole ‘nother deal...All of these are things you have to think about...in the half second before you pull the trigger. I suggest you take a firearms training class or if your state allows or has a carry permit, take the course, it will teach you things you never though about, and give you quite a few decision making skills. And lastly, a .50 caliber round, even with a Teflon coating, will not go through an engine block...it will ricochet off of it pretty good though, and end up who knows where. The use of deadly force in defense of life or property has severe limitations and strict protocols; you should learn them and follow them, or be prepared to lose almost everything you have, up to and including your freedom.
Al,
Trust me...shooting someone is nothing like you might imagine.
The cops don't show up, look things over and thank you for taking out a bad guy for them.
You will be, at the least, questioned for several hours.
Your home will be searched, your neighbors questioned.
Depending on the circumstances, you most likely will detained, taken to a police station, questioned more, your gun will be seized as possible evidence.
You will be sued by the bad guy's survivors.
If the police can not clearly determine that it is a case of self defense, but there is not enough evidence for them to charge you with a crime, then the case will most likely be referred to a grand jury.
You should be prepared to be questioned by a grand jury, which is nothing like a court room questioning...they pretty much have free rein to ask you anything they want, you can not have your attorney present, nor can you refuse to answer their questions...the fifth amendment applies, but you have to be careful how you choose to use it.
They can hold you in contempt, and you can be detained until you answer them.
If, as in my case, the grand jury returns a no bill, you still have to defend yourself against the lawsuit.
Just because you are not charged with a crime doesn't mean you can't be sued.
Even if you win, you are still out the time spent, the lost wages, attorney fees, court fees, clerk fees, PI fees, plus all the stress.
Be prepared to spend no less than $60,000.00 to $100,000.00 staying free.
Add to all of that the fact that you can be held liable for any collateral damage...say you do fire a .50 caliber gun at someone...and the round continues through and through the perp, then ends up in the apartment complex across the street, lodged in someone's chest?
Guess who gets arrested and gets sued for a wrongful death....
Owning a firearm is one thing....using it on a person is a whole ‘nother deal...
All of these are things you have to think about...in the half second before you pull the trigger.
I suggest you take a firearms training class or if your state allows or has a carry permit, take the course, it will teach you things you never though about, and give you quite a few decision making skills.
And lastly, a .50 caliber round, even with a Teflon coating, will not go through an engine block...it will ricochet off of it pretty good though, and end up who knows where.
The use of deadly force in defense of life or property has severe limitations and strict protocols; you should learn them and follow them, or be prepared to lose almost everything you have, up to and including your freedom.
Ed, you went ahead and stole my thunder, before I got a chance to write something along these same lines.... shame on you for reading my thoughts
If I were to own a gun, and use it in the defense of my property, I would use it to detain the subject until the police arrived (unless of course he gave me no choice) many break ins have been foiled in that way. Even though they may be criminals, and sometimes, none too bright, even they want to live. Some though, when confronted, will take whatever way out they can. If you want to save your propert, and your families lives, you better hope you are faster on the trigger than the perpetrator, should it come down to that. Bear all of this in mind, including what Ed had typed. It's one thing to flash some bravado, and talk big about what may happen to that person who unwisely decides to illegally enter your property. In general, most breakins occur when the house is empty, because the thief does not want a confrontation any more than you do. If someone breaks in while you are home, you can figure you may be dealing with a subject that is desperate at some level, and is willing to risk life and limb on the gamble that he won't get hurt, but just in case, he will probably be armed to some extent and may even be willing to use it, if confronted.
I am not trying to dissuade anyone from the desire to protect home and family, I have small children, and I would do anything to protect them, but, I don't think I could take a life, no matter how deserving it may seem, without some pangs of conscience. Many of us are not, or did not have training as soldiers, who are trained in the use of weapons, and when they are needed, use them almost automatically. I would think more than one of us would probably hesitate for 1/2 a second, or an eyeblink, or whatever before we depressed that trigger, only because the human mind quails at the taking of a human life. Ask any cop who has been in an officer involved shooting. They react automatically, but, when it's over, is when the "shaking" starts if you will.
A firearms course would probably benefit anyone who decides to buy a gun for the purpose of defending the home. It only makes sense, that if you are going to buy a weapon, that you would take some training to learn as much as you can about yourself, your weapon, what situations to employ it in, and how to get the most out of it. Confronting an intruder is a tactical excercise in an extremely limted tactical environment, and in order to protect oneself, one must confer every possible adavantage to themselves, and limit the number of advantages to the intruder. Relying solely on a gun doesn't make sense, because if the intruder makes it your bedroom, and has his gun in your face before you wake up, then having the weapon has been rendered useless. And, you are now at the mercy of that intruder, you possess no tactical advantage, and it's possible your life, and those of your family, are now forfeit. Alarm systems and such, would alert you that someone is in the house, and in addition, automatically summoning the police, thereby putting the tactical advantages firmly on your side (alerted, and able to defend, with "reinforcements" on the way). In addition the activation of an alarm causes the intruder, (who may have a plan of sorts in his own mind) to have to change his plans, and react to changing tactical stimuli. No one wants to confront an alert and armed "enemy" if you will. The objective of an intruder is to accomplish what he has set out to do without disturbing you, or putting you at a disadvantage, i.e. rendering you or your family defenseless, while he accomplishes his objective. If you are armed and alert, his plan is now out the window, and he is confronted with a choice: fight, or flee. Depending on the personality of the intruder, and the perceived value of what he is after, and how he perceives the value of remaining in one piece, those factors will affect his decision. Generally, everyone wants to live, and if the intruder can get out alive to rob another day, he will, unless of course he decides to fight it out. If that becomes the case, then you better be ready to neutralize the intruder before he does it to you. I would think that a "layered" defense (lights, alarms, and a huge dog, trained to protect the family) would be a big advantage... only because the mere presence of the dog will deter all but the most hard-core criminals. Having the gun is part of that layered defense and is there if the intruder is able to get past all of the other "layers" ......
Better yet, either get yourself a Taser, or a stronger security system. Even the testosterone-imbalanced cops are looking for NON-LETHAL methods of defense and control.
tatans,
The idea was to NOT have all the guns at the armory, Where the government could control them. Remember coming to the colonies was for many/most a way to escape from Tyrannical government. The right to keep and bear arms was as much to keep the government from overstepping it's bounds, as it was defending against foreign invaders.
The Founding Fathers likely never intended for the government to have as much control as it now does. But of course, that is all open to interpretation, which everybody seems to interpret things differently.
tatans wrote:Let's see now, you can own a gun, but not carry a gun, or is it you can carry a gun but not own a gun, also you can carry a gun but you must conceal it or in some states you must not conceal the weapon. Am I wrong in interpreting the constitution that the gun thing was to protect the country in the event of a war, and all the guns were stored in the armory and when the bad guys came to America everyone went and got a gun at the armory and shot the bad guys then returned the guns to the armory, makes perfect sense to me.
No the gun thing was the recognition that there are bad guys with guns, and the only way to stop them is with a gun of your own. It was the same then as it is today.
Bucyrus wrote: tatans wrote:Let's see now, you can own a gun, but not carry a gun, or is it you can carry a gun but not own a gun, also you can carry a gun but you must conceal it or in some states you must not conceal the weapon. Am I wrong in interpreting the constitution that the gun thing was to protect the country in the event of a war, and all the guns were stored in the armory and when the bad guys came to America everyone went and got a gun at the armory and shot the bad guys then returned the guns to the armory, makes perfect sense to me.No the gun thing was the recognition that there are bad guys with guns, and the only way to stop them is with a gun of your own. It was the same then as it is today.
What a lot of the gun control advocates don't realize is that the, "Well-Ordered Militia," was meant to be a bunch of citizen soldiers who drilled when they weren't farming, carpentering or silversmithing, and who were expected to form up, bringing their own weapons with them, in answer to a call to defend the nation (or any political subset thereof.)
There was also the thought that an armed populace would be rather more difficult to herd into sheep-like compliance with the whims of a demagogue or dictator.
Chuck
tomikawaTT wrote: Bucyrus wrote: tatans wrote:Let's see now, you can own a gun, but not carry a gun, or is it you can carry a gun but not own a gun, also you can carry a gun but you must conceal it or in some states you must not conceal the weapon. Am I wrong in interpreting the constitution that the gun thing was to protect the country in the event of a war, and all the guns were stored in the armory and when the bad guys came to America everyone went and got a gun at the armory and shot the bad guys then returned the guns to the armory, makes perfect sense to me.No the gun thing was the recognition that there are bad guys with guns, and the only way to stop them is with a gun of your own. It was the same then as it is today. What a lot of the gun control advocates don't realize is that the, "Well-Ordered Militia," was meant to be a bunch of citizen soldiers who drilled when they weren't farming, carpentering or silversmithing, and who were expected to form up, bringing their own weapons with them, in answer to a call to defend the nation (or any political subset thereof.)There was also the thought that an armed populace would be rather more difficult to herd into sheep-like compliance with the whims of a demagogue or dictator.Chuck
Well it seems it's the conservatives on the Supreme Court that forgot that!! In the past that part of the constitution has always been interpreted to mean you had an absolute right to own a gun if you were in the militia (or nowadays the National Guard). The Court said in effect the Founding Fathers put the militia part in there just to take up space, and really meant to just say the government couldn't pass any laws restricting gun ownership.
BTW it's possible the main reason anything about gun ownership not being restricted had to do not with self-defense or military uses, but in hunting. In Britain, you could only own a gun for hunting...and you could only hunt on your own land...and only a tiny percentage of people (like Dukes and Earls) actually owned property, so only they could legally own guns and hunt. The founders of this country wanted to eliminate that aspect of it, and make it OK for anyone to hunt in the new lands they were moving into.
wjstix wrote: Well it seems it's the conservatives on the Supreme Court that forgot that!! In the past that part of the constitution has always been interpreted to mean you had an absolute right to own a gun if you were in the militia (or nowadays the National Guard). The Court said in effect the Founding Fathers put the militia part in there just to take up space, and really meant to just say the government couldn't pass any laws restricting gun ownership.
Incorrect. There is a long line of Supreme Court decisions which hold that there are two types of militias: the organized militia (National Guard, etc) and the unorganized militia, which is every able-bodied male between 16 and 60 or 65 who has the mental capacity to carry and use a firearm. Bucyrus (Chuck) had it right.
Part of the justification of gun ownership is self-defense or personal protection. I think the framers were simply referring to that justification in a collective (it takes a village) sense when they mentioned a well-regulated militia.
To me, the contention that the framers were allowing a right to bear arms to those in the army seems ridiculous. That is because the tradition of organized militias has been that if they want you in one, they grab you, put you in the militia, and put a gun in your hand whether you want to participate or not. You don't have a right to refuse a gun in an organized militia, so why would you need a right to have a gun in an organized militia?
Bucyrus wrote: Part of the justification of gun ownership is self-defense or personal protection. I think the framers were simply referring to that justification in a collective (it takes a village) sense when they mentioned a well-regulated militia.To me, the contention that the framers were allowing a right to bear arms to those in the army seems ridiculous. That is because the tradition of organized militias has been that if they want you in one, they grab you, put you in the militia, and put a gun in your hand whether you want to participate or not. You don't have a right to refuse a gun in an organized militia, so why would you need a right to have a gun in an organized militia?
I think that we're overlooking some very basic things.
Back when the Bill of Rights was passed:
The Second Amendment isn't about a criminal's right to the tools of his trade. It's about the law-abiding citizen's right to individually and collectively protect his person, his property and his freedom.
Folks I am waiting for a statement I have not heard (read) before.
We must be aware however that one freedom we have that is more precious than the possessing of weapons that happen to be fire arms. It is no mystery that the founding fathers choose to make this the Second Amendment separate from rather than a part of the first. These men were very aware of what is important to the operation of a well organized and freedom loving nation. One of these freedoms is one that we are ourselves very much a part of in this forum. That of speech and by modern interpretation this forum as a right to peaceably assemble
The freedom of speech and to peaceably assemble that are a major part of the First Amendment in the phrase that is often called the establishment clause regarding specific freedoms. Given how those freedoms are so special, the wisdom of the founders shows through. While the First Amendment guarantees those great freedoms established in writing The Second Amendment gives an idea of to what lengths the founders were willing to go to defend those rights by showing the means and the responsibility of the citizens to defend them.
With all that said and looking at the history of the high court and its willingness to weigh in on the Second Amendment regularly, about every 100 years or so, says that the Second Amendment will probably be around pretty much as it has been for some time to come.
My 2 cents
Pious Lion
AKA: PL
tomikawaTT wrote: Bucyrus wrote: Part of the justification of gun ownership is self-defense or personal protection. I think the framers were simply referring to that justification in a collective (it takes a village) sense when they mentioned a well-regulated militia.To me, the contention that the framers were allowing a right to bear arms to those in the army seems ridiculous. That is because the tradition of organized militias has been that if they want you in one, they grab you, put you in the militia, and put a gun in your hand whether you want to participate or not. You don't have a right to refuse a gun in an organized militia, so why would you need a right to have a gun in an organized militia?I think that we're overlooking some very basic things.Back when the Bill of Rights was passed:The United States didn't have a standing Army.The 'Militia' was the physically fit male population between 16 and 60.There were no armories full of weapons and ammunition waiting for the Militia.Just about everybody outside of the few large Eastern cities needed to be ready at all times to repel Indian Native American attack. You couldn't call 911!Last, but hardly least, the Founding Fathers remembered that several of the British Colonial Governors had tried, unsuccessfully, to disarm the Colonists. Had they succeeded, the Revolution might not have happened.The Second Amendment isn't about a criminal's right to the tools of his trade. It's about the law-abiding citizen's right to individually and collectively protect his person, his property and his freedom.Chuck
Just to be clear, what I meant by what I said is in agreement with your position. I realize there was no standing army back then and what they meant by militia. I only use the example of army to refute the common assertion by the anti-gun-rights faction that when the founding fathers cited the need for a militia, they were referring to a right to bear arms in what was then like our present national guard. I don't think that is what they meant, because it does not make sense. That would be like establishing a punishment for a crime, and then enshrining a right to that punishment if you commit the crime.
tomikawaTT wrote: There was also the thought that an armed populace would be rather more difficult to herd into sheep-like compliance with the whims of a demagogue or dictator.
zardoz wrote: Better yet, either get yourself a Taser, or a stronger security system. Even the testosterone-imbalanced cops are looking for NON-LETHAL methods of defense and control.
Do Doberman Pincers qualify as a good security system???
piouslion1 wrote: zardoz wrote: Better yet, either get yourself a Taser, or a stronger security system. Even the testosterone-imbalanced cops are looking for NON-LETHAL methods of defense and control.Do Doberman Pincers qualify as a good security system???
Absolutely. I knew a Downers Grove detective who said the best thing you could have was a big dog that barked. The bad guys will try somewhere else.
Disclaimer: I support gun rights. I just like dogs.
tree68 wrote:OK, class this as a "friend of a friend" story, but... A former paramedic I met who had worked in the DC area had her partner shot while they were sitting in their rig. No warning - just a shot in the dark. A gun under the seat would have made zero difference. He didn't make it, which is one reason why she was a former paramedic.
And that, in one post, neatly wraps up all the arguments both "for" and "against" guns and gun-control.
I own guns but I am extremely worried/concerned what to do when my kid gets old enough to be curious about stuff and goes rummaging where he ought not be rummaging. Keeping them locked in a safe/cabinet defeats the whole point of personal/home self-defense. Not keeping them locked-up invites tragedy. It is difficult to know what to do and how to stay/feel safe.
jwhitten wrote: tree68 wrote:OK, class this as a "friend of a friend" story, but... A former paramedic I met who had worked in the DC area had her partner shot while they were sitting in their rig. No warning - just a shot in the dark. A gun under the seat would have made zero difference. He didn't make it, which is one reason why she was a former paramedic. And that, in one post, neatly wraps up all the arguments both "for" and "against" guns and gun-control.I own guns but I am extremely worried/concerned what to do when my kid gets old enough to be curious about stuff and goes rummaging where he ought not be rummaging. Keeping them locked in a safe/cabinet defeats the whole point of personal/home self-defense. Not keeping them locked-up invites tragedy. It is difficult to know what to do and how to stay/feel safe.
My father was an Army artillery officer. I grew up in a house full of firearms, ammunition, even a demilitarized (I think) 75mm howitzer shell. It was made VERY (Painfully!!!) clear to me that those items WERE NOT TOYS/WERE NOT TO BE TOUCHED!!! Not wishing to experience the Wrath of God (aka "The Colonel") I was careful not to touch them. (Of course, if anyone tried to enforce discipline by 1940s standards today, Child Welfare would be there in a heartbeat!)
The other side of the coin was, I was TAUGHT how to use hand and shoulder weapons (and allowed to attend artillery firings) at an early age. "Just say no," doesn't work with firearms, either.
Happily, in a long military career, I never had to fire a personal weapon in anger. My marksmanship is no challenge to any present-day Marine, but I don't have the mindless fear of the unknown that seems to infect a lot of people who want to prevent individual gun ownership because they are afraid of guns! They will never realize that the weapon isn't the danger, it's the person whose hand is gripping it. Being afraid of a gun, to me, is like being afraid of a hammer or a screwdriver (either of which can be lethal if used with lethal intent.)
Chuck [MSgt, USAF(ret)]
tomikawaTT wrote: My father was an Army artillery officer. I grew up in a house full of firearms, ammunition, even a demilitarized (I think) 75mm howitzer shell. It was made VERY (Painfully!!!) clear to me that those items WERE NOT TOYS/WERE NOT TO BE TOUCHED!!! Not wishing to experience the Wrath of God (aka "The Colonel") I was careful not to touch them. (Of course, if anyone tried to enforce discipline by 1940s standards today, Child Welfare would be there in a heartbeat!)The other side of the coin was, I was TAUGHT how to use hand and shoulder weapons (and allowed to attend artillery firings) at an early age. "Just say no," doesn't work with firearms, either.Happily, in a long military career, I never had to fire a personal weapon in anger. My marksmanship is no challenge to any present-day Marine, but I don't have the mindless fear of the unknown that seems to infect a lot of people who want to prevent individual gun ownership because they are afraid of guns! They will never realize that the weapon isn't the danger, it's the person whose hand is gripping it. Being afraid of a gun, to me, is like being afraid of a hammer or a screwdriver (either of which can be lethal if used with lethal intent.)Chuck [MSgt, USAF(ret)]
Sounds like you and I grew up in the same household. My father was a sergeant in the Army in WWII (went ashore at Okinawa on 4/1/45), and there was never the shadow of a ghost of a doubt in anyone's mind that he was in charge. The good result of that was that none of us ever bothered a gun when we were too young to handle it properly.
You summed it up perfectly when you said being afraid of a gun is like being afraid of a screwdriver or hammer. They are all just tools, that can be lethal if used improperly.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.