In the case of guns, if you need them you should buy them on credit. If you don’t buy them now, Obama will probably have banned them by the time you can afford it. Either that, or you’ll risk being shot by some crazy, frustrated, former yuppie who’s been hyper-inflated out of his wealth due to economic impact of Obama’s spending policies.

So yeah. Buy guns. Buy lots of them. Mortgage your house if you have to. Just buy the damn guns!

You must buy it, Kelly. Buy it now. Guns, tasers, and campbell’s soup are the ultimate in countercyclical asset purchasing.

Of course, if I had died of a gunshot wound between 2000 and 2005, I wouldn’t really benefit from knowing such statistics in 2009.

I have to admit that I grew up in a household where my dad hunted for food. I’m amazed at how much people spend on guns and to hunt.

But then, I much prefer to hunt at Albertsons and Costco. I could never see hunting unless (a) I really had no choice and (b) I was desperately poor. But then I’m not fond of moose, caribou or venison. Most things you can hunt in this part of the country seem too small to be worth the effort, though wild pigs probably are.

Anyway, my two bits on the subject.

For “shotgun” substitute car, sofa, HDTV, ATV, or any other timed purchase that fulfills wants rather than needs. And don’t split hairs. Yes, I know we may need a car, but a new car?

What an example! Oh Keith–please stay away from my zoobie sisters.

Yes, I know we may need a car, but a new car?

Carmax is your friend.

Obama is not going to outlaw shotguns. Puh-lease.

But to answer the question, no, he should not buy the shotgun on credit. He can pick up a decent shotgun for less than $150. He should a couple of odd jobs and pay for it with cash.

Que: ooh. ooh. That’s good.

ARJ: You make a good point. People who aren’t prepared to learn how to properly use a firearm shouldn’t own them. Self-defense use is also a bit different than hunting or target shooting. The NRA even has different firearms classes for self-defense, hunting, and target. I’ve never been to professional instructors like Massad Ayoob, but I hear he is or was pretty good. His book “In the Gravest Extreme” is widely regarded as a classic.

Hunter: Presidents don’t outlaw. Congress does. But I bet Obama would sign the bill.

Bookslinger,

My limited understanding is that if you are willing to pull a gun on someone then at that moment you need to have already decided that you are ready to kill them, and you will pull the trigger without hesitation.

If you aren’t ready to kill the person then don’t bring a gun into the situation.

My impression is that people are much more willing to brandish a weapon than they are to kill someone. Therein lies the problem. You need to be willing to kill someone before you pull the gun. I think lots of people end up getting their priorities backwards in such situations.

Scroll down the the gun control votes and statements.

http://www.ontheissues.org/Barack_Obama.htm

John,

“given the rate at which US gun sales are being used to militarize northern Mexico.”

I’ll bite. That’s wrong John.

See: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/04/02/myth-percent-guns-mexico-fraction-number-claimed/

“In 2007-2008, according to ATF Special Agent William Newell, Mexico submitted 11,000 guns to the ATF for tracing. Close to 6,000 were successfully traced — and of those, 90 percent — 5,114 to be exact, according to testimony in Congress by William Hoover — were found to have come from the U.S.

But in those same two years, according to the Mexican government, 29,000 guns were recovered at crime scenes.

In other words, 68 percent of the guns that were recovered were never submitted for tracing. And when you weed out the roughly 6,000 guns that could not be traced from the remaining 32 percent, it means 83 percent of the guns found at crime scenes in Mexico could not be traced to the U.S.”

Just a glimpse of what an accidental shooting looks like.
http://mamahen15.blogspot.com/
Of course it’s not the guns fault and these ‘men’ were being extremely safe (playing with loaded guns in a moving car while driving). I don’t think we should outlaw guns- but we should certainly outlaw stupid people from having guns.

arj #20, you’re getting closer. One doesn’t _have_ to shoot once the firearm is unholstered or brought to bear, but the defender must certainly be ready for that possibility.

The word “brandish” is misleading because it is often incorrectly used. It is better to use words like “exposed, yet still holstered,” “unholstered,” “brought to bear” or “aimed at”.

If the “bad guy” is unarmed, or armed with only an edged weapon, the smart ones will retreat quickly. However, some hardened bad-guys can sense fear in people and have manipulative skills (learned in gangs and honed since they were young teenage hoods ) wherein they can get the defender to drop his guard.

A key concept of using lethal force in a justified defense situation, and I don’t remember if I’m wording it correctly, is “stop the threat”. If the intruder exits the premise before the defender pulls the trigger, then the threat is over, and justification for using deadly force, and firing, ends.

(In today’s paradigm, Nephi would not have been justified in killing Laban because in his drunken passed out state Laban wasn’t a threat.)

However, a “verbal surrender” is not indication that the threat is over. Attackers often use submissive words to mask their agressive actions and to confuse and subdue the victim. Or to buy time while a second unseen accomplice comes in.

I’ve had two situations where I went into “condition orange”, but never to red.

The latest was years ago, I worked in bad neighborhoods and carried a side-arm that was concealed under a sport coat, but was exposed to view when I removed my sport coat. I was working in a customer’s pager/cell-phone store behind the counter, on his computer. Two “customers” came in, but one of them was casing the joint like he was going to do something. His bearing and countenance were that of a predator. They ended up just browsing and asking to see a couple models. But when the hair on the back of my neck stood up, I casually took off my sport coat, and put it on the back of the chair. They both saw my side-arm. The senior of the two “customers” then studiously avoided looking at me, and the younger kept sneaking peaks at my waist.

(My pager store customers were people who usually kept a loaded firearm behind the counter anyway.)

I don’t know if I prevented a robbery or other incident that day or not. But it reminded me of a quote by George Herbert: “One sword keeps another in its sheath.”

Sam, #27, I think a lot of women, would agree with you.

Sorry, I forgot the close the tag. But the link is to a recent column from the Las Vegas Review Journal.

Bull Moose,

Do you really think there will be a ban on shotguns?

ARJ,

Obama is on the record of being in favor of banning all semi-automatic firearms. About 25-40% of all shotguns in the US are Semi-Auto. Semi-auto shotguns have been commercially available in the US for about 100 years.

The idea that the US is responsible for the gun violence in Mexico is debunked. There is a thriving black market in Mexico for firearms from Central America and other places. The reason that the Mexican PD does not submit more firearms for tracing to US authorities is that its easy to tell where guns come from Esp US guns and the vast majority of guns from crime scenes in Mexico are not of US origin.

There are specific models that come only from the US and these models are those that are submitted for tracing. Its that simple.

Banning semi-automatic shotguns would be anti-Mormon, John Browning’s memory be ever honored.

Oh, and I recommend between 10-20 ar-15 mags per rifle. Aluminium is OK, steel or pmags are better.

And in case you are wondering, I’ve seen several tiny females handle .40 Glocks just fine. Springfield XD’s are also popular, some people prefer the way it fits their hands. My personal vote is for Glocks. Other popular calibers are 9mm and .45. Again, I recommend .40 caliber Glocks.

Thanks for clearing that up, Bull Moose. So what we have in semi-automatic weapons is something very dangerous. Whereas only one shot is fired per trigger pull, the person is able to pull the trigger in quick succession without any break to reload manually. This is the type of weapon that can cause considerable havoc and damage.

As a country we have carved out reasonable exceptions and limitations to just about all of our rights under the Bill of Rights, including speech, press, searches and seizures, trial by jury, and religion. We should not be appalled or fear for the fabric of democracy itself if we also want to reasonably restrict the right to bear arms under certain situations, including the banning of automatic and semi-automatic guns.

Ohhh, Jacob S., you caught me! I would have gotten away with my plot to take over the U.S. armed with the “very dangerous” semi-automatics in my arsenal “caus[ing] considerable havoc and damage.” Now I’ll have to use manual action firearms, because of course you know they aren’t “very dangerous” and certainly not capable of “caus[ing] considerable havoc and damage.” In fact, I’m going to give my 4 y.o. son a loaded pump-action shotgun to play with, because it’s so relatively safe!!

When will people understand that all guns are dangerous. The solution isn’t banning them (which is the typical leftwing response: “You are not smart enough to handle this yourself! Let the government do it for you.”). They are tools to be used with care and skill, but they have a purpose. If you don’t have the proper training, or if you use it improperly, someone may get hurt.

We need to help people like you understand that guns aren’t some evil talisman, and that responsible gun ownership doesn’t equal “havoc and damage.”

John Mansfield: “it’s only been the last three decades or so that their power and reliability is comparable to that of revolvers.”

Again, you can point to John Browning to refute this, by looking at his M1911 A1, a .45 calibur pistol that has been in service since 1911; it’s a fine weapon prized by collectors that, until President Clinton, the U.S. government sold to the public to get the “highest and best use” (i.e. $$) of the out-of-service firearms.

And, by the way, a revolver is a semi-automatic weapon. You pull the trigger, you get a shot, and the next round is lined up for the next pull. No manual action necessary. Couple that with a speedloader, and you can nearly bridge the magazine capacity gap to a pistol.

Jacob S,

Please post your plan to seize 100 million semi-auto firearms in private hands. Its not feasible

I already pointed out above that nearly every right found in the Bill of Rights, including the freedom of speech, press, religion, searches and seizures, trial by jury, right to counsel, etc., are subject to reasonable exceptions and limitations. The Second Amendment does not get special treatment in that regard.

I clamor about a lot of things you likely haven’t heard.

As for how to get rid of the vast amounts of guns already in private hands, I admit that is is a difficult situation. I won’t post my plan yet, bbell, because I don’t want it falling into the wrong hands, but I imagine it would start with outlawing the sale and transfer of those guns first. There would likely be things like voluntary buy-back programs like those that have been successful in certain crime-ridden cities. And then it would be a war of attrition. It may be a difficult task, but if we feel strongly enough about it we start acting now instead of just throwing our hands up and saying “its too hard.”

The Second Amendment already has limitations and exceptions (look up the Brady Act). I’m pretty sure that an outright ban would be an unreasonable limitation.

You previously cited “enough instances…where irresponsible gun owners have been the direct or indirect cause of seriously violent acts” authoritatively, but how many exactly is that? Is it more or less than automobile deaths? Is it more or less than stabbings? Or are we simply to take your word for it and turn in our guns because you’ve “had enough and will restrict everyone’s access to protect ourselves from their irresponsible use.” Nanny-state, anyone?

And besides, piling on more restrictions and limitations does not make us safer from criminals who use guns. If a gang is willing to break the law and traffic in illegal drugs, why do you think they will be willing to follow a ban on “prohibited” weapons? They will import their weapons from Mexico and Central America, and all you have done is taken guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens and create a lucrative black market for guns. Or we’ll just see a steady increase in fatal stabbings like they have in the U.K.

It may be a difficult task, but if we feel strongly enough about it we start acting now instead of just throwing our hands up and saying “its too hard.”

Writing that college thesis, are you?

It’s all hypothetical until you share details.

Bull Moose, you seem to consider yourself knowledgeable in these matters, though I have to question how someone knowledgeable would call a double action revolver “semi-automatic.” At any rate, yes, there are speed loaders for revolvers, but then again, a person can carry extra magazines for semi-autos, as you were advocating earlier, upping the semi-auto firepower even further. What would you list as the reasons that police departments over just the last few decades have switched over from pretty much all revolvers to pretty much all semi-autos?

I favor the right to bear arms, but it is a losing argument to claim that a modern semi-auto is the same thing as a circa 1890 revolver, which is the same thing as a muzzle-loaded flintlock (the only firearm the Bill of Right authors ever knew), which is the same thing as a fist-sized rock. If they were the same thing, then no one would care if Glocks and Sig Sauers were prohibited.

Yesterday I finished Richard Rhodes’ Dark Sun, a history of the thermonuclear bomb, so the issues that came up there come to mind with this more personal-sized arms issue. One is the possibly destabilizing effect of MIRVs (missiles with multiple indepedently targeting reentry vehicles). Without MIRVs, one missile in needed to destroy one missile silo, but with MIRVs, one missile can destroy multiple silos, so a parity of missiles would leave the nation that strikes first, and destroys all its adversary’s missiles, with missiles left over to destroy with impunity the rest of the adversary nation. The politics are different, but a semi-auto is a MIRV compared to a muzzle-loaded gun. Instead of one armed man being a match for one armed man, one armed man who strikes first and quickly is a match for perhaps a dozen men.

Another thing is that some days I don’t care much if North Korea and Iran make nuclear bombs. Mr. Kim can even ship one over and level a big piece of Long Beach if he likes; far worse things have happenned in the last century. Not everyone is cool with that though, and they feel that proliferation is unacceptable in a way that five nations possessing thousands of weapons isn’t. Similarly, it worries some when firearm possession can be so democratic, even among people who shouldn’t even be voting. I’m not one of those people, though, not most days.

bbell, I was wrong about the revolver/semi-auto issue. Revolvers are a manual action. I said it twice because I got a little overcommitted to the idea that the mechanical rotation of the cylinder when the trigger is pulled is an “automatic” loading. Sorry if I introduced confusion.

John Mansfield, I’m really more familiar with rifles and shotguns being an occasional hunter growing up. Before I turned 18, the only handgun I had fired was a .38 Special revolver once at a range. I never claimed to be an expert; forgive the Yogi Berra moment, but I’m knowledgeable about what I know. I’m also learning. I hardly think that is anything to be derided.

To your other point, I would agree that the availability of *more* semi-automatic pistols that are reliable has helped local law enforcement agencies transition to them from revolvers. Before, I was pointing out that the U.S. Army used semi-automatic .45 pistols (M1911) as standard issue sidearms since before WWI, so it’s not that there weren’t reliable pistols available. The difference may have been cost and supply availability. I’m curious of how many law enforcement agencies use pistols based on the M1911 design.