My wife and 13-year-old son both join me at the gun range to poke holes in targets. Damn, though, if my son isn't a lousy shot. Practice, practice, practice...

That's what we call contradiction, posted twice.
Me, I prefer rifles. Rifles, rifles, rifles, rifles, rifles, rifles...
Rifles !

Well spoken, Dean!

My grandfather was taught to shoot a .22 from the age of 5, and during the depression he helped feed the family with rabbits taken with a single-shot .410. The theme was "if you miss, we go hungry."

I always knew from a young age where the guns were and how to use them safely. But since they weren't that interesting unless loaded, I left them alone until the occasions we'd target shoot. They were just one more tool to be used on special occasions, like the sabre saw.

I partially agree with Amphitryon about the hazards of pistols, but rifles are an incredibly poor choice for home defense. .22s any kind of stopping power, while hunting rifles raise the risk of penetrating the attacker, the wall behind him, and the family member further yet. And a bullet which misses can continue on as far away (with a 7mm magnum) as four miles.

Better to use a 12-gauge shotgun with bird shot. It will turn an intruder to swiss cheese but stop safely without penetrating interior walls or the family members behind them. Pump shotguns also have the advantage of making a unique "Ka-ching" sound when the slide is worked, which tends to terrify criminals.

One of my proudest moments as a parent was when my son, then 15, came back from Scout camp having put a dime-sized hole - no flyers - in the X-ring (10 rounds .22 at 25 yards). I brought the target sheet itelf to work to show off (and photocopy) and it was real interesting to see the reactions of my coworkers.

Jonathan, maybe you are right. I never pretended to be an expert in guns and I hope to never feel the need to use one.

I partially agree on the early education of the children using guns, but I would personally not leave a gun under control of a children while not at home, or only if really trained, and only because such occasion needs that I trust more in my child using the gun than any risk to leave my child alone.

What I feel biased in the debate is the incitation to buy guns, wear guns, picture with guns while there are not any rules behind the use of guns. You buy it, you use it. END.
There is no need to get some instructions about its use, and I think that it is a failure. Any kind of weapon should be properly tough and used.

About women and guns, why not children and guns also. They are vulnerable, and they do not have anything to protect them.

I think that women, as children, must care of the places where they go, to who they open their door at home among other things. A woman must always care of everything but as children and old people. There is not a particular situation to explain that they must have guns, only the fact that the more we make compliances with violences, the more the violences are an eminent danger against which we cannot prevent ourselves of the use the others make of their guns, and the use we can make ourselves of our own guns.

Personally, I would prefer to see my child learn self-defense, hunting, hiding, gym and sticks, Bo sticks, rather than guns, also if, still, little instruction is always a plus.

A women is not more secured with a gun, she only feels more secure. A children would neither be more secure with a gun, at least not in the daily life. But most "crimes" happen in the daily life. Home is different, and it is only the consequence of family decision, as much as it can be a fun. There are rules. It pertains to each one to define the rules, but school could be a good place to learn self defense. At least, it would make of the security a national equity for every people.

Some guys become real criminals because they grow up as children with the terror of the violence, such as the only way they find to fight the terror is to produce it themselves. There is a psychological gearing of the use made of guns that is not sane, if regarding the concern of national laws. Violence is not something individual. Violence is something collective that pertains to the all society. People should learn to become less individualists.

I taught riflery at camp in Maine. I can tell that 99.9% of the boys were very well behaved on range. We instilled in them an appreciation of the guns and a strict attitude toward safety. You flout the rules, you are instantly banned. Only saw one kid banned in my entire time at the camp (both as a camper & a senior-camper/counsellor) and I was the one who did the banning. Guns teach responsability and respect...they are very good for children.

True about the "ka-ching". A visiting pastor told how he had irritated the local mafia in his town, and so they sent killers to his home. His kid took a shotgun from the gun cabinet, and I believe went "ka-ching" as the hitman climbed the stairs to get at him. The hitman, one supposes a stone cold killer, screamed and ran away.

So, Amp, was the kid more secure with a shotgun in the house, or not? And should the pastor have stopped being so individualististic, and stopped telling the Mafia to get right with God, and stop chastising them for their evil ways, and just tried to get along with people inclined to kill children. I don't know about you, but I see a world where some people are rabid wolves, and I don't want to join a committee and hold their hand and make smiley faces with them.

I want to tell them...1)Get right with God, and if that doesn't work 2)Then stay on the straight due to terror of the law and your fellow humans, and if that doesn't work then 3)Die with a bullet in the head.

Yeah, pastors who don't pay off their loan-sharks need guns.

Go back to sleep, dowingba. We'll wake you when it's time to go home.

Yes Tadeusz, but all mafia don't come to meet you at home. I have lived in Italy, I have little taught about mafia, and if they can blow you up, they do it, without any gun neither a shadow. Usually, mafias try to intimidate priors they kill.
Gangsters are an other job, and vandalism an other. You seem to argue on a statement that because a gun saved you once it can save you always, but you don't see the problem previous the need to have to use a gun.

Personally, I live in a town which is moved with vandalism, I have lived in the center of Paris before, I have traveled all alone (Italy, Indonesia eight months, and crossed Malaysia), I am not someone who stay behind the curtains but that move if I can help, I had problems because of that, I have though once to buy a gun, and lastly I have never, but I have learnt self-defense, and I am more confident with my stick than with any sort of gun, even a rifle.

Personally, I prefer my stick, my brain and animals, but to be honest, I am sure there are more accidents with dogs than with guns. The only difference is that a gun on a head does kill definitively, and children always have the bad habit to point the guns on their heads, their mouth precisely. Some people sleep with a gun next to their bed. Their children could kill themselves while they still asleep while they could not even react. When I say rules, I say the education to not do what should not be done, as leaving a gun at the bed side. Most accidents do happen because the people did not prevent those accidents, not because of the rain, or the storm or a stranger cause, but because they did not do what should have save their life or the life of their children.

Personally, I do not care to kill a burglar, but I would be very sorry to have my children dead because he took a gun and shot at him.

I think that non-violence should be taught at school. I think that self-defense should be taught at school. And I think that parents should be educated to open their mind on tolerance and leave their individualism to become responsible. I don't say that it is easy, but I say that it could become a necessity if anyone buys a gun, then a gun and an other one, bigger and bigger always because they would feel more secured. I mean, why not an AK-47 or a RPG at home in the case of a war attack from the people two streets of mine ? Any one can prevent himself from anything, but there are rules. Human rules mostly.

Andrew, a camp is not at home, it is not even at life. It is a camp. I am not against this. I am against the propaganda made on the guns without rules. Shooting is a good sport because it is made a sport, with rules. Home rules and work rules are sometimes not the same. Life is not made the same.

It's really funny... we buy dolls, crayola and puppies to the Iraqi children, and American children should be taught with guns ?

I am a pro-disney-mickey-fantaisy, and if I need a gate door at the town with and ADN check before entrance, I prefer this than to live with a gun to my bed side.

Dean, what your crazy relative needs, is to experience a serious situation where he/she finds out that there are times, where one has to take responsibility for one's own self-defense. Short of that, I wonder if someone who has been so thoroughly indoctrinated will ever change their mind, especially, since he/she thinks that being an anti-gun person makes him/her a morally superior person.
I have a friend, a very flashy gay guy, who until a month back was a NRA hating, gun-averse person, who proabably thought that in out liberal, relatively safe, university town, he would never have to ever face a dangerous situation. Well, a couple lf days after Dean came to visist me, this friend of mine, tried aking a pass at an obviously straight guy at a rock club who didnot want to be picked up by a gay guy. My friend, persisted, and the upshot of the situation was that he got beat up severely!!! And being a artsy-fartsy gay guy, he had never cultivated any fighting skills, so he was toytally unable to even put up a defense of any sort, and he was victimised. After he got out of the hospital, he called me and asked me about how he could get trained in using a gun, self-defense courses etc. He had to have his assumptions proved wrong, before he realised that the world is not the politically-correct, leftist version that professors and leftist of various sorts would like to have us believe the world is.

Whatever our starting assumptions, reality is always waiting around, with time on its hands, to educate us.

ronin and jonathan are both very right. It sometimes takes something serious to happen, before enlightened self-interest kicks in, and a person begins to re-evaluate his/her beliefs, and is motivated to make changes

What's bizarre about the anti-gun attitudes typified by Amphitryon above is that there is no rationality to their evaluation of respective risk. Such people almost never consider the risks to their children of playing outside, on bicycles, on skates, riding in cars etc.

I've been in love with machine guns ever since I got to fieldstrip Browning Automatic Rifles (BARs) in ROTC in my high school years up to June 1952, and later, in the army reserves and then during two years of active duty near the tail end of the Korean war, I had an opportunity to fire all kinds of automatic weapons.

I finally had a chance to buy two Thompson submachine guns, model M1A1 in early 1995. These are not the kinds associated with the gangster era of the 1920s and 1930s, with their finned barrels, Cutts compensators mounted on the muzzle and other photogenic features, but the mean, lean type manufactured as an auxiliary infantry weapon in World War II. They cost me $2000 each in 1995, plus the standard $200 transfer tax assessed for each such automatic weapon by the US Treasury Department. Now, almost nine years later, you'd have to pay 4-5 times that much money to acquire one of these fine firearms.

Are automatic weapons safe for kids? Of course they are, as long as strict safety standards are adhered to. That means nobody on the range during firing without eye and ear protection; range safety officers present; firearms encased and unloaded until the shooter is at the firing line and is instructed to "load and come to the ready" by a range officer; all muzzles oriented downrange; plus a number of other safety rules.

Among other qualifications, I am a trained range officer (RO) for automatic weapons, with about nine years experience organizing and helping run competition matches using automatic weapons. These are all normative firearm sporting events of a type held in many states for full-auto enthusiasts. At one time or another, all four of my kids have competed in these events, using my Thompsons or other submachine guns borrowed on match day, including MP40s, MP5s, Swedish Ks, MAC 11/9s, Uzis and numerous others.

Key differences among automatic weapons specially set up for competition matches is the presence or absence of "dot" sights or similar equipment, as compared with the standard iron sights. Another key difference is whether the weapon fires from a "closed-bolt" position (a round in the chamber when you squeeze the trigger and fire it) or "open bolt" (when the trigger is squeezed, the sear releases the spring-loaded bolt which strips a round from the top of the magazine, pushes it into the chamber, and the mechanism fires it).

These firearms are easy to learn how to use correctly. One of the key things we teach young shooters, in addition to basic range safety rules, is proper ammunition rationing. In other words, appropriate aimed burst firing rather than "spray and pray" as seen in so many dreadfully foolish movie gunfire epics.

As I may have mentioned in some earlier posts on Dean's World, we have 3-4 well organized and well designed submachine gun matches per year here in Mount Horeb WI. They are well thought of enough that the SWAT team from a nearby county sheriff's department has twice used our matches as a training exercize over the years, and we maintain excellent relations with local law enforcement agencies and personnel. When I get a digital camera, I'll put up some pictures of some of this on Dean's World.

The right to keep and bear arms is one of America's most precious and vital freedoms, and a historical case can be made that no society long remains free, whose citizens have been stripped of that right.

So teach your children to respect themselves, to respect the rights of others, to respect the power of your firearms, and pass the ammunition.

Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI

anti-gun types are so thoroughly brainwashed, so thoroughly convinced of the morality and rightness of their cause, that they completely and totally refuse to consider that there might be a different way of looking at things. To them believing that guns are evil, and pro-gun folks are morally inferior and stupid is an aarticle of religious belief, so much so, that they are even more close-minded than people who are very intensely religious!!!! Being anti-gun, for them has become a theology!!!

Robroy, I am not an anti-gun, I am for the use of guns only with rules, training and self-defense control. I have always been taught that a country without rules was anarchy.

I have always been taught that a country with too many rules is fascism.

Real interesting stuff

Robin Roberts, Singapore is full of rules, I have never felt it was fascist. It only depends how you feel it in your own world. Personaly, Singapore is a model to me of what a modern nation should be. People are polite, they always speak with a soft and middle voice, they are kind, devotes, the town is clean, there are musics, perfumes, flowers just for the pleasure of the five senses, and also it is a real high-tech country, people are not individualist at all. Imagine down the business towers a fruits market and a play ground where everyone meet at night to speak, eat together around a fire and barbecue. That's what I call happiness, security, and intelligence because who knows Singapore, knows also that the Malacca straight is one of the most dangerous place of pirates around the world. But they control it. They have made the rules to control it.

If you look at Italy, you've got Sicilia in the South, with its mafia and Milano in the North with its fascism. I would not leave in any of those places. I prefer the middle country which define the rule: the proper way in the good way. Chicago is Chicago, Broadway is Broadway, and both are not Texas.

But maybe I am not made to live in America. You make a portrait of America with your guns which is biased and I don't like it. You make conclusions which are biased also. When people speak of rules, you say fascism, and when people say training, you say anti-gun. Obviously, there is not any discussion, only the contemption to manage your mutual support with a deliberate not understanding.

Conclusion: leave and see else where other kinds of people.

Amphitryon, your comments are hilarious. Not enough rules, you cry anarchy. I say too many rules and you puff out this long, and bizarre screed.

But the fact that Singapore is your perfect nation is a poor rebuttal. In fact, it only confirms my opinion.

And by the way, your claim "... when people say training, you say anti-gun" is all the more ludicrous as I have personally, as a volunteer hunter education instructor, trained many hundreds of children as well as adults.

Individual assessment of children is advisable.

At 12, we don't let Madeleine near the stove. She's still shaky with a knofe and fork.

Amanda on the other hand has handled both since she was four.

I remember when I got to Germany in the Army and went to the rifle range. I shot a couple of Warm ups and one of the range NCOs came over and whispered, how long have you been shooting. I said well I been shooting BB guns since like 6 or 7 and real weapons from 12 on.

"I got a 12 pack on this one right here", he yelled. Well if there was a bet, he won it that day. I was really on it.

All my life I knew the danger of weapons. Knew their intent, knew their danger.

I'm a little disappointed to see that some of the responses addressed to Amphitryon are bordering on the personal.

I recommend you to read this article.

One abstract among others: "And the accessibility of weapons in a war zone can quickly turn a passing thought into action. "It just takes a second to pull it out and put it to your head and pull the trigger,"".

I have found the article from this blog. I am sure you will love it.

Hey Amphitryon (and Dean):

I think what a lot of us on the pro-freedom (gun and otherwise) side of this discussion are struggling with is that we really don't understand your thesis. A lot of the things you say seem to contradict one another, and some of them seem ridiculous in light of the proven success of democratic capitalism, and the proven propensity of criminals to steal, rape and murder unless forcibly prevented.

America is dedicated, constitutionally, to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness," which may only sound like buzzwords until you compare them to other countries buzzwords, like France's "liberte, egalite, fraternite" (loosely: freedom, equality, brotherhood).

Generally speaking, those of us who understand what has been responsible for our success believe that:

1) People should generally be free to pursue their happiness without unnecessary rules to bind them, so long as they don't hurt their neighbors. We have comparatively few licensing requirements. We let people figure things out for themselves and change their minds.

2) People need to be accountable for their bad behavior. Since America is one of the nations offering the greatest amount of opportunity and freedom, it is only natural and symmetrical that we hold people accountable for abuses of this freedom. We don't just analyze murderers here, we kill them.

It's clear to me that you object to some or all of this, especially in the context of gun ownership in the home and concealed carry outside of the home. But I don't understand your "platform."

Please take a moment to set it out clearly.

Jonathan,

I think I will answer in my blog in the context of the reasons why I am blogging. It will make my answer easier. I will update later, maybe not before tomorrow... I have to take the time to think of it.

Dowingba--mildly amusing; Jonathan--funnier. Advantage Jon.

Amp, I'm having a little difficulty understanding your point of view. I believe people should be trained to use guns, and especially children, but in the light of all the other gun banning efforts, I'm not willing to go for mandatory training. If, the anti-gunners allowed that guns and machine-guns are obviously legal in the 2nd Amendment then I could see making mandatory training.

I have very little training unfortunately with a gun. The only four rules I know are 1)Always treat a gun like it is loaded 2)Keep it out of the kids' way when stored 3)Be ready to kill if you aim your gun at someone. 4)Shotguns are best for home defense.

You complain about individualism, yet, this seems to me to be a very large part of what America is. Sure Singapore is probably a nice country, and another viable method of arranging things in a nation, but its not America. Canada is mostly a fine country, but its safer and less dynamic, I'm told. Those plusses and minuses go together. That's a valid choice for Canadians to make (Its not like Hussein's Iraq which is not a valid choice), but I and most Americans don't want to live in Canada.

America is a rough-and-tumble nation; big on indiviualism; distrust of authority; and guns. You seem to be asking America to change its essential nature. Would you ask an extrovert to become an introvert, or a happy computer geek to become a travelling salesman? Then why are you asking America to change who she is?

Our choices have negatives it is true. Even if all guns got taken away by some miracle (which it would have to be because there is no other way to disarm America than by mass murder in the millions or angels coming down from Heaven to pluck guns out of people's hands) then America would still be a violent nation. "If guns are outlawed; can we use swords?" is one bumper sticker.

You seemed to say that the pastor should have done something different. How so? His job, his vocation is to confront evil. He would be falling down on his job if he did not call sinners to repentance. Is he supposed to look a wife-beater in the eye, and pat him on the shoulder, or open the Book and tell him God's opinion of things?

It is true that the mafia or gangsters might use a bomb, and a gun might be little protection against such an attack. So? There's no perfect defense in a finite world. You do the best you can.

What is the problem previous to the need for a gun that you were talking about?

Non-violence should be taught at school. If little Bobby hits little Jake in the nose; Bobby apologizes, and then gets spanked with a wooden paddle, and then when he gets home, his mom or dad spanks him as well. Bobby is not likely to do that again.

If by leaving your individualism you mean "stop being thoughtless and consider the likely consequences of a behavior" then sure, that's good. People should handle guns responsibly. But on reading some of the other threads, I see people who take gun safety very seriously. I'm not sure what you are saying here. What is responsible gun ownership?

I have a friend who does have an AK-47 at his home, and I do feel, in a very minor way safer because of that. And if he wanted to kill a bunch of people, he would not need that toy. He probably could whip up a batch of chemical weaponry, or some explosive device without trying very hard at all. He's working on his masters in physics. See, Amp, there are dangerous things and people all around you.

And lastly, I do wish most people in America had a machine-gun at home. Personal liberty is founded on personal power.

Sorry for the rambling response.
Cheers,

Dean, I did not know you before Chief Wiggles linked to you. Could you please tell me where is the exit door ?

Amphy, It seems like you arn't anti gun, you just have personel reasons for disliking them yourself. I say this because the guards at your gated community have weapons. So if you were really bothered by firearms, you wouldn't live in a gated community protected by well armed (and hopefully well-paid) employees. But this all misses the point. The Second amendment was created to give Americans the ability to protect themslevs from their government, not criminals. Since government makes the Laws, Governments define who is criminal. Look at China. China has prisons full of people that did things that are not illegal in the USA. I'm certain the Chinese people wish they were not illegal in China. The difference is that the Chinese people have no choice in the matter. The American people do. If you stop and think about it, you will see that the 2nd amendment is a big part of the reason why. As big a part as the first. The freedom of speech gives me the right to point out things that the government is doing wrong. The right to bare arms gives me the ability to take action if I feel strongly enough about a political issue. Any citizen without those 2 rights is living in a fooked up nation.
Through out history, arguements have been decided in the favor of the side with the most, or best weapons. The concept of voting is an attempt to change that. Look how far America has come in a little more then 2 centuries using the "ballots not bullets" concept. One hopes that the other 80% or so of the planet will get in touch with this concept. But the men on white horses hate the Idea. So until 'great leaders' are a thing of the past, owning your own weapon is a good idea. And in that vein, you will want the best weapon you can afford. As far as the martial arts stuff, I studied from the age of 12 until I was 46. I never saw the sensi who recommended fighting a man armed with a hand gun. And I went thru dozens. Forget the movie stuff. When faced with a .44 mag, the best martial artists do as they are told to do. Or they get shot. That is what happens in the RW, which I hope never intrudes into your idealist one. I'll close with one more thought. Tiananmen Square cannot happen in America. It would not have happened in China if the Chinese had a 1st and 2nd amendments.
T.

Regarding Singapore: Perhaps you feel safe there. I have family in Johor Baru across the river, and friends in Kuala Lumpur. All have been robbed in their homes, threatened at knifepoint. My brother-in-law in JB, for example, lived in a house with bars on all doors and windows, in a yard completely fenced with chain link topped with barbed wire. At the top of the stairs was another iron gate to protect them while they slept (pray you can find the key if a fire breaks out). And so the thieves tore a hole through the roof instead. In America they would have quickly become dead thieves. There, all he could do was pray they weren't in a mood for mayhem (they weren't). My friends in KL don't live in so tight a compound, and have been robbed in their homes at knifepoint several times, including being tied up. Needless to say private gun ownership is illegal. Murders by knife and home invasions are rife in Malaysia, though not so much in Singapore. I never felt like I was in a police state there, but like I was unarmed in the wild west, wondering which unemployed Indonesian, Indian or Sri Lankan was going to target me. I'll take the risks of gun ownership instead.

Malaysia is one world, Singapore is an other. I personally know Sumatra, I know that Medan is not secured, but I have lived alone in the Batak area and I have never been robed (Batak, Minang and Nias). They could have robed me. Money, camera, bags. They have never for one simple reason which is that robbers are or made slaves, or denied and traditionally sent to the Malay coasts. I have been personally in the middle of a troubled area which have made 56 deads only with swords because of Christian fights, but I have never been in danger personally except because of the dangerous roads. Malay people are particularly known for the "hamok", but it is typically a local character. The difference with America is that I know some people in America who might have guns, but who do not are incitative to guns. They just apply and respect the freedom of the right to be free of choosing what seems to be the best. They are not arrogants or insulting, they are only respectful and that is how I like America. In the contrary, I do not like insitative arrogant tooting gunners who want to argue also if they are saying the same as one says himself. They take what you say, they write it an other way and after they say that you have said it, only because that is how they argue not on the right to have a gun, but the right they take to incitate having guns. The political background argumentation is not legitimate in my opinion and education still be a priority.

Little Indonesian children, age 6, start to learn self-defense. They learn their right to have an authority on the adults with self defense which protect them as children and has the future adult they will be. Those rights do not only apply to robbers, but to the people of their own relatives, and with self-defense, they learn self-respect and tolerance and many other things that are usefull into the society. I makes the society more secure and the people more soft in their character. They learn "estime", something that guns do not teach.

I'm sure martial arts teaches many useful things. So indeed, does baseball, guns, camping and helping Dad mow the lawn. Each practise has its own useful life lessons and skills. Maybe martial arts is in general superior for dealing with bullies and teaching self-control, but I think most gunners would argue that in certain highly unfortunate circumstances, a good hand with a gun is better than an Empty Hand.

We "arrogant tooting gunners" do have a right to incite others to buy and use guns. Its free speech.

I think you mistake strength of conviction and skill in arguement for arrogance. A lot of pro-gunners can give you a list of fleshed out reasons why America needs guns. It can be a little like running your hand into a buzzsaw.

Sometimes this assurance of being right does cross over into arrogance. In part, this is because many anti-gunners are dishonest (I'm Not talking about you) and quite condescending so that some pro-gunners get their hackles up rather easily. And in part, this is because gunners are human and easily led astray.

Amphitryon,

Dean has remarked that some of the remarks to you have edged upon the personal.

I believe this is so because -to my perception- you combine three elements that really irritate some of the pro-gun-owners around here. These three elements are:

1-you frequently refer to the ideals you believe in as if they were undeniable external verities, instead of your beliefs. You don't like guns. That's cool, it's a free world. But don't shove that opinion down everyone else's throat. Gun owners have been having that sort of thing thrown at them for years, and they're tired of it.

2-you frequently make very broad, general statements about gun owners, or gun enthusiasts that are not only inaccurate, they are insulting. Reading your comments leads to the feelling that you think most -if not all- gun owners are ignorant, violent bigots. Yes, you do throw in the occasional "but some of them are ok" remark, but (from the reactions I've seen, and my own reading) I think that you have projected the above point of view.

I am not saying that you believe this, but that that is the impression gained. What you intend to say with a communication is not always what the reciever percieves.

3-you are quite obviously not at all familiar with gun owners, their habits, or their beliefs. You have made many remarks along the lines of:

"[the] incitation to buy guns, wear guns, picture with guns while there are not any rules behind the use of guns. You buy it, you use it. END."

"I am against the propaganda made on the guns without rules." (emphasis added)

"You make a portrait of America with your guns which is biased and I don't like it" (emphasis added)

"I do not like insitative arrogant tooting gunners" ... "they argue not on the right to have a gun, but the right they take to incitate having guns." (emphasis added; I believe you meant incite there.

It is painfully obvious that you have had very little experience with the typical gun-owner in America. In fact, I would say most of them have more in common with your ideal of the soft-spoken, polite citizen that you might imagine. It seems that you have fallen for the media stereotype of the ignorant, boorish, and violent militiaman.

Most gun-owners have old-fashioned values; they believe in being polite (Heinlein once said: "An armed society is a polite society"), saying "please," and "thank you." They believe in showing respect for their elders, and in silly things like manners.

I don't think you've ever met people like this. Maybe you should look around, and try, before making broad generalizations about groups?

Actually, the statments you make are 100% opposite of the NRA's position on gun safety, especially for children. They do not want to indocrinate anyone with their beliefs; they do believe that it is better for society as a whole if children are taught strict gun safe-handling techniques as soon as possible, whether or not the family wants to own a gun, or not.

But then, if you actually took the time to research something about "those people," you might have found that out, no?

I was going to post, but how can I follow up on what Casey Tompkins just said? Well Done!

Parents who do not teach their children about guns are guilty of dereliction of duty. Do you not teach them about sex? Drugs? That was the first part of my discussion with a friend of mine. The next point was, 'Even if you keep guns out of your house, how can you be certain she will never encounter a gun at a friends house?'

After many such discussions, he decided it couldn’t hurt so he took his daughter to the range with a police officer friend. The officer taught her the difference between a pistol and revolver, how to handle a weapon (always assume it is loaded) and to check if it was loaded, for rifles and shotguns as well. He emphasized that she always had the right to ask anyone to verify if the weapon was loaded, better yet, ask to see it and check it yourself, just so they don’t check it by pulling the trigger. But the most important point, according to my friend, was how someone handles a gun. The officer pointed out that this is usually the first danger signal. His point, 'People with good gun sense don’t need to show off with guns!' I had not thought of that, but it is absolutely true. And even though she has little interest in guns, she proved to be an excellent shooter.

JG, I agree on that: "People with good gun sense don't need to show off with guns".

I was thinking, it's just like fashion. Militaries wear gear and blouse everyday. The only think they want is a jean and a shirt. They expect also to smell other than dust. People who are not militaries buy green trousers, green shirts, military shoes. They even have made the fashion for girls wear military shoes. You know what, a good lips stick makes feel good.

If war could be made with fashion, many troops would be back home now.

JG, you touch upon a truly ironic situation.

Leftists, as a rule, tend to get a mite upset if someone suggests that an organization such as the NRA teaches gun safety to kids. They claim that the NRA glorifies guns, and wants to subvert their kids, when all the NRA wants to do is keep kids from getting killed by unsafe gun-handling. After all, this is in their best interest...

But I haven't gotten to the good part yet! Liberals (reacting to the resistance of conservatives) say that sex education isn't glorifying sex, much less promiscuity; they say that is just teaches kids to be aware of their surroundings, and of the consequences of their actions. In other words, make use of prudence and forethought.

Which is exactly what the NRA is trying to teach about guns...

It would be funny, if it weren't so sad. Conservatives resist sex education, and liberals resist gun education, and both positions causes a lot more grief than the opponents realize...