Anne, I'm so glad you've joined BlogHer as one of our official conservative bloggers - and just in time for a conference where we will be talking here, in Second Life and on the conference floor about a number of political issues.

As someone who grew up in gun country, I'm a big believer that gun bans are a political non-starter in the U.S. I just don't believe they're sustainable.

And thanks for the Dixie Chicks video - I do love them so.

Lisa Stone
BlogHer Co-founder
Surfette

I just wonder if one could protect one's self just as effectively with a shotgun as a handgun.  Because my relatives?  They had shotguns, not handguns to protect themselves against potential lynchings and what not.

Possibly. If you were a very strong woman used to handling one.

But it's good to have the choice, isn't it.

Those founding fathers and their intimate advisors were a pretty thorough bunch when it came to thinking things through.  I remain unconvinced that they were talking about handguns.  Pistols of the day were not easily concealed given their large size.  

I support this amendment "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free
State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be
infringed." in order to keep the government in check -- and I an pretty sure that was the intent.  Militia, free state.... sounds like they were talking about revolution by and for the people when the government decides the rights of the people are secondary to needs of the state (or corporation.)

I'd rather have a shotgun.  Broader spread.  If you are going to have a gun in the home you better damn well know how to use it.    The physical "weakness" of women comes into play only when they are unschooled in the proper use and maintenance of arms.  

Scalia as a champion of women's rights?   Surely you jest, Anne.  

Peace,

Nancy 

Build Peace
Virtuality
My Life As An Avatar

I'm with Nancy on this one.  I have no problem with a ban on handguns.  I have always felt that if one feels that if one feels one needs a gun for home protection, then a shotgun is much more effective.  I know that I also have less of a problem with shotguns than handguns because shotguns have other purposes besides home protection -- like hunting.  In fact I can see little purpose in individual ownership of handguns.

I had a roommate who was nearly raped on the way home. She carried a brick around with her after that, as that state did not allow concealed carry.

 You aren't always at home, and a shotgun isn't as portable. Nor does it give the element of surprise that a handgun does, to deter an attack.

 But again--you have your preferences--why take away someone else's preference?

Others may have a different opinion. The police can't be everywhere, nor are they always in time. 

or in the wake of my post. Those who know my writing will need it. ;-)

I'm not in favour of banning guns - the normal everyday type suited to hunting or even self defence. I've more of an issue with weaponry that serves no useful purpose in either  realm.

The debate reshapes in other directions. First, where should the line between allowable and not allowable be? And there is a line, because I can't own a nuclear bomb, or even a howitzer.

And furthering the need for smelling salts, this leftist invokes the free marketplace to help play a role in responsible gun policy, and that is the role of insurance and tort law. As a former commercial lines underwriter and holder of a CPCU aka Can't Produce, Can't Underwrite designation attained through 39 hours of exam time) I believe insurance can help this issue find sane ground. 

Insurers are not keen on product liability suits, be it against manufacturers, or to a lesser extent, resellers. So they pressure manufacturers to adopt safe practices and to make safer products. To control who might access their product, and under what conditions they might proceed with selling said product.

I like the idea of holding the seller accountable for doing a background check. If the person is clean, cool. No worries. If they aren't and sell it, worries. And there should be no exemptions to having a check ran, not even on an individual level. We could easily remake the system so that individuals would have a go to for checking.

And while the president is fond of calling for caps on jury awards, I'm totally against such restrictions (preferring punitive damages flow to the government or community, not the individual) said awards strike fear into the heart of insurers, spurring them to get out there and manage risk. This has greatly increased product safety in my lifetime (after product liability became more legally accessible through civil suit.)

Guns are no panacea. I've seen what happens when someone accidentally shoots and kills their best friend. And even shooting someone who threatens you will haunt for a long, long time.

Elsewhere we talked on Texas law that apparently allows the shooting of a burglar in one's home. That is just bloody foolish. A teen being stupid and stealing a tv should be met with death? No logic there whatsover...

so lets have rational law, rational ownership, combine some regulation with free market forces, and there will be some sanity eventually. 

nelle

This isn't about shooting robbers.   This is about maintaining a militia.  Handguns have little to do with keeping a well armed militia.  

Handguns are easily concealed, accidentally kill children, and aid easy suicide in the depressed.   I don't like the idea of nutcases having concealed guns.    Do they get concealed carry permits?  Do they have training.   Training is a biggie.   You can't drive a car without passing a test, but you can purchase a gun.   D'oh.   Handguns are largely urban and largely criminally involved.   I'd much rather have the billions of dollars spent in insurance due to ease of handgun access be spent on education and crime prevention.   

The big question here for me is training and proof of competence.    I was taught to shoot as a kid on the farm.   How many gun urban owners actually have use and safety training?   

Very good gun facts here. 

The suicide numbers and rates in this country are vastly larger than the homicice ratea.  You are far more likely to die at your own hands than someone elses's.  

 Nelle, you have far more confidence in the free market than I do.   I would like to see a fair market.  

 Nancy

Build Peace
Virtuality
My Life As An Avatar

When it comes down to it I think we need respect and a recognition of individual freedom and individual responsibility. We shouldn't infantalize our citizens. There are other ways depressed people can kill themselves--how about drug overdose--prescription not illegal drugs, and irresponsible parents whose kids fall out of windows or run into traffic, or light matches.

 And no, I am not advocating for individual ownership of nukes. 

Training and background checks are fine.

I don't think you should hold manufacturers liable for misuse of guns. (If the product is inherently defective that is a different story.)

We don't penalize auto manufacturers for crimes committed with stolen cars, or even your own for that matter. Nor should we. That would make all products that much more expensive for all of us. 

 Trial lawyers' opportunistic lawsuits drive up costs and they are the ones who get the benefit.