I am qualified with and experienced with firearms and I own them because I have a right to and I just plain effing want to.

I have edited my original post because it is ridiculous to get upset about an insinuating comment.

My first firearm purchase was a 9mm semi-automatic pistol with two magazines and it was actually my wife's idea. We had three children and she was specifically concerned about home invasion. She was comfortable with me having a handgun because she knew I served in the Army and had trained with and had experience with firearms.

I started going to the shooting range to practice and familiarize myself with the new gun. I enjoyed target shooting and eventually bought a few standard six shot revolvers because they were more accurate and that's what target shooting is all about.

A friend was upgrading to a better reloading press and gave me his old set up and I started reloading because it was cheaper than buying ammo at the gun shop. I started experimenting with different powders and bullet types to increase the accuracy and manage the recoil.

So target shooting for accuracy became a hobby instead of just a way to keep in practice and I thoroughly enjoyed it.

I taught all three of my children to shoot when they were young teenagers and my daughter enjoyed it as much as my two boys did.

I own twenty-one firearms (and that's not a confession). They are mostly standard revolvers but I have a few rifles and one shotgun. They are securely stored in a large gun safe that actually exceeds the state and federal requirements regarding gun safety.

I'm very serious about my firearms and strongly support legitimate gun control.

I have hunted before so have used shotguns, but my play money is used for buying vinyl and audio gear, that's my hobby.

 

 

They are interesting guns and look good when displayed.

Man or animal, shooting should always be a last resort.

Yes, he'll have to shoot you if he tells you.

I did not say that. why are you calling me violent?

A laxative might help with that constipation you're experiencing.

Thanks for the correction. 

I do not have a problem with your question. I do think "none of your business" is a viable legitimate answer and the poster should not have been disrespected and trolled by stupid comebacks about an honest answer.

If someone is not willing to take the time and effort to educate themselves on firearms handling and firearms safety then I don't want them having a gun.

It's bad enough living in a society where I have to worry about criminals. I don't want to have to worry about some untrained citizen with a loaded Glock in their underwear drawer.

timothy leary wrote: Why is she embarassed by it, maybe she feels it is a personal question best left unanswered.

Thanks! For both of the answers :)

I am not embarrassed by being an owner of weapons. I have all kinds really. I just feel that, unless one is planning harm, they should not have to justify owning a weapon. I am not a criminal, nor am I on a watch list, so my reason for having one is as much of another person's business as it is for why I like the bands I do. a weapon does not imply a tendency to violence any more than a fork is an implication of obesity.

In any case, there was no "trolling" intended in my first reply (but then poor Timmy is being over-dramatic, being that he's still butt-hurt from a previous conversation). 

Oh, I see. For you, it's rather like someone making a gutless response like "I won't vote" and then getting one's panties in a bunch when many posters mocked the reply.

The argument I usually hear is they oppose it because it'll lead to some national gun registry or something where basically all your/gun info is collected somewhere. 

Honestly I have no idea, it's just the same ol slippery slope stuff how it'll lead inevitably to Hitler. As you say just hatred/paranoia of government. 

Rules do vary state to state. Wildly actually, some have basically no gun laws, some are extremely strict. Cities also sometimes set their own rules which would probably be stricter than the average. 

DRIVING LICENSES. 

You can imagine it's not much of a stretch to oppose background checks. 

Now these same people want drug tests for recipients of welfare. But they don't give a damn if for example a drug addict on welfare with antisocial personality disorder gets access to a AR-15. Freedom. 

There are variations state to state. But also remember this is the country where some states have considered allowing open carry of weapons in BARS. WHERE ALCOHOL IS SOLD AND CONSUMED. 

Now that idea... 

The Dalai Lama is a walking Facebook post. 

Numbers are easy to manipulate if you already have an opinion and only look at results that support that opinion.

For example, look how easy it is to determine the number of unemployed in this country simply by counting only those who are actually collecting unemployment benefits while ignoring the millions of others who are out of work and not collecting benefits. Now, who would do something like that?

When it comes to gun related statistics you have to consider law abiding citizens and criminals as being two separate groups. This is especially true when I hear people talking about the lack of gun control. You need to do a Google search and find out just how many gun laws are already on the books.

Unfortunately, these laws only mean something to law abiding citizens. They mean absolutely nothing to criminals.

So, I can maybe get where he's coming from.

I don't really have a problem with gun ownership but I don;t understand all the paranoia from many on the right who think any new or stricter regulations on background checks and making it more difficult for some  to own guns are somehow infringing upon their Constitutional rights.

You'd think the NRA and other orgs like them would be in favor of keeping guns out of the hands of bad people and the mentally ill yet they seem hell bent on resisting any reforms. 

Are they really that paranoid?

It's interesting that before the internet and smart phones no one would have ever heard about this. 

I'm sure that the sermons would have angered people in the congregation and they may have had words with the pastor but it wouldn't have made the local news.

In today's world I'm sure some people were on their smart phones posting on Twitter and Facebook while they were still in the church parking lot.

Thanks to high tech good news travels fast but so does hate.