Afternoon read-n-run: Cash for guns in Franklin County

Functional weapons only, please. Photo: Mike J MartelliCC some rights reserved

If you hurry, you still have time to make it to Franklin County’s first county-wide gun buyback, which is being held today until 3 p.m. in Akwesasne and Constable.

The Press-Republican reports that Franklin County District Attorney Derek Champagne (winner, best name in Franklin County, possibly ever) is looking to take unwanted and unneeded weapons off people’s hands, and reduce the number of guns that could be available to “fall into the wrong hands.”

Events like this one are interesting to me in that they point to a seemingly-obvious-but-often-ignored element of the whole debate (oh, let’s just call it an argument) about guns: They’re not “inherently” one way or another. A weapon that in one person’s hands, or gun cabinet, might be harmless, could be left carelessly about to “fall into the wrong hands”, if it’s not properly cared for, secured, etc.

And if shooting is a hobby (or if your hobby involves shooting) as is true for many people, we all know that some of the things we use for our hobby aren’t as interesting to us, after a while, as others. We tend to get excited about new “toys”, and over time, some of them fall into disuse. That’s just how it is.

Events like this are a realistic response to that tendency.

Alright, here are the details:

People can bring guns to the Hogansburg-Akwesasne Fire Station on Route 37 and the Constable Fire Department on Route 122, and if you do go over, be sure to take a look at the article before you go — there are some very specific requirements as to how weapons need to be transported and presented to officials. (It’s also worth having a look at the comments.)

Here’s the price list:

For a working assault rifle or handgun: $150

A working long gun or rifle: $25,

Ammunition magazines that hold 10 rounds or more: $20

Officials will check to see if the gun works, and then you’ll get paid. You can turn in any number of firearms, but you’ll only get paid for three of them, up to a maximum of $450.

On the upside, anyone who surrenders a weapon will get amnesty from any gun-possession charge, Champagne says.

If you miss today’s events and you’d like to exchange a weapon for cash, the county will be scheduling more events in the future. You can contact them at (518) 521-1007.

 

89 Responses to “Afternoon read-n-run: Cash for guns in Franklin County”

Leave a response
  1. Brian Mann says:

    If I owned those pistols in the photograph, I wouldn’t sell them for any price. :)

    –Brian, NCPR

    Popular. Like/Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0

  2. Mervel says:

    I guess if I had a gun illegally and really didn’t know what to do I would do the above. But at those prices it would seem much wiser to just go to a gun show a and sell them for a normal price.

    Like/Dislike this comment: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

  3. Paul says:

    These are lower prices than in some programs. I hope this Mr. Champagne goes through the necessary background check for purchasing all these things. Also does he have a pistol permit for the handguns?

    Seriously, this is a good program. Nobody wants people owning guns that they don’t want. If you are uncomfortable with a gun you should get rid of it. But it does seem kind of crazy to sell a perfectly legal long gun (and they say they have to be operable) for 25 bucks. I will probably give you 50 sight unseen. Then take it to another program where you can get 200. Interesting business idea. Unlike the Seinfeld idea to drive a mail truck full of returnable cans to Michigan to get the 10 cents this one might actually work!

    Like/Dislike this comment: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

  4. Paul says:

    What happens if you don’t get the handling “specifics” right? That alone might scare away a bad guy trying to come clean? Many people do not trust law enforcement just that statement there could scare them off. I think you also must present ID. I don’t think they can pay you if you don’t. Nora or Brian is that true?

    Like/Dislike this comment: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  5. knuckleheadedliberal says:

    Yeah, wish I owned those guns too.

    Like/Dislike this comment: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  6. Rancid Crabtree says:

    There have been gun buy backs in other states where they found people stealing guns to go and turn in. Ya gotta wonder about people sometimes.

    I’ve never been one for gussied up guns. Give me a well worn piece with some history behind it, far more interesting to me. But, I would never for a moment try to keep you guys from being able to own those pictured.

    Interesting quotes from the NYS Sheriffs Assoc. on the new gun laws today- http://northcountrynow.com/news/st-lawrence-county-sheriff-and-colleagues-some-dont-some-new-gun-law-077167

    Seems to me the Sheriffs have a pretty good grasp on the realities.

    Like/Dislike this comment: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3

  7. Paul says:

    not sure I am careful enough to own handguns. I have always wondered why it was legal to have a loaded handgun in your car but a loaded rifle is not okay. I would never do it by why the difference? I know it is harder to swing around a long gun for defending yourself but why is it illegal anyway?

    Like/Dislike this comment: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  8. Peter Hahn says:

    Paul – maybe it is more likely to be offensive than defensive.

    Like/Dislike this comment: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  9. Rancid Crabtree says:

    Paul, I believe that since that law comes under the Encon Laws that it had it’s start with poachers.

    Popular. Like/Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0

  10. Paul says:

    Peter, what do you mean?

    It seems like the SC has ruled several times that you cannot curtail someone’s right to defend themselves with a gun. Something that may or may not be an extension of how the second amendment was written. Either way it is precedent now. I figured that maybe here a handgun for protection in a car is pretty useless if you have to fumble to load it. I suspect that this will be the same thing used to challenge these new gun control laws. The argument will be if you are up against a nut job with an assault rifle why can’t I have the same advantage. It will be difficult for the defendants to overcome this challenge.

    Like/Dislike this comment: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2

  11. Paul says:

    The SC has said this:

    “(1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.”

    The question now is that this only covers the “home”. The question for the court would be what about outside the home?

    Like/Dislike this comment: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  12. Paul says:

    OR is self-defense within the home just an example of a “traditionally lawful purpose”?

    Like/Dislike this comment: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  13. mervel says:

    The interesting thing is the definition of self-defense.

    Some states have now totally re-defined what that means. For example in some states you have the right to shoot anyone in your home that is trying to take or acting like they may take your property. In addition you can shoot them as they are leaving with your property. This translates into that if someone is trying to break into your car parked in the street, you can shoot them dead.

    Like/Dislike this comment: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  14. Paul says:

    Mervel, true the definition is important. Even if I had a loaded handgun in my car, the last thing I would do is reach for it when I was carjacked. I would get out and let them take it. Defend your life or your families not your stuff.

    Like/Dislike this comment: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1

  15. Rancid Crabtree says:

    It all depends on the situation. There have been carjackings where infants and kids were in the car and the BG didn’t take the time to have them removed.

    Personally, if someone ties to steal from you, anything of any real value, I’d say all options are open. Why is the owner wrong for protecting his property? It wasn’t the owners decision to be robbed. Why does the owner have to be punished by the loss of his property, shouldn’t the BG be the one punished? He’s the one doing wrong in the first place.

    Like/Dislike this comment: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3

  16. knuckleheadedliberal says:

    “(1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.”

    Judicial activism.

    Like/Dislike this comment: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1

  17. scratchy says:

    Paul says:
    January 25, 2013 at 7:11 pm

    not sure I am careful enough to own handguns. I have always wondered why it was legal to have a loaded handgun in your car but a loaded rifle is not okay. I would never do it by why the difference? I know it is harder to swing around a long gun for defending yourself but why is it illegal anyway?

    Because the NY legislature wrote the laws regarding guns. A good reason that many of NY’s laws don’t make sense is the fact that mot legislators are lawyers.

    Like/Dislike this comment: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  18. Peter Hahn says:

    If you are up against a nut-job with an assault rifle(s), (or anybody with a gun) you run as fast as you can.

    Like/Dislike this comment: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1

  19. Peter Hahn says:

    then you call 911

    Like/Dislike this comment: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1

  20. Paul says:

    That is what I would do after I grabbed my kids. But many people have defended themselves with guns now and in the past. In a situation like that (god forbid) most people would probably be killed. If you had a gun you would probably be killed also but you might have a chance. Would only recommended pulling it in the nut job scenario. I wonder what you do if you can’t run? Maybe more cell coverage is as important as some gun controls?

    Like/Dislike this comment: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  21. mervel says:

    There are numerous cases of successfully defending your home and your family utilizing a gun.

    There are many people alive today who would not be if they had not had a gun to defend themselves.

    But that still does not mean you need some crazy assault weapon or that for most of us this is going to be an issue. But it is an individual choice one that I would not feel comfortable with telling someone that they were wrong to defend their children from attack using a gun.

    Like/Dislike this comment: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1

  22. Walker says:

    “There are many people alive today who would not be if they had not had a gun to defend themselves.”

    But there are far more people dead today who would be alive if there had not been a gun in the house that was used, accidentally or otherwise, to kill them.

    Like/Dislike this comment: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2

  23. Walker says:

    Based on a review of the available scientific data, Dr. Lippmann and co-authors conclude that the dangers of having a gun at home far outweigh the safety benefits. Research shows that access to guns greatly increases the risk of death and firearm-related violence. A gun in the home is twelve times more likely to result in the death of a household member or visitor than an intruder.

    The most common cause of deaths occurring at homes where guns are present, by far, is suicide. Many of these self-inflicted gunshot wounds appear to be impulsive acts by people without previous evidence of mental illness. Guns in the home are also associated with a fivefold increase in the rate of intimate partner homicide, as well as an increased risk of injuries and death to children. News-Medical.Net: Guns at Home Increase Dangers, Not Safety

    “Although most gun owners reportedly keep a firearm in their home for “protection” or “self defense,” 83 percent of gun-related deaths in these homes are the result of a suicide, often by someone other than the gun owner.” American Foundation for Suicide Prevention

    “…the presence of a gun in the home increases the chance that a homicide or suicide in the home will be committed with a firearm rather than by using other means. Victims of suicide living in homes with guns were more than 30 times more likely to have died from a firearm-related suicide than from one committed with a different method. Guns are highly lethal, require little preparation, and may be chosen over less lethal methods to commit suicide, particularly when the suicide is impulsive.” American Journal of Epidemiology

    Like/Dislike this comment: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  24. Walker says:

    I feel like I buried the key sentence in all that stuff:

    “A gun in the home is twelve times more likely to result in the death of a household member or visitor than an intruder.”

    Like/Dislike this comment: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1

  25. Rancid Crabtree says:

    Walker says:
    January 27, 2013 at 7:30 am

    “There are many people alive today who would not be if they had not had a gun to defend themselves.”

    But there are far more people dead today who would be alive if there had not been a gun in the house that was used, accidentally or otherwise, to kill them.”

    Horse puckey. You make claims like this based on what? Provide proof of your claim Walker, I doubt you can even begin to find any evidence to back your false claim.

    Like/Dislike this comment: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5

  26. Rancid Crabtree says:

    Peter Hahn says:
    January 26, 2013 at 4:13 pm

    If you are up against a nut-job with an assault rifle(s), (or anybody with a gun) you run as fast as you can.”

    That’s a wonderful idea Peter, assuming there is someplace to run to, that you can in fact run there and if the BG will let you. More likely your corpse will just have holes in the back instead of the front.

    A more realistic plan would be to consider well ahead of time if you plan to take responsibility for your own safety or not. If you are, good. If not, fine, that’s your call. But in either case you have no right to either force someone to obtain a weapon of any kind or any right to take their weapons.

    Like/Dislike this comment: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2

  27. Walker says:

    A more realistic plan would be to realize that you’re far more likely to be hit by lightning than to find yourself up against a nut-job with an assault rifle.

    Like/Dislike this comment: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  28. Walker says:

    “You make claims like this based on what?”

    See links provided, above. (That’s the text in blue, Rancid. You click on it, and it takes you there.)

    Like/Dislike this comment: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

  29. Rancid Crabtree says:

    Walker, I didn’t see you post further down the page. I’m sure you’ll make hay of that.

    I’ve seen those same reports before and the critical analysis that says they are just what I said earlier- horse puckey. A similar study has shown that every person who ever ate carrots has died. I don’t buy these agenda driven studies at all, because as you pointed out some time back, agenda driven stats are not to be trusted. There are other studies out there showing that the mere presence of a firearm, even without being fired, is often successful in stopping crime without being fired. You wish to believe these agenda driven studies because they support your agenda. You don’t want people to have guns, simple as that. you have granted yourself the right, somehow, to decide what is best for other people rather than letting them decide for themselves. That’s so fundamentally wrong that I shouldn’t have to point it out.

    Like/Dislike this comment: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4

  30. Rancid Crabtree says:

    What can you do about lightening Walker? Are there laws against lightening strikes? Is that next?

    I’ve used a gun several times to protect my property and a few times to protect myself. I’ve never shot anyone, never had the least desire to do so. But you would remove that option from me based on your irrational fears. You would take my right to life from me and other people. Who gave you that power?

    Like/Dislike this comment: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5

  31. Walker says:

    “the critical analysis that says they are just what I said earlier- horse puckey.”

    Let’s see the link, Rancid. Preferably from some fairly sane source? I just Googled “gun deaths in the home,” and those links were the first three.

    Like/Dislike this comment: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  32. Rancid Crabtree says:

    Some people are starting to get what this is all about- http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2013/01/28/gun-laws-and-the-fools-of-chelm-by-david-mamet.html

    And some other people are starting to catch on too- http://www.cbs58.com/news/local-news/Sheriff-Clarke-tells-citizens-to-fight-back-in-his-latest-188389671.html

    Like/Dislike this comment: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

  33. Walker says:

    “Are there laws against lightening strikes?”

    No, Rancid, we don’t need laws– just shoot the lightning with your AR-15.

    “I’ve used a gun several times to protect my property and a few times to protect myself.”

    From gun-wielding assailants? Really?

    Like/Dislike this comment: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  34. Walker says:

    “Some people are starting to get what this is all about…”

    Those are opinion pieces, Rancid. How about some evidence refuting the studies cited in my links.

    Like/Dislike this comment: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

  35. Walker says:

    “I’ve never shot anyone, never had the least desire to do so.”

    Congratulations! But your guns could turn one moment of irrational anger into someone’s death, or one moment of deep depression into your death, or a family member’s death. Happens all the time.

    Like/Dislike this comment: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3

  36. Walker says:

    “But you would remove that option from me based on your irrational fears. You would take my right to life from me and other people. Who gave you that power?”

    No one gave me that power. But the constitution gave your fellow citizens that power, should they choose to exercise it.

    Like/Dislike this comment: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1

  37. Walker says:

    From the fourth hit in that search:

    During the study interval (12 months in Memphis, 18 months in Seattle, and Galveston) 626 shootings occurred in or around a residence. This total included 54 unintentional shootings, 118 attempted or completed suicides, and 438 assaults/homicides. Thirteen shootings were legally justifiable or an act of self-defense, including three that involved law enforcement officers acting in the line of duty. For every time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides.
    CONCLUSIONS:

    Guns kept in homes are more likely to be involved in a fatal or nonfatal accidental shooting, criminal assault, or suicide attempt than to be used to injure or kill in self-defense. PubMed.gov: Injuries and deaths due to firearms in the home.

    Like/Dislike this comment: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1

  38. Walker says:

    “you have granted yourself the right, somehow, to decide what is best for other people rather than letting them decide for themselves.”

    Au contraire, my rancid friend, I have granted myself the right to have an opinion. Awfully sorry that it differs from yours, but thems the breaks. Froth not!

    Like/Dislike this comment: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1

  39. jeff says:

    Assault weapons in the lapsed regulations were described by cosmetic features. As I look at the pictures of those pistols, I see a toy pistol because the lower pistol has a cast “frame” and the upper or left side of the pistol is screwed on. My point is there has been a lot of reaction, folks going off half cocked (pun intended and half-cock is supposed to be a safety position) not looking at what is visible. Our governor’s legislation is one example of that.

    If I have a firearm, I want working models, not wall hangers.

    This buy up effort, like an auction, the offer is made and anyone accepting the offer can sell a fire arm, quite undervalued but that is the owner’s perogative.

    Like/Dislike this comment: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  40. Paul says:

    “But there are far more people dead today who would be alive if there had not been a gun in the house that was used, accidentally or otherwise, to kill them.”

    So do you support getting rid of all guns from all homes? let’s be honest. State your position clearly?

    “A more realistic plan would be to realize that you’re far more likely to be hit by lightning than to find yourself up against a nut-job with an assault rifle.”

    Wait a minute, I thought that some of these common sense gun control regulations are designed to protect us and our children against this sort of thing. Now you are telling me the threats are miniscule? Now you are starting to convince (even folks like me that think these were a good idea) that they are close to pointless. Which is it?

    Like/Dislike this comment: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

  41. Walker says:

    “I thought that some of these common sense gun control regulations are designed to protect us and our children against this sort of thing.”

    The chance of being killed by a maniac with a gun don’t have to be sky high to make it worthwhile taking measures to reduce gun violence, Paul. You seem to be living in a Can’t Happen Here kind of world. The odds are good that your life will never be saved by your seat belt. Doesn’t mean it’s smart not to wear it. And the point is, you don’t need to be packing heat 24/7 to protect yourself from a pretty remote threat. Rancid may have gun-totting bad guys wandering his property at all hours, but I don’t, and I don’t know anyone who has had those kinds of problems either.

    Anyway, as I’ve said a dozen times here, I’m not proposing outlawing all guns. I do think we should impose reasonable controls though, including registration and insurance. And I think it would be a very good thing if people realized that acquiring a weapon was not likely to make them safer from external threats; that it might well itself constitute a threat to their family if they’re not very careful, and rather lucky.

    Like/Dislike this comment: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  42. Paul says:

    Walker, I did not say that it was a “not in my kind of world” event. You are the one that told us that the chances appear to be miniscule.

    Like/Dislike this comment: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  43. mervel says:

    Most people who own guns hunt. There are some of course who buy them for self-defense, some who get them for criminal activity, some who get them because the want to be macho or are part of the gun nut craze.

    However the average gun owning family has them because they are hunters and part of an American tradition. I realize that hunting is not in the constitution, however to me all of this crap ends up hurting the very people who have less crime than then other gun owners.

    The reason that states with very high rates of family gun ownership have low rates of gun crime is that it is about responsible hunting it is about tradition, it is not about being a tough guy or crime.

    It is very unfortunate that the gun control frenzy is essentially becoming an anti-hunting frenzy. Most hunters don’t care about all of these assault weapons or even hand guns for that matter, but when you pass a bunch of laws that are certainly written by city people with no connection to the land or hunting and are aimed at regular long guns, you are going to get people like me who don’t endorse assault weapons who do feel that handguns should be registered and checked, against ALL gun control as we see that this is an anti-hunting movement and there is a basic lack of trust.

    So I am certainly glad in this case referring to another thread; that we do have House GOP control, through gerrymandered districts if need be, to stop people who don’t care about my rights and my traditions.

    Like/Dislike this comment: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  44. The Original Larry says:

    They said it was only about “assault rifles” and “high capacity” magazines. It’s gone far beyond that.
    They said it wasn’t about hunting firearms, but it is.
    They said it wasn’t about handguns, but it is.
    They said it wouldn’t violate anyone’s rights, but it does.
    They said anyone who was worried about the above is paranoid. we were right to worry.

    At this point, why would anyone believe anything coming from the anti-gun side? Lies beget more lies. Undo the things you said you wouldn’t do and then we can talk. Until then, it is reasonable to believe they want to ban all guns.

    Like/Dislike this comment: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  45. Walker says:

    They? Who is this “they” you speak of?

    Like/Dislike this comment: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  46. Rancid Crabtree says:

    “From gun wielding assailants?” Several times in years gone by, yes. More recently I’ve protected my property numerous times using what is now labeled and assault weapon, several times a year in fact.

    Those links you asked for- http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdgaga.html I love this quote- “Not only is Kellermann’s methodology flawed, but using the same approach for violent deaths in the home not involving a firearm, the risk factor more than doubles from 43 to 1, to 99 to 1.”

    http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf

    I don’t want Mr Hobson to have to spend time researching links so I’ll just ask you to look at Dr Joyce Malcomb,( Professor of Law, B.A., Barnard College; M.A., Brandeis University; Ph.D., Brandeis University, currently a Professor of law at Geo. Mason U), book “Guns and Violence”. Or google “Roots of Gun Control: Pseudo-Science Research and the 43 Times Fallacy by Bruce Gold”

    What it all comes down to is agenda driven studies being refuted. Phrases like “a home with a gun is 27 times more likely to have a gun death” are meaningless. It’s like saying ” a home with a swimming pool is 27 times more likely to experience a pool drowning death”. The studies never offer up information on whether the firearm was legally owned by a responsible citizen or illegally owned by a drug addict that left a gun out where a 4 year old was playing. Offering up data based on erroneous information or with important information left out gives you the classic “garbage in, garbage out” scenario.

    As far as those “opinion pieces”, well yeah. Aren’t you the one defending opinions? You defend your opinion that you have the right to remove peoples civil liberties, although you qualify it by saying the Constitution gave the power. I’m pretty sure if I argued for a new law outlawing free speech you would use the same terms.

    Your 9:08PM post is a classic. You make both sides of the argument in a few words- “The chance of being killed by a maniac with a gun don’t have to be sky high to make it worthwhile taking measures…”. Stop there and end the sentence with, “…to protect yourself.” You think a law will protect you. That’s nonsense. All a law does is punish someone, either the person breaking the law or in this case those who are deprived of their rights in order to meet the requirements of the law. Do you expect “maniacs” to follow the law? And why even bring up “…one moment of deep depression into your death, or a family member’s death.”? Just last week we had another post here about how the near perfect Canadian health system was discussing euthanasia. If someone wants to kill themselves they shouldn’t be able to….unless they want to and get gov’t permission? Makes no sense. If stopping suicide, the majority of gun deaths in those studies you linked to, is the target, then we’d better start outlawing a whole lot of other stuff besides guns.

    -

    Like/Dislike this comment: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

  47. Paul says:

    “I do think we should impose reasonable controls though, including registration and insurance.”

    Since the data seem to indicate that having a gun in your home is so dangerous why don’t insurance companies already ask you about this when you are signing up?

    Apparently wood-stoves and dogs are dangerous enough?

    What are the actual chances of being injured because you have a gun in your home? Since insurance companies don’t seem to care I am curious if again we are in the “lightning strike” catagory?

    Like/Dislike this comment: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  48. Paul says:

    It looks like the new laws here in NYS are having the opposite of it’s intended consequence:

    http://www.adirondackdailyenterprise.com/page/content.detail/id/535118/County-clerks-swamped-with-gun-questions.html?nav=5008

    By the time we get done with the Federal frenzy we will probably have twice as many guns on the streets as we had before Newtown.

    Like/Dislike this comment: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  49. Mervel says:

    I do think that those studies are real certainly if you have a weapon in your home there is a risk of it hurting someone. However I think if you look at the studies they were done in cities. If you look at states with very high rates of home gun ownership they actually have fewer gun deaths than other states. It comes down to why people have guns in their home. I would bet that if the only time you fire your gun or even think about your gun is for protection, you will have a more dangerous situation.

    If you grow up hunting and learn about safety from a very early age, if you learn that guns are very serious business and you never ever ever point a gun at a human or at something you don’t want to shoot, it will make a big difference. I have guns in my home growing up we had a lot of guns, they were never loaded in the home, ammo was stored totally separately and they were not for protection. If you have a loaded gun in your bedroom or closet for protection I think you are indeed asking for a tragedy or accident.

    Like/Dislike this comment: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  50. Mervel says:

    If you are really concerned about home safety get a good alarm system and a big dog.

    Like/Dislike this comment: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0