Any FJingerites with conservative opinions?

[HomegirlRuby]

I am a staunch Republican. While I do believe in equal marriage rights, the legalization (or decriminalisation) of marijuana, and consider myself agnostic, that's about where the liberal pow-wow ends for me.

I don't believe in handouts. Im not a fan of people expecting the system to step in and pay for their out-of-wedlock children that they cannot afford. I don't think throwing money we dont have at major issues is going to get us anywhere. I support the second-amendment. I think that people should complain less and work harder.

I also think that since I dont have thousands of posts, all of my opinions will be ripped apart and I will be called a shit-stirring troll. I don't much care what anyone on an internet message board thinks, though. People asked that we lurkers be more vocal - and these are only my viewpoints. I would never try to push them on anyone else.

There are plenty of others like myself out there who probably dont have the guts to say how they feel for fear of disagreement.

Its good to see other right-wingers out there, though I knew you were there all along. :)

[singsingsing]

I guess I'm fairly liberal, comparatively speaking, though tend to call myself moderate. There are two things I can think of where I skew more conservative. The first is the issue of my own sexual morals, though I guess that does affect the way I view sexuality in society in general. The second is abortion. I verge on being pro-life (but not quite - I don't believe abortion is murder in the vast majority of cases, and I don't want to see it banned outright). I generally don't bring these issues up here because I have very little interest in arguing about them. Obviously I'm okay with people having different opinions, or else I wouldn't be here. But I do think it's good for people, both liberal, conservative, or whatever else, to see that you can be against fundamentalism without having to ascribe to one set of political ideals.

[formergothardite]

I don't think that posters that agree with the majority are trolls, but when it comes to issues like being anti-choice, it just seems like the anti-choice posters have a hard time supporting their beliefs with any sort of logical debate, which can come off as being troll like.

[Wolfie]

I'm extremely liberal. I think. But I have a gun in my dresser, a gun in my car, several hunting rifles under my bed, and a gun in the bathroom.

I also work in an industry that I disagree with on a theoretical basis. But I also know that that industry employs 1/3 of our state.

Just curious- while I understand the hunting rifles, is there a reason that you live in enough fear to keep guns all over the place?

The reason I ask is that I think that living in enough fear that I felt that I needed to have a gun within reach would seriously impact the quality of my life.

[So Says I]

I totally respect everyone's opinion here. In light of that, and my all too recent bout with unemployment after being laid off, I shall back out of this thread slooowly. :?

[Wolfie]

I admit to being pretty right wing about education. Blame it on my Chinese upbringing. I am a huge advocate for traditional education. I don't think homeschooling is superior and I'm baffled by unschoolers. I was taught that hard work matters more than talent in academic success. If I suck in math, it's not because I have no aptitude for it, it's a sign I must work harder.

I nod in agreement with conservatives who stress that the basics are important. I find myself vehemently disagreeing with liberals who talk about the evils of tests and standardized curriculum. I see nothing wrong with textbooks and memorization. I think I surprise some people with my stance on education. Other than that, I'm pretty liberal.

I am both in agreement and disagreement with you on this matter as a teacher. I'm not to big on homeschooling, mainly because I think that school is teaching a child how to be a grownup, and most grownups have to go out to work and be there on time every day. It's still a minority of people who stay at home, and even most of those I know who do that have to be logged in on their computers and availble for calls at a certain time. Almost all of them are dealing with people not in their immediate family all day long. Also, the fact that homeschooling can be so poorly done and regulated in some areas. (I have to say that I have seen it done very well, but I've also seen it done poorly in more cases.)

The testing I have to disagree- it's not the exams taken for college, or high school exit exams. It's the yearly exams that start in second grade. As a teacher, what I have seen happen is things that are very bad for the students and the schools. Arts are being cut because they aren't tested- I see arts as a basic, especially for children whose parents can't afford them outside of school. Even worse, Science and Social Studies are being cut, because they aren't tested until a certain age. Schools are being penalized because the school doesn't increase test scores, even though they have scored proficient for three years, but the scores haven't increased. Teachers are being told what to teach, which hour of the day, and what exact lesson out of the book, no flexibility to change things if their students need something a little different. Students only get what is on the test, not anything extra. There is also nothing considered about where the students were when they started attending the school, in addition to the fact if a school's scores don't increase when they have been proficient, if a school doesn't make proficient, yet keeps increasing, they get penalized. The current testing system is all sorts of messed up and is NOT GOOD for the students. If you can come up with something that doesn't cause these issues, hats off to you, but this one isn't working.

[Wolfie]

I think the most conservative view I have is regarding schools.

I believe private schooling is vastly superior to public (state) schooling. I went to two of the most expensive and highly-regarded schools in my state and also the best state school in my state. The state school was literally years behind where I was academically at my private schools. At 12 I was sitting two and a half hour math and science exams, but at 14 I was doing crossword puzzles (and that was in the advanced English class) and science I did in primary school. I would rather home school than ever send a child to public school. I can't abide by it.

I voted Liberal once, but I usually vote Greens, which is pretty liberal.

In most of the US private schools have minimal regulations. I've subbed in several. Some were comparable to public schools, some were garbage. A friend once moved her child to public school from an expensive private school when finances neccesitated it, and discovered that her daughter was a couple years behind in math, even though she'd been at the top of her class in private school. (she was smart and did catch up) Public schools have much more regulation.

[Wolfie]

I would like the kind of public investment in public schools that would bring the level of education up to the level of those prep schools. That's hardly conservative.

The prep schools can pick and choose and kick out any students who can't meet their standards. The public schools can't. I would suspect that the public schools probably have honor classes for those who can handle that work, it's just that when you see the test scores you're seeing an average of all the students.

Personally, I'd like to see more trade classes in public schools for those students who might not go to college.

[Anxious Girl]

I don't really agree about polygny/polygamy, because it seems odd to me. But if people want to be in relationships like that, it's not my right to stop them. People should be with who they want to be with. I once had a crush on my 2nd cousin but grew out of it. :oops: I think this should be in the chatter section.

[valsa]

Though it may surprise people here, I used to be pretty conservative. I was raised by fairly conservative people (my father is a walking stereotype of the average Fox News viewer, minus any religion) Now, I'm pretty liberal in most things and growing more liberal as I age.

I do want to own a gun (I don't have the money right now) but I don't consider that to conflict with my liberalism because I support strong gun control (a universal registry of owners, mandatory background checks and waiting periods for all purchases) and think they should increase the requirements to get a license (I think they should require more safety training, require proof of serious target practice (kinda how you have to have X hours of driving practice before they give you a driver’s license), and proof of safe storage methods)

I used to be strongly pro-capital punishment but I'm slowly moving away from that.

I suppose my one big conservative issue would be substance abuse. I have little sympathy for people dealing with addiction and I do often roll my eyes at the common liberal take of "Those poor dears. They're just so sick and can't help themselves when it comes to their addiction". I'm not fond of making excuses for people's personal failings and don't agree with the sort of innate helplessness liberals project onto addicts (for instance, a couple of months ago there was a thread here about a news story of someone famous being addicted to Xanax and, reading the comments on that thread, you'd think it was impossible to take a benzo and not become addicted. Except that it is very much possible, with a little forethought and responsibly usage)

Drinking and driving is also a huge substance abuse issue with me. My mother's former co-worker has four DUIs and I literally had to take a second every time I saw the woman to talk myself down from my urge to strike her, that's how angry drinking and driving makes me. I find it sickening when people are willing to risk the lives of others for their own irresponsibility and convenience.

However, all that being said, I’m not sure I even qualify as a conservative on substance abuse issues because I believe in funding comprehensive rehab programs for people (though I also think the flip side to that should be stronger legal punishments for things like DUIs) I always preach things like "If people are really 'pro-life' they should support comprehensive sex education" and this is the same sentiment, just on a different subject. I think fundies should grit their teeth and support sex ed if they want to avoid the greater evil (in their eyes) of abortion, so I need to grit my teeth and support rehab programs to avoid the greater evil of addicts harming the rest of the general population.

[Anxious Girl]

For some reason, valsa, I just can't picture you as a past conservative.

[valsa]

For some reason, valsa, I just can't picture you as a past conservative.

If it helps, it was a long, long time ago (mostly in my teens)

If you really want to blow your mind... I used to be pro-spanking :o

[formergothardite]

If it helps, it was a long, long time ago (mostly in my teens)

If you really want to blow your mind... I used to be pro-spanking :o

So did I. :oops: I was raised the typical fox viewer republican and now am pretty darn liberal. I think my parents often wonder where they went wrong with me. :lol:

[BravaAmica]

If it helps, it was a long, long time ago (mostly in my teens)

If you really want to blow your mind... I used to be pro-spanking :o

Nothing wrong with a good spanking between consenting adults. :lol:

[acheronbeach]

I vote conservative in Canada, but Canadian conservatives (especially outside the rural areas of certain provinces) are a hugely different breed than American Republicans.

I am socially just about average for Canada - yes to gay marriage, yes to socialized medicine. But I take issue with what I view as a lot of government waste, excess and interference, primarily in areas which I have worked as a public servant.

[OkToBeTakei]

If it helps, it was a long, long time ago (mostly in my teens)

If you really want to blow your mind... I used to be pro-spanking :o

Never mind that. Valsa with a gun is blowing my mind :lol:

[meda]

So I am for the most part pretty far to the left, with the exception of a few issues. One is addiction, I tend to agree with Vasla on that. After growing up with an alcoholic grandfather, and dealing with an ex husband who was a pain pill aficionado, I tend to view most people with addiction issues as destructive narcissists, not victims. My caveat to that would be people who self medicate because of a lack of access to decent healthcare, be it mental health services or decent management of chronic physical conditions.

My second is with welfare programs, although not for the same reasons as most conservatives. I think the majority of people receiving assistance are doing so on a temporary basis, and the programs provide legitimate help. In the US, statistics on who receives TANF and food stamps bear that out. However, probably between 20-30% of people receiving benefits are in a cycle of poverty, related antisocial behavior, and subsistence on government benefits that is lifelong and often multigenerational within families. I don't think this is just an urban or minority problem, I see it around me in my rural, predominantly white area. I think multigenerational poverty comes with a set of learned behaviors and norms that often, for lack of a better word makes people almost feral. There is nothing to aspire or strive for, so go for the short term fix to make you happy, so to speak. I think as a country we have made the problem worse by either throwing money at people and ignoring underlying issues, or swinging to the opposite extreme of defunding basic programs like head start, and extreme jail sentences for non violent first time drug offenses.

I don't know what the solution is, but I do think that not figuring out how to help that subgroup of people harms society as a whole. Institutions like schools, the military, etc, really only function well when there is a basic skill set that everyone meets. When a school must deal with kindergarteners who can barely speak, have never seen a book, and are not fed properly at home, that diverts time, energy, and resources away from actually providing an education to all students.

Edited to add: also the capital punishment. I am not against the death penalty in theory, my problem with it is that it's too expensive to implement and too suseptible to bias. Also, at the risk of being shot by Buzzard....courts have been known to convict the wrong person on occasion.

[Buzzard]

So did I. :oops: I was raised the typical fox viewer republican and now am pretty darn liberal. I think my parents often wonder where they went wrong with me. :lol:

I'm the total opposite (as I sit here with fox news on). My family is extremely liberal and sent me to VERY liberal schools, yet they wound up with a libertarian, gun owning, pro death penalty prosecutor for a daughter. 8-)

[gardenvarietycitizen]

I admit to being pretty right wing about education. Blame it on my Chinese upbringing. I am a huge advocate for traditional education. I don't think homeschooling is superior and I'm baffled by unschoolers. I was taught that hard work matters more than talent in academic success. If I suck in math, it's not because I have no aptitude for it, it's a sign I must work harder.

I nod in agreement with conservatives who stress that the basics are important. I find myself vehemently disagreeing with liberals who talk about the evils of tests and standardized curriculum. I see nothing wrong with textbooks and memorization. I think I surprise some people with my stance on education. Other than that, I'm pretty liberal.

I feel the same way about this (very much particularly the bolded part), though I've never thought of that stance as particularly right-wing. Personally it seems to me that the American system is utterly obsessed with this "aptitude" idea and supposedly inborn "talent" to a strange degree.

Obviously people have different circumstances and disabilities are a real thing. But I suppose I was raised under the idea that as a first approximation it's safe to assume the vast majority of people (including myself) are just plain average - and just plain average people do great things if they apply themselves. Meanwhile "applying yourself" isn't always fun, and learning to do a bunch of drills for the payoff LATER when you understand enough of the topic for it to be fun is one of the more important skills taught at school, IMHO.

When it comes to welfare and the social safety net, I think the issue of "fraud" is a 90/10 problem. Is there fraud? Yes. However it will take more money to put up more barriers to eliminate that last little bit of it (which is impossible anyway) than it would take to just suffer the cost, and at the same time it makes qualified people harder to get the aid they rightfully should have. If it were REALLY about money, the sensible thing is to allow that last little bit of fraud to just happen. There's an equilibrium there. Rather, far too much of the conversation always ends up being about punishment first and foremost, not sensible financial concerns. "We must punish cheaters, regardless of how much it costs" is closer to the truth, IMHO, at least as reflected in my local paper.

Where schools meet the social safety net... I think that schools need to be able to help even those students who have uncaring and uninvolved parents, kids who are neglected and come from poverty. Finland has done some inspiring things there. This might help break some of the cycle of poverty that meda mentions, also.

However, all that being said, I’m not sure I even qualify as a conservative on substance abuse issues because I believe in funding comprehensive rehab programs for people (though I also think the flip side to that should be stronger legal punishments for things like DUIs).

I think the "War On Drugs" has completely failed and am in favor of legalization, but like you feel we should be harsh about actually harming others while under the influence. I also have little patience for some on the "legalize it!" bandwagon who seem to think that NO ONE ever really has problems with addiction or suffers harm from being sucked in, I think people vary in their response to substances (or have addictive tendencies about anything at all, for that matter - gambling, video games, you name it) and if someone finds themselves in over their heads and really do need help getting back out, they should have it.

[Esther]

I am mostly with the OP on education. I went to pretty traditional schools (not really on purpose - I grew up on the Flemish countryside where new educational methods catch on slowly) and I just felt like they... worked. Sometimes hard work, memorization and tough tests that some people will fail are necessary. I also think it never did me any harm to get up from my desk any time a teacher entered the classroom and stand beside it until I was told I could sit down. Things like that instill some sense of discipline and respect and are almost as important as the academic aspect. I don't like certain educational methods that essentially advocate child-led education. I believe a teacher should have a firm hand on the goings-on.

I also am not sold on homeschooling. I understand the circumstances that make some people revert to it (no good schools in the area, no education fitting their child's disability, etc), but I'd much rather see those sorts of issues fixed so the kids can go to school. That would be my ideal solution. I think the socialization offered by schools is very important. Then again, I am from a country where nobody homeschools (never heard of anyone who did, at any rate) so the idea is just incredibly alien to me.

Apart from that, I am extremely liberal.

[mockingbird]

The discussion about "traditional education" is really interesting to me. First off I do think there are going to be people with more aptitude for one subject or skill over another (I agree with the theory about different types of intelligence - artistic, traditionally "intellectual", physical, etc) but I also think that no matter your natural skill set if you do not apply yourself and work hard, you are not going to get anywhere meaningful. I think someone who is naturally a genius but never really tries at their work could easily be beat out by someone who is less innately "smart" but who puts in a lot of time/effort into studying. I have seen both sides in real life, friends who were never the best students early on but who put a lot of time into their studies and are now in competitive grad programs or who have excellent jobs right out of college, and friends who came off as very smart but for whatever reason did not apply themselves (whether it was because they lacked a supportive family or just didn't see the value in school/work or another reason) and are now stuck in dead-end jobs and have never gotten anything beyond a high school education (not that there is anything wrong with that necessarily, but these people just seem "stuck" and are not in say, a good vocational job that doesn't require a college degree).

As far as traditional/strict education I really do err on the side of it depends on the child. I do agree with some of the basic tenants like the fact that memorization, drills, practice, etc. can be necessary. I think that goes for anything whether it is math or practicing an instrument. Unfortunately sometimes learning the basics can be tedious and repetitive but are needed to provide a strong foundation. I also don't agree with the "special snowflake" mentality - kids should be allowed to fail tests and assignments should challenge them, not accommodate their self-esteem. Of course this means if a child is repeatedly having trouble, he or she should have access to help. I am not huge on standardized tests... I think they are necessary but where I disagree with them is in using them to evaluate teacher performance as has been suggested and implemented in some areas. I think a) there can be very valuable lessons outside of teaching to the test that you might miss if standardized tests were to become the be-all end-all of teacher performance (like being able to write a normal essay... some of the things standardized tests have you write are quite simply, weird and do not follow normal writing structure - or even just exploring a different subject that the class seems to have a special interest in or something like that), b) it is not always the best way to measure kids' success (test anxiety, etc) so is not going to be a totally accurate way to measure a teacher's performance (also why applications to college, etc. encompass more than a standardized test - because it's not always going to be the most accurate predictor of success and you want to get a bigger sense of the applicant), and c) I kind-of think the bell curve is normal and teachers shouldn't necessarily be punished for having some students below a standardized average if they were to be graded on their kids' performances on these tests.

In terms of the environment though, that is where I stray from traditional education. I do think kids need structure in their lives in some way, so I do have my doubts about things like "unschooling" but I think if you were to apply those principles to say, a set of learning goals for each school semester, you could find ways to make sure you reached those without stifling that method. I just think you DO have to have a method to it. I also agree with a post somewhere else on FJ that suggested unschooling might work better for the younger grades. But I do think there are kids who are suited to this style of learning, I know I was one of those kids who read everything I could get my hands on and was pretty well-versed in some subject areas that we didn't cover in school just because I was interested in them. I also missed a lot of school growing up for health reasons, and always did fine studying on my own. Unless I really "click" with a lecturer I generally choose to self-study now, in medical school, because I know my style of learning and it's sometimes easier to teach the material to myself than decipher someone else's method. I also don't see anything wrong with homeschooling in general as long as it's not SODRT. I think most non-SODRT homeschoolers are going to care enough about their kids' education to make sure that they cover everything that a normal school would cover, and that they expose their kids to social situations. Traditional classroom structure again, depends on the kid, IMO. I went to a pretty strict, traditional parochial (Catholic church) school and it worked really well for me. We wore uniforms, we were told the teacher would throw our papers out if she couldn't read our writing (lol), we had to sit and line up neatly and hold our pencils correctly and got graded on all of that, did lots of drills/memorization (though a lot of projects, too), etc. I thrived in that environment but for my brother, who has ADD, it was too much. It was hard for him to be concentrated on his school work AND not fidgeting in his chair at the same time. My parents moved him to public school because of that (they did not want him to be discouraged from learning because he couldn't comply to the strict environment... they were happy if he could just do his work and didn't care if he fidgeted ;) ) and because they had more resources to help him later on. My sister only went to public school, and she is kind-of more of a free spirit, rebellious type than I ever was. It drives me crazy sometimes that I can hardly read her handwriting but, I think she would have felt very stifled in my elementary school's environment. There was little room for self-expression and little free time to chat with friends. It's not that public schools here are a madhouse but the environment is just more relaxed, like you can talk in the halls (!!!) and you don't get in trouble for dotting your i's with hearts (lol!). I really like structure and rules and can be a perfectionist, so it was great for me (I went to the public middle and high school, and did fine there too) but my brother was miserable and my sister would have been too. So yeah, I can't really advocate for one over the other... I think the best environment depends on the kid. I also think the choice of homeschooling/private school/public school depends on where you are located and maybe your family's situation (special needs or even something like wanting to pursue a sport competitively and trying to work that into a school schedule). In my hometown, the public school system is excellent. There is one Catholic high school and a few private high schools that are very good but if you look at the course offerings and extracurriculars, the public high school has about the same number of opportunities or more, so few people choose the religious or private option because they want to save money and can give their kids a good education through the district. The rest of the Catholic high schools are worse (not terrible, but just not as good as our public high school), though they are pretty comparable to the public high school in the next town over so people from there send their kids to Catholic high schools more often because then the religious aspect seems to become more of a dealbreaker. (We don't have non-Catholic religious high schools that I know of.) The private schools tend to be people from the city (I grew up in a suburb) who don't want to use the city's schools, which are typical inner-city schools.

I definitely think the public school system needs work. Our district is currently involved in what has been a years-long smear campaign against the teachers and their union because we lost funding due to state cuts and because of the recession (we needed to increase school taxes to keep up what they had when I was in high school and many people can no longer afford that). It's definitely not a unique situation and I think the government should be paying more for schools and that funds should be distributed equally instead of depending on property taxes (#1 reason why our school district is better than the inner city's). I also support teacher's unions, especially in the environment of my hometown, they are currently necessary or the teachers would have lost a lot more by now. So I guess I am pretty liberal about education. I generally consider myself a moderate though, as I am pretty split between liberal and conservative views on a lot of other topics. I am prochoice though and support legalizing gay marriage.

[Dysfundamental]

The thing about welfare fraud is that of course it exists, just like fraud in every single type of transaction where money is exchanged. Farm subsidy fraud happens, too. Military subcontracting fraud happens. Infrastructure construction fraud happens.

But people rarely if ever suggest that farm subsidies should be discontinued, or military subcontracting ended, or infrastructure construction be put on hold while we sort out which companies' bills for bridge repair are legit and which are fraudulent. Even though the scale of fraud in those arenas is enormously larger than any potential welfare fraud (in the US at least).

I don't think believing that all government spending programs should be monitored for waste and fraud is "conservative" at all. Certainly various initiatives touted as "conservative", like the disastrous Florida drugs testing program for public aid recipients---which cost the state millions of dollars to demonstrate that Florida aid recipients had a lower incidence of drug use than the general public---have been more about grandstanding than improving cost effectiveness.

[Maggie Mae]

Just curious- while I understand the hunting rifles, is there a reason that you live in enough fear to keep guns all over the place?

The reason I ask is that I think that living in enough fear that I felt that I needed to have a gun within reach would seriously impact the quality of my life.

The guns under the bed are in a locked case. One is a hunting rifle that was used on a trip SO took a few years ago and came back with nothing. The others were inherited. The bathroom gun is a very small (child size) shot gun with no scope and the ammo is locked in the garage. It's actually a half bath and I don't know why it is in there. It's more of a "that's just a place to keep it clean and out of the way." The gun in the dresser is not mine but we take it camping sometime. I don't particularly like it there but it's not loaded. The one in the truck is the same story, only that one has ammo near by. I live in bear territory, which is the only reason either of us have guns. The cabin we have is on a lake that is riddled with bears. We try to use the bear spray first but sometimes the wind is going the wrong way or the same one keeps coming back or it's displaying stage 5 bear aggression. In that case, the gun will come in handy. Hasn't happened to me yet, but I guess SO's dad (before he died) shot a bear that was less curious and more wanting to eat the humans.

[Mama Mia]

I am generally liberal in most areas. Very pro marriage equality, sex ed/birth control availability, universal health care etc.

I think education and social services could be improved, and the improvements aren't ALL money related - but they do require money in order to be addressed. I dislike the entrenched notion that low-income=less than. I think someone has to do the jobs that aren't highly paid and that doesn't mean you should be on the verge of homelessness if that is what you do for a living.

If I wasn't sick and brain fuzzy I would go into more detail on my awesome plans to save and improve the educational and safety net systems 8-)

I think I am more conservative regarding abortion than most posters here. I support the legality of access to early abortion but think that a waiting period of a couple of days is good. I think abortion after the first trimester should be restricted to medical necessity for the mother, or serious health conditions of the fetus. After the point of viability I think that the fetus should be delivered in a way that increases the chances for life if the reason for the delivery is to save the life of the mother. If the fetus is non-viable than the delivery should be done however the woman feels is safest and kindest. I don't think cost should be an issue in any of this, because I don't think cost should have to be a consideration if someone continues the pregnancy . I completely support providing health care and decent standard of living and social supports for people to raise their children.

[Wolfie]

The guns under the bed are in a locked case. One is a hunting rifle that was used on a trip SO took a few years ago and came back with nothing. The others were inherited. The bathroom gun is a very small (child size) shot gun with no scope and the ammo is locked in the garage. It's actually a half bath and I don't know why it is in there. It's more of a "that's just a place to keep it clean and out of the way." The gun in the dresser is not mine but we take it camping sometime. I don't particularly like it there but it's not loaded. The one in the truck is the same story, only that one has ammo near by. I live in bear territory, which is the only reason either of us have guns. The cabin we have is on a lake that is riddled with bears. We try to use the bear spray first but sometimes the wind is going the wrong way or the same one keeps coming back or it's displaying stage 5 bear aggression. In that case, the gun will come in handy. Hasn't happened to me yet, but I guess SO's dad (before he died) shot a bear that was less curious and more wanting to eat the humans.

Okay, that makes more sense- and I doubt many liberals would find your reasons odd. I live in bear territory too, and have thought of a gun if I ran into a too aggressive bear, mountain lion or bobcat, but I also know that I'm not a good shot, and in the case of a bear or mountain lion that could go very wrong. But maybe it's time to invest in a gun safe. (and they're useful for more than just guns. you can use them to store anything.)