ISIS and US Gun Control Efforts.

Our terrorism threat is growing.

I saw on the news today where there is increasing fear of terrorism on US soil by ISIS followers over the 4th of July weekend. This new fear following on the heels of our Presidents pledge to escalate efforts for stricter gun controls following the horrible shooting in the church in South Carolina.

Perhaps our President was speaking for purely political reasons, or even for his own hatred of guns, but it was not well received by most who heard his speech because of poor timing. But then he is surrounded by people with guns every minute of every day. People with guns who are willing to give their own lives to ensure his safety.

The facts are that most of the current gun laws that have been passed into law are not enforced the way they should be enforced. Will more gun laws that are not enforced really change anything?

Most every proposed new gun law I read deals only with the honest citizens who own guns. Rarely if ever is anything said about all of the criminals who have guns, and will always have guns no matter what laws we put in place.

With very few exceptions, most murders where a gun is involved are street crimes by gangs and drug dealers often involving black on black crime. For reasons unknown to me, our media is not the least bit interested in this type of crime, but will spend days rehashing a shooting such as the church shooting in SC.

The Irony

The ironic part to me is with the rapidly growing threat of possible terrorist activity by ISIS right here in the US, I would think the more guns available to stop them the better off we would be. This is not the time to be disarming those such as Military Vets and Retired Law Enforcement who could help in a crisis situation.

Most large cities have large police forces and swat teams who can respond quickly to terrorist activity, but what about rural America? Most smaller towns have limited police presence and would be overwhelmed by terrorist activity. Would it not be useful to have trained and armed civilians ready to assist the police in the event of terrorist activity?

This would really be no different than an all volunteer fire department in small towns with no city fire department. Within any volunteer fire department there is leadership, training, equipment, and dicipline. Most of these departments are very effective at what they do.

What would be wrong with having civilian Militias of qualified and trained civilians ready to assist if needed?

What not to do!

Many in our government would love to have a database with the name, address, and number and type of guns owned by every gun owner in the country. Of course they will never have a complete list because there are just too many guns that have been handed down, sold and traded with no record keeping involved. And none of the criminals who own guns would ever report their gun ownership.

We are now aware of just how insecure and hackable our government data bases seem to be. The last thing we would want our enemies to have in their possession would be a list of all the guns owned by civilians in this country. If they had such a list they could just go to every address on the list and disarm most every civilian in the country. I know I would not be comfortable with my name on such a list and doubt you would want your name on this list.

Why not a trained Militia?


We have thousands of already trained veterans with combat experience who could and probably would be glad to assume leadership roles for Miltia volunteers. I would see this as an added layer of security for the citizens of our country. Perhaps many of you, and no doubt our own government would not be in favor of this concept. I am not at all convinced that Homeland Security is ready to deal with organized terrorist activity on our soil and see this as an asset they could use.

Your thoughts?


I doubt that everyone will agree with me on this subject, but would like to hear your thoughts anyhow.

The facts are that little is being done about getting illegal guns out of the hands of criminals and gun control is aimed at honest citizens.

Our trained Military Veterans could be a huge assest when it comes to defending our citizens on our own soil.

There are millions of gun owners in this country including hunters who could be utilized in a time of need.

Would you really feel safer and more comfortable if our Government is successful at disarming all the honest citizens? I wouldn't.

A trained and organized Miltia.

Would you be in favor of a trained and organized Militia in this country?

See results without voting

More by this Author


Comments 111 comments

diogenes profile image

diogenes 17 months ago from UK and Mexico

I can see a case for a family to be armed as all Swiss houses are. They then have an "army in waiting" as they are trained how to use the weapons and keep them safe. You rarely hear of gun violence in Switzerland.

I am not so sure where powerful handguns are concerned, or semi and automatic military weapons easily available without registration or training (like is the case in Switzerland). I always carried a .357 when I lived in Mexico city at night or in having to go under underpasses and other dangerous areas. Having a gun gives a feeling of confidence which I feel muggers and their ilk shy away from. (Like predators, they notice fear and weakness and exploit it). I never had to pull or use the weapon but I was pleased to have it. This confidence is the probable aura that police officers project.

So its a subject with strong opinions on both sides. As you say, criminals will always be able to get guns anyway.

Bob How ya doing?


billybuc profile image

billybuc 17 months ago from Olympia, WA

I'm not all that sure about the trained militia, Mike, but my concerns are based on who would run the program. If it's another program run by the Federal Government then I say "hell no!" They screw up everything they touch.

Are we in danger from ISIS? I believe we are, and I think attacks will escalate. Are guns the problem in this country? I don't believe so. I believe the disintegration of the family unit is to blame, and they can pass all the gun control laws they want and that won't change a thing.

Just my thoughts. :)

bill


Old Poolman profile image

Old Poolman 17 months ago from Rural Arizona Author

Bob - I have a Concealed Carry Permit and I do carry a weapon when I have to go into town. It used to be this was only necessary when a trip had to be made to one of the more undesirable areas of town, but now it is pretty much everywhere. We have tied the hands of our law enforcement people to where they can't do much of anything until a crime has been committed.

Over time, we have pretty much messed up everything and are now in so deep it would be impossible to get back to where we came from.

I live in a rural area where the average response time for law enforcement is 45 minutes to one hour. Most everyone living out here has guns and knows how to use them.

My whole point is that ISIS is out to destroy the US and I don't think our government has a plan in place to do much about it. Our borders are wide open and we actually have no idea who is living in our country.

I would not be at all surprised if we begin to see isolated terrorist activity right here in the US in the very near future.

Great to hear from you Bob and all is well on this end.


WillStarr profile image

WillStarr 17 months ago from Phoenix, Arizona

Excellent hub, Mike!

I am a strong supporter of well trained state (and I agree with Bill that it should not be federal!) militias, and I also support mandatory training for all able-bodied and law abiding citizens at the age of 18.

We point at Switzerland as a good example of citizen militias, and it is, but perhaps a better example would be Israel where a militia is life or death.

Why does government need to know which law abiding citizens are exercising their right to arms, and which arms they own, when they don't know any of that about criminals? Isn't that backwards?

BTW, like Mike, I carry almost routinely, and openly, but no one knows that it's a firearm because it looks like a piece of electronic equipment. It's called a 'Sneaky Pete' holster. Check it out:

http://www.sneakypeteholsters.com/


Old Poolman profile image

Old Poolman 17 months ago from Rural Arizona Author

Hi Bill, as always you make some valid points. I too would not wish to see a trained militia under the control of the Feds. I can however see them under the control of local law enforcement.

I believe ISIS will soon be creating major havoc right here on our soil in the near future. Many of them are already here just awaiting orders from headquarters. Someone made a decision to open our borders to anyone and everyone that wanted into our country, so it should be no surprise that some who entered wish to do us harm.

I truly feel the worst thing we could do is to do nothing about it, and that seems to be what is happening today. But then Homeland Security doesn't call me and tell me what is going on so I could be wrong.

Good to see you in here my friend.


Old Poolman profile image

Old Poolman 17 months ago from Rural Arizona Author

Hey WillStarr - Everything about gun control is backwards. The main thrust is to take guns away from all the good people and ignore the guns in possession of the bad people.

I just ordered a new carry gun and will check and see if they make a 'Sneaky Pete' for that gun. It is easy to carry concealed in the winter, but a little difficult when the temperatures are 100 plus degrees.

I'm really just saying that with all the vets who are already trained we may be missing a valuable asset when it comes to Homeland Security. I'm probably too darn old but if they had a militia here I would join.


Mel Carriere profile image

Mel Carriere 17 months ago from San Diego California

A well regulated militia is a Constitutional concept. We've all seen the old West movies where the sheriff calls a posse, which consists largely of private citizens. No matter how many laws you pass church shooters like this nut in South Carolina will slip through the cracks. I understand your sense of vulnerability sitting out there in rural Arizona. These ISIS wackos are crazy and bold enough to try a border infiltration. Very well articulated hub, Poolman.


breakfastpop profile image

breakfastpop 17 months ago

I would be very concerned if a trained militia were under the control of our government. I can't think of one thing the fed has done that went the way it was meant to. Having said that, I would love to see our vets in positions that they are already well equipped to fill. Get rid of the TSA and hire vets reporting to the private sector. What a difference that would make. As for gun control, I am not a believer. The bad guys will always have access to guns and the public will be sitting ducks. I would love to see trained vets at our borders, but until we have a president who gives a damn about our safety, nothing of substance will happen. Voted up, useful interesting and awesome.


Old Poolman profile image

Old Poolman 17 months ago from Rural Arizona Author

Thanks Mel - Not many will understand this hub because they live in areas where all they do is dial 911 and help is on the way in minutes.

Where I see the need for a volunteer militia would be those towns who also rely on a volunteer fire department. They just don't have the resources to handle any sort of terrorist attack.

I also believe that we are not far from seeing terrorist activity right here on US soil. They will choose their targets wisely where they can inflict the maximum damage with the least amount of resistance. That would only be common sense.

We also know that it would take Congress at least 5 or more years to come up with any type of plan on how to protect our rural citizens.

Bottom line Mel, with the growing threat from ISIS we should be taking advantage of the armed and trained citizens rather than trying to take their guns away from them. That would just be an added level of protection at no cost to our government.


Old Poolman profile image

Old Poolman 17 months ago from Rural Arizona Author

Hi Patti, the last thing I would want would be an armed militia under federal control. I see this more as something under a State or Local Law Enforcement level. If it were to fall under Federal control it would be like the TSA only they would have guns. Now that thought would be something to keep us awake at night.

At one time we had volunteers on the border here in Arizona whom mainly served as watch dogs. They were not allowed to be seen with any kind of weapon, or to try to stop illegals from crossing the border. They were only to call and report the incident to the Border Patrol who seldom if ever responded to their reports. Their mere visable presence did serve as a deterrent to illegal crossers, but that was about it. Rather than being appreciated they met with disapproval from the feds, the media, and some of the local law enforcement people. I guess they didn't like anyone pointing out that none of them were doing the job we hired them to do.

The day may come when even the most hardcore gun haters will be glad their civilian neighbor has a gun and knows how to use it. We now have police officers who are afraid to do their jobs for fear of being arrested and put in prison, and I don't blame them. This situation will only get worse and we can expect far less help from law enforcement that we might get from our next door neighbor.


WillStarr profile image

WillStarr 17 months ago from Phoenix, Arizona

Old Poolman is spot on.

I have two neighbor ladies across the street who are retired schoolteachers, very liberal, and very anti-gun. But guess who they call first whenever there's a noise they can't account for?

As the old saying goes, "When seconds count, the police are only minutes away". I know of three unsuccessful mass shooting attempts, and all three were stopped by someone who was armed.


Old Poolman profile image

Old Poolman 17 months ago from Rural Arizona Author

Excellent points Bill. I can't think of many things more frightening than having someone trying to kick down your door and you don't have anything but a telephone to protect you.

In my case the police are only 45 minutes to an hour away. I think I'll keep my guns until I have to move to the old folks home.


WillStarr profile image

WillStarr 17 months ago from Phoenix, Arizona

The average Phoenix Police response time to a priority call (life threatening) is 5 minutes and 29 seconds, so you are on your own until they arrive, and if they are in your home, you will still be on your own until police figure out who the bad guy is and where he is. And that is a best case scenario.

Suppose you stop at a deserted rest stop late at night and notice a suspicious group loitering at the far end of the parking lot next to the only other car. Your wife goes into the restroom and one of the group breaks away, approaches your car, and orders you to roll down your f***ing window. Several others walk towards the restroom, and they have you neatly separated and boxed. What do you do now?

That was exactly what happened to me some 20 years ago, and I complied by rolling down my window and shoving my big Ruger .357 magnum in his face. He screamed to the others: "He has a gun!", and they all ran to the car and tore out of there, passing close by my car and all under the watchful eye of my Ruger.

If I had not been armed, I am totally convinced that something very bad would have happened. This was in California, where it's illegal for drivers to have a loaded gun, but as the saying goes, "I'd rather be tried by twelve than carried by six".

Gun laws harm only honest citizens, and make crime all that much safer for criminals.


Old Poolman profile image

Old Poolman 17 months ago from Rural Arizona Author

Bill, many Police Departments have a ride-along program where civilians can ride with an officer during his shift. For those who still think this country is a safe place I suggest you sign up and ride with an officer during his night shift.

After the sun goes down the criminal element hits the streets thinking the night belongs to them. Those who are sitting home watching TV and feeling safe have no idea that only a few blocks from their house another home was just invaded by a gang of thugs.

Then after the bars close for the night the ride-along can observe officers risking their own lives to get drunk drivers off the road before they kill some innocent person headed to work on their night shift, or headed home from work.

But thanks to the Baltimore incident, we now have many police officers who are reluctant to do their job for fear of being arrested and thrown in prison. I can't say as I blame them for feeling that way.

I receive a publication that publishes stories of citizens who were able to save their own lives because they had a gun and know how to use it. Much of the crime today is due to those addicted to drugs who are looking for enough money to get their next fix. The only thing they have in mind is getting that needed fix and they have no regard for the lives of others.

I keep a loaded gun in both of my vehicles just in case I forget to take my concealed carry weapon with me on a quick run to the store.

I am sure you would have been in serious trouble if not dead if you had not had your gun with you that night.

The facts are that we can no longer depend on the police to be there to defend us and need to be able to defend ourselves. I can't imagine why so many are so anxious to take all the guns away from honest citizens but have no plans for dealing with the criminals with illegal guns. It truly is a strange world I guess.


Oztinato profile image

Oztinato 17 months ago from Australia

Gun control is about doing basic checks on the sanity and suitability of those who purchase weapons. Its not hard to understand.


Old Poolman profile image

Old Poolman 17 months ago from Rural Arizona Author

Oztinato - What you said is only part of gun control, but not everything that is being proposed. Even this would do nothing about getting the guns out of the hands of criminals as they don't obey the law.


WillStarr profile image

WillStarr 17 months ago from Phoenix, Arizona

Oztinato's Australia registered all guns and then broke their promise and confiscated most of them. Australians are now basically unarmed and helpless.

Barack Obama praised Australia's deceit:

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/380033/obama-...


WillStarr profile image

WillStarr 17 months ago from Phoenix, Arizona

BTW, Australian home improvement stores had a massive run on plastic sewer pipe lengths and end caps prior to the confiscation. I wonder why?


Old Poolman profile image

Old Poolman 17 months ago from Rural Arizona Author

WillStarr - Can you even imagine what our enemies could do with a list of every registered gun in this country? We all know that most any government run database is so full of holes that many computer savy teenagers could get in and steal that information.

Once any government gets their foot in the door on issues such as gun control there is no stopping them.

There is still nothing in the news regarding all the murders in the cities with the tightest gun controls or about getting guns out of the hands of criminals. Everything I read about gun control pertains only to honest citizens.


Oztinato profile image

Oztinato 17 months ago from Australia

There is a clear avoidance here about giving guns to mentally unstable people as if it didn't matter. This can't be just brushed aside because "other things" are alleged about gun control.

It's the massacre of innocent people by mentally unstable individuals that is the focus. Of course this won't be addressed on biased hubs.


Old Poolman profile image

Old Poolman 17 months ago from Rural Arizona Author

Oztinato - Nobody I know of in this country is in favor of allowing mentally unstable persons have guns.

But I am now curious about who in your country makes the determination about an individuals mental status? Is anyone in your country even allowed to have a gun? If so, who makes the final determination on whether they are sane or insane?

I can pretty much guess that you are probably of the anti-gun crowd, so that is why you feel this hub is biased? I don't recall anywhere in the hub where I said it is OK to give guns to insane people.


Oztinato profile image

Oztinato 17 months ago from Australia

Qualified doctors make such legal decisions.

We don't care about guns here, that's a world away


WillStarr profile image

WillStarr 17 months ago from Phoenix, Arizona

"We don't care about guns here, that's a world away"

You presume to speak for all Australians?


Oztinato profile image

Oztinato 17 months ago from Australia

Will

i note there is no response to my valid point about doctors deciding who is mentally ill.

The majority of Australians support gun control so my view is the democratic majority view.


Old Poolman profile image

Old Poolman 17 months ago from Rural Arizona Author

Oztinato - Your saying that if I lived in Australia and I wanted a gun, all I would have to do is be declared sane by a qualified doctor and I could have one?

I have to think there are a few parts of this process that are being left out of the dialog.


Oztinato profile image

Oztinato 17 months ago from Australia

Poolman

stop trying to claim what I am saying as it gets nowhere. The people in the USA are concerned that mentally ill people are getting guns and massacring others. Until you actually respond to this very basic point there is no reason to continue.


Old Poolman profile image

Old Poolman 17 months ago from Rural Arizona Author

Oztinato - I would think people all over the world would be concerned about mentally ill people having guns, or knives, or axe's, or sharp sticks.

Perhaps you would be willing to share with us how the policies in Australia prevent this from ever happening.

If I am correct, the current method is to prevent everyone from having a gun so that the few insane people will not have a gun. Am I right or wrong?


WillStarr profile image

WillStarr 17 months ago from Phoenix, Arizona

Oztinato,

Do you remember 'One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest'? Because of that movie, it is now very difficult in the US to have a court place dangerously ill people in an institution, or to rule them mentally ill and not eligible to own a firearm.

And no, we don't place our rights in the hand of doctors. After all, people like you worry about US gun deaths, but pay no attention at all to the fact that doctors kill 6 times as many people every year accidentally

BTW, there is no greater tyranny than 'majority rule'. That's why we have a Constitution...to protect our rights from a tyrannical majority.

Contrary to common belief, blood does not run in America's streets. Most gun deaths are actually suicides, and of the remaining 13,000 or so, nearly 70% are inner city gangs killing each other.

If you are not a gang member, stay out of inner city slums, don't use the illicit drugs that force you to deal with such gangs, are not suicidal, and are not a police officer, your chances of being shot in America are near zero. America's 'gun crisis' is hyperbole stirred up by the left as an excuse to disarm we, the people. That's also exactly what happened to Australia. You've been duped.

I realize that in Australia, the people's right to self defense is not respected by the majority, but that does not apply here because we still have rights and a Constitution that must be first torn up before we lose those rights. Our right to keep and bear arms is guaranteed precisely because the tyrannical majority you currently admire might rear its ugly head here, and we are duty bound to defeat it just as our ancestors once did.


Old Poolman profile image

Old Poolman 17 months ago from Rural Arizona Author

Well said WillStarr.


WillStarr profile image

WillStarr 17 months ago from Phoenix, Arizona

Someone pointed out that on the same day 9 innocent black church members were murdered by a racist madman, 16 young black men were killed by other young black men, but no one cared.

If we could get young black men (and to a lesser extent, young Hispanic men) to stop killing each other in gang violence, our gun crime would be comparable to countries where guns are totally outlawed.

Over 50% of all gun murders in the US are committed by less than 4% of the population...young black males. We don't have a gun problem. We have an inner city neglect problem.


Hxprof 17 months ago from Clearwater, Florida

I like your idea of a "well regulated militia" and wouldn't mind seeing this run by individual states. Short of that, I'd be in favor of an unofficial militia, operated by ex-military and ex-police, that would be in place and ready to operate in case local law enforcement lost control of a situation. This unofficial militia could then offer it's free services (overseen by local law enforcement - sort of a deputizing) during such a situation. I share the concern about control by the feds.

The terrorist/gang threat is a real one. This will become very obvious as the economy gets worse here. Sleeper cells that Homeland Security and the FBI have been concerned about will begin to pop up, commiting terrible acts. Without an armed America, they'll hold complete sway. Austrailia can keep its gun control laws - I fully support 2nd amendement rights for a citizen's right to bear arms. Thank goodness our founders saw the need for Americans to be able to protect themselves from a tyrannical government, because we have one now, and I'm almost completely certain that no matter Republican or Democrat for the next president, we'll still have an out of control government.


Old Poolman profile image

Old Poolman 17 months ago from Rural Arizona Author

Hxprof - I completely agree with everything you said in your comment. It was some very wise people who gave us the 2nd amendment rights and I believe they must have forseen the future when they did.


Oztinato profile image

Oztinato 17 months ago from Australia

Peeps

ok we have all agreed here in writing that mentally ill people should not be given guns: this is part of sensible gun control. So why not agree to start the process of gun control and stop backflipping on this. People who want to own a gun therefore need to be checked first by a doctor and a psychiatrist. Easy.


Old Poolman profile image

Old Poolman 17 months ago from Rural Arizona Author

Oztinato - Again we disagree.

Anyone who would submit to being declared sane/insane after a single meeting with a doctor and a psychiatrist would have to be insane.

Perhaps that is how the test would work. Anyone that would agree to such a test should not own a gun?


FitnezzJim profile image

FitnezzJim 17 months ago from Fredericksburg, Virginia

Mike? There is incredibly good and important discussion here. Might I suggest a follow-up summarizing the various points of view on 1) mental concerns, 2) centralized versus State versus local versus self control, 3) responsibilities of control and responsibilities of freedom at those same levels?

It is my belief that the actionable way-forward is already summarized for us in the second Amendment to our Constitution. For those who are not yet aware, our Bill of Rights can be found at http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_...

The second amendment to the Constitution clearly ties the notion of a militia to gun control. It states: “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 other words, the federal role is to not infringe on the rights of the people to keep and bear Arms.

Also, I’m not so sure that you will find many federal employees who will agree that centralized government is the right approach to protecting the people. After all, their personal information was recently compromised simply because it was centrally controlled and protected by federal incompetence.


Hxprof 17 months ago from Clearwater, Florida

OP - I think I have an answer to the question of how to keep mentally damaged people from owning guns. What we need is a way to see into the hearts of those who want to own guns. Once we find a way to do that we'll see gun deaths drop dramtically.


Oztinato profile image

Oztinato 17 months ago from Australia

Poolman

the only way to find out who is unstable is to have qualified professionals interviewing those who want guns. Who would want to have a gun anyway? It's a strange thing to want in the first instance.

A sane person has nothing to fear from such sanity tests.


Old Poolman profile image

Old Poolman 17 months ago from Rural Arizona Author

FitnezzJim - Always a pleasure to have you stop by and thanks for the awesome comment.

You are correct that there are many of this discussion topic that have yet to be discussed. I actually expected more disagreement with the idea of a regulated militia than I have received.

The Boy Scout motto of "Be Prepared" is what comes to my mind for dealing with ISIS and other terrorist threats to our country. To my knowledge we are not prepared, or as well prepared as we should be. While it takes time to get our National Guard on scene, a local regulated militia could be there almost instantly to assist law enforcement. This idea works well with volunteer fire department so why would it not work with a local militia?

Many would view what I describe as a mob of armed civilians shooting at everything in sight with nobody in charge or any direction. Nothing could be further from the truth.

I view our armed civilians, retired military, combat vets, retired law enforcement and others as a huge asset we should be using, not trying to disarm.


Old Poolman profile image

Old Poolman 17 months ago from Rural Arizona Author

Hxprof - Perhaps one day we will have a machine that can look into the hearts and minds of those wishing to buy a gun. But then we also know of crazy people who seemed perfectly sane a couple years ago. Unfortunately mental stability can change quickly when it comes to humans.


Old Poolman profile image

Old Poolman 17 months ago from Rural Arizona Author

Oztinato - Your thinking that it is very strange to want a gun pretty much tells me that nothing that could be said would ever change your mind.

We just live in different worlds and will never see things exactly the same.

As far as mental exams by qualified professionals has it crossed your mind that a nut-job would be able to tell them exactly what they wanted to hear in a single meeting? I'm not sure there is even a clear definition of the word "sane".


WillStarr profile image

WillStarr 17 months ago from Phoenix, Arizona

"the only way to find out who is unstable is to have qualified professionals interviewing those who want guns. Who would want to have a gun anyway? It's a strange thing to want in the first instance."

Which has been the liberal Catch 22 all along...anyone wanting a gun must be insane!

"A sane person has nothing to fear from such sanity tests."

Uh, huh.

It simply is not justified to put law abiding citizens through such very subjective mental exams in order to exercise a fundamental right. After all, such shootings are actually rare, and rank about even with shark bites. Should we close all the beaches too?

Thanks for your concern, but we are not Australians.


Old Poolman profile image

Old Poolman 17 months ago from Rural Arizona Author

WillStarr - I guess where you are raised has much to do with how you think and feel about things.


FitnezzJim profile image

FitnezzJim 17 months ago from Fredericksburg, Virginia

I noted my grammar checker tried to put a hyphen between the words "well" and "regulated" when I was quoting the archives web site. I wonder if there are any upcoming Supreme Court cases that might use this subtle difference in grammar as an excuse to re-interpret our understanding of the Second Amendment?

How will that affect the discussion about maintaining a militia?


Old Poolman profile image

Old Poolman 17 months ago from Rural Arizona Author

That could be entirely possible Jim based on some of the recent decesions we have seen.


WillStarr profile image

WillStarr 17 months ago from Phoenix, Arizona

"WillStarr - I guess where you are raised has much to do with how you think and feel about things."

I don't know, Mike. Most of our most hateful anti-freedom/anti-gun/anti-capitalism/anti-Christian liberals were raised right here in America. Barack Hussein Obama's good friend and domestic terrorist, Bill Ayers has enjoyed the fruits of the country he hates for his entire life.


Oztinato profile image

Oztinato 17 months ago from Australia

There is no "hate" at all involved. We have all agreed here that mentally ill people should not be given guns. I sense some paranoia in certain comments here as if some might have concerns about their ability to pass a basic sanity test.


Old Poolman profile image

Old Poolman 17 months ago from Rural Arizona Author

WillStarr - You are right about that. Many of those who hate this country the most were raised right here and were given everything they wanted and needed.


Old Poolman profile image

Old Poolman 17 months ago from Rural Arizona Author

Oztinato - Now your starting to make this personal. We in America view gun ownship as a right afforded us by the 2nd amendment. You live in a country where all guns, and your right to have a gun were taken away from you.

Yet you are OK with losing what was once one of your civil rights. Perhaps you are the one who should worry about passing a basic sanity test?


WillStarr profile image

WillStarr 17 months ago from Phoenix, Arizona

I'm curious, Oztinato...the vote is far more dangerous than owning a firearm, so do you think all voters should prove themselves sane before voting?


Oztinato profile image

Oztinato 17 months ago from Australia

Will

the vote is more dangerous??! No one believes that. The vote is one of the most innocuous things ever invented.


WillStarr profile image

WillStarr 17 months ago from Phoenix, Arizona

"the vote is more dangerous??! No one believes that. The vote is one of the most innocuous things ever invented."

Since you seem to actually believe that, there's no point in trying to persuade you. Have a nice day.


FitnezzJim profile image

FitnezzJim 17 months ago from Fredericksburg, Virginia

Interesting. I noted the sentence "I sense some paranoia in certain comments here as if some might have concerns about their ability to pass a basic sanity test."

The fact that different sets of folks from different sides of the world have honestly different perspectives based on different life experiences is not a legitimate basis for either set of folks to call the other insane. In my opinion, when one considers the possibility of creating a sanity test, it shows that they lack the historical perspective, which in this case might be better understood if one was actually aware of the plot "One Flew over the Cuckoo's Nest". (good comment, Will)

There is also the not yet mentioned corollary "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." While creating a rule that one needs to pass a sanity test before owning a gun might work, we would also need to take into account who decides what the test is and what the criteria is for passing, and recognize that any such authority would become yet another piece in an already burdensome government. At the same time we would need to ensure that any such authority does not fall into the hands of those who tend to call people with an opposing perspective paranoid.

'Mother May I' is a fun game for a child, but it is not the right way for grown-ups to play at governance.


Old Poolman profile image

Old Poolman 17 months ago from Rural Arizona Author

WillStarr - Perhaps in Australia a vote is an innocuous thing, but I doubt everyone living in Australia shares that sentiment. I also doubt that everyone in Australia is as thrilled as Oztinato with their gun laws and having their guns confiscated.

The views of one person rarely represent the feelings of the majority in any situation. Oztinato is entitled to his opinions. But we will probably never agree on much of anything because he reminds me of some of our far-left types in this country.

It is obvious that Oztinato believs that anyone who would even want a gun must be crazy, so I question why he is spending this much time on this hub. Nothing in this hub has anything to do with Australia anyhow.


Old Poolman profile image

Old Poolman 17 months ago from Rural Arizona Author

FitnezzJim - Great comment. We also need to keep in mind that "being sane" is not necessarily a permanent condition. I could be declared "sane" today by the government "sanity checker" but be a total nut case a couple years later.

It is our mental health system that needs attention, not our gun control system.


Oztinato profile image

Oztinato 17 months ago from Australia

I am curious to observe the circular thinking here of those who both agree that the insane shouldn't be given guns but who also don't want to stop the insane from having guns. To see this as logic is bizarre to say the least.

The object of observing this circular contradictory thought pattern is to find a way to straighten it out with commonsense. However I notice that each time I straighten it out it immediately springs back into it's circular pattern again.


Old Poolman profile image

Old Poolman 17 months ago from Rural Arizona Author

Oztinato - Could it be that what you want is almost impossible? There is no way that a medical team could make an accurate assessment of someone's mental health in a single visit with rare exception.

If that person was suicidal, hearing voices, ranting and raving, or demonstrating other such behavior then they could. If that insane person was acting "normal" there is no way they could make an accurate assessment of his or her mental health in a single visit.

But you have taken this conversation to a topic other than what was intended in the text of the hub.

The question is: With ISIS threatening to kill everyone in our country is it wise to try to disarm all honest citizens at this time? And part two is why not take advantage of the armed and trained civilians to support our Law Enforcement agencies.

If you can comment on this that is great, it you are still stuck on insane people having guns then don't bother. You could even write a hub on that subject.


WillStarr profile image

WillStarr 17 months ago from Phoenix, Arizona

"I am curious to observe the circular thinking here of those who both agree that the insane shouldn't be given guns but who also don't want to stop the insane from having guns."

(sigh) So typical of a liberal to deliberately misstate their opponent's position, which is that if a citizen is adjudicated to be mentally incompetent, it should become part of the national background check (and it already is!).

The problem is that our laws were changed by liberals to make the legal institutionalizing of mentally ill people all but impossible, which is why we have so many walking our streets, and know as the 'homeless'.

BTW, we don't 'give guns' to anyone, nor do we 'give' anyone the right to keep and bear arms. Neither does our Constitution. We believe that our rights come from God, not men, and therefore cannot be taken away by man.

And why do you ignore the fact that there actually is no crisis in the first place? We lose far more people to fists and feet each year than we do by madmen shooting up a theater or a church!

Disarming America is the dream of left wing socialists, who use the flimsiest of excuses to ban guns. A disarmed populace is helpless, and the left has plans.

Lastly, your vision of making everyone pass a mental exam in order to exercise a right is totally unworkable in the US. You might get your fellow Aussie cream puffs to submit to such an intrusion on rights, but Americans will not stand for it. Our rule is that we are all innocent (and sane) until the state proves otherwise, and the burden of that proof is theirs, not the citizens.


Old Poolman profile image

Old Poolman 17 months ago from Rural Arizona Author

WillStarr - If you recall he stated in an earlier comment that anyone who wanted a gun must be insane anyhow or something similar to that.

He is most likely a left wing gun hating individual and is convinced that all gun owners must be insane or they wouldn't have or want a gun.

I think we have come to the end of the road on this one.


Rusty 17 months ago

As a Texan and a veteran, I would feel better about a militia if it fell under the state. I would not want to be part of any militia falling under the direct control of the current administration. As for gun control, the left will use any tragedy they can to advance their cause. The problem for them with the recent tragedy in SC is that it was a legally purchased 45 used that carried 13 rounds in the magazine. They would have preferred the little nut had an AR. The media went as far as to widely report that he would have liked to have owned an AR and owned a couple magazines to try to bring that firearm into this tragedy.


Oztinato profile image

Oztinato 17 months ago from Australia

I didn't say anyone who wants a gun is insane at all.

we all agreed here that mentally ill people shouldn't have guns : hence we should agree to police that.

Lots of farmers have guns here cuz they need them to shoot kangaroos and feral cats etc.


Old Poolman profile image

Old Poolman 17 months ago from Rural Arizona Author

Rusty - I agree with you on the Feds running a militia. That would be just like the TSA only with guns.

Isn't it a shame that gun control is all about politics rather than common sense? Your right, had there been an AR-15 involved they would have loved it.


Old Poolman profile image

Old Poolman 17 months ago from Rural Arizona Author

Oztinato - Good, maybe the farmers with guns will be able to help when ISIS decides to target Australia.


WillStarr profile image

WillStarr 17 months ago from Phoenix, Arizona

"Lots of farmers have guns here cuz they need them to shoot kangaroos and feral cats etc."

How do you know those farmers aren't crazy? Have they all been tested?

And you justified that by 'need'. What if a homeowner 'needs' to shoot a dangerous intruder? Why are a farmer's needs more important than a homeowner's needs?

Who decides who has rights and who does not? In the US, we all have the same rights, and I prefer that system to one where political hacks dole out 'rights'.


Old Poolman profile image

Old Poolman 17 months ago from Rural Arizona Author

WillStarr - I guess if all you are going to shoot is kagaroos and feral cats the sanity testing is probably not required. Even a crazy person would know that those things deserve to die.

I will again state I am opposed to any Government Employee making the determination on if I am sane or insane based on a 15 minute interview. It is my opinion that anyone who would be in favor of such a process has already failed the sanity test.


WillStarr profile image

WillStarr 17 months ago from Phoenix, Arizona

The whole notion is ludicrous, because it's not an exact science, and would cost a kajillion dollars to implement, which is part of the reason liberals are pushing the idea. They want to make owning a gun so expensive and difficult that the average person couldn't do it, just like the UK. Only the very wealthy can afford a gun in the UK today.


Old Poolman profile image

Old Poolman 17 months ago from Rural Arizona Author

WillStarr - Actually gun control in this country has very little to do with crime where guns are involved. If it did, they would be all over the black on black murders in some of our cities. All of these senseless murders and black on white crime is almost totally ignored.

It would be interesting to know just how many of our hard core liberals are gun owners themselves?

I suspect the biggest issue is our liberal government not liking an armed society. That makes making slaves of the people just that much more difficult, if not impossible.

It almost makes you think our 2nd amendment rights were granted for this very purpose doesn't it?


WillStarr profile image

WillStarr 17 months ago from Phoenix, Arizona

"It almost makes you think our 2nd amendment rights were granted for this very purpose doesn't it?"

The Founding Fathers knew that an unarmed society wouldn't last long under a powerful federal government, so they decided to amend the new Constitution with the Bill of Rights, which restricted the new government from denying us the rights granted by God Himself, which includes the right to life, the right to defend that life, and the right to the best means to defend that life which was, and still is, firearms. Thus, the Second Amendment.


Old Poolman profile image

Old Poolman 17 months ago from Rural Arizona Author

Makes sense to me my friend.


Oztinato profile image

Oztinato 17 months ago from Australia

So the next step is: formulating a standard procedure for a sanity test. This is usually done with both a family doctor's referral and an interview with a psychologist. The family doctor's opinion has been accumulated over many years and the psych report may take the form of tests and an interview so the combination of dr/psych is more than just a few minutes as 1.the doc knows the applicant over many years and 2.the psych report is the result of years of research.


WillStarr profile image

WillStarr 17 months ago from Phoenix, Arizona

"So the next step is: formulating a standard procedure for a sanity test."

No, the next step is protecting our right to keep and bear arms from exactly the sort of unwarranted government intrusions you propose. If we allow government to take the steps you propose, we might as well forfeit our rights and call it a day. We view Australia's gun laws as a warning, not a solution.

So thank you, but we Americans are particularly stubborn about our rights, and we are not about to submit to any more 'reasonable' gun laws cooked up by liberals (international or homegrown) whose real purpose is total disarmament of We, the People.


Old Poolman profile image

Old Poolman 17 months ago from Rural Arizona Author

Sounds feasable but who would pay for all this testing? Doctors in this country don't work for free.

However, as WillStarr points out, we in America are not going to give up our rights without one heck of a fight. As you can see from what happened in your own country, governments can not be trusted when it comes to issues such as gun control.


WillStarr profile image

WillStarr 17 months ago from Phoenix, Arizona

It is neither feasible nor necessary. More people will be struck by lighting in a given year than will be the victims of a Charleston type of shooting.

The 'sanity' test is the latest attempt by gun-grabbing, big government liberals to disarm We, the People.


WillStarr profile image

WillStarr 17 months ago from Phoenix, Arizona

However, we do have to admire the sheer audacity of those who are not US citizens, having the temerity to lecture us on our laws and rights!

^-^


Old Poolman profile image

Old Poolman 17 months ago from Rural Arizona Author

I would guess if we had grown up without the right to own guns we too might question why others have or need that right.

We have been losing rights one by one for some time now, but I believe the right to buy and own guns will be the last one to go in this country.


WillStarr profile image

WillStarr 17 months ago from Phoenix, Arizona

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms… disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes… Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”"

- Thomas Jefferson


Old Poolman profile image

Old Poolman 17 months ago from Rural Arizona Author

Looks like Mr. Jefferson knew what needed to be said.


WillStarr profile image

WillStarr 17 months ago from Phoenix, Arizona

"Actually, if the Australian Bureau of Criminology can be believed, Americans would be insane to concern themselves with what non-Americans think about American gun rights.

In 2002 — five years after enacting its gun ban — the Australian Bureau of Criminology acknowledged there is no correlation between gun control and the use of firearms in violent crime. In fact, the percent of murders committed with a firearm was the highest it had ever been in 2006 (16.3 percent), says the D.C. Examiner.

Even Australia’s Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research acknowledges that the gun ban had no significant impact on the amount of gun-involved crime:

In 2006, assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent.

Sexual assault — Australia’s equivalent term for rape — increased 29.9 percent.

Overall, Australia’s violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent.

Moreover, Australia and the United States — where no gun-ban exists — both experienced similar decreases in murder rates:

Between 1995 and 2007, Australia saw a 31.9 percent decrease; without a gun ban, America’s rate dropped 31.7 percent.

During the same time period, all other violent crime indices increased in Australia: assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent.

Sexual assault — Australia’s equivalent term for rape — increased 29.9 percent.

Overall, Australia’s violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent.

At the same time, U.S. violent crime decreased 31.8 percent: rape dropped 19.2 percent; robbery decreased 33.2 percent; aggravated assault dropped 32.2 percent.

Australian women are now raped over three times as often as American women.

So, if the USA follows Australia’s lead in banning guns, it should expect a 42 percent increase in violent crime, a higher percentage of murders committed with a gun, and three times more rape. One wonders if Freddy even bothered to look up the relative crime statistics."

http://www.captainsjournal.com/2012/07/23/do-gun-b...


Old Poolman profile image

Old Poolman 17 months ago from Rural Arizona Author

WillStarr - Now there you go with those darn facts again. You are well aware that all liberals just hate facts. Facts just don't agree with the things they have been told by other liberals and choose to believe.

I firmly believe that if all of our honest citizens carried a gun our crime rate would continue to decline. An armed society is usually a peaceful society.


WillStarr profile image

WillStarr 17 months ago from Phoenix, Arizona

After the UK disarmed its citizens, the UN named the formerly peaceful Scotland as the most violent country on Earth:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/425796...

Most US gun crime (right at 70%) is committed by our large minority population. Since other countries, like the UK, didn't have a large minority population when their crime rates were compared to the US, it's only fair to compare equal demographic crime rates. When we do that, the well armed US is actually comparable in rates to the disarmed UK.


Old Poolman profile image

Old Poolman 17 months ago from Rural Arizona Author

More facts? I wonder if we will get any response on this?


Oztinato profile image

Oztinato 17 months ago from Australia

Gun Peeps

we all agreed that the insane should not be given guns but when the next step is mentioned the subject changes with irrelevant info. This is just avoidance and obfuscation


Old Poolman profile image

Old Poolman 17 months ago from Rural Arizona Author

Mental Exam Peeps - First of all, this hub was really not about guns for the insane. You brought that into the comments and won't let it go even when we agree with you.

Did you by any chance take a look at the statistics WillStarr provided in the above comments? These are facts regarding the numbers of murders and gun related crime in places with and without strict gun controls.

The incidents involving nut-jobs with guns killing people is really very low compared to many other things such as drunk drivers who kill innocent people. Should people who drink alcohol be allowed to have a drivers license without a mental exam? It is never good when innocent people are killed by any means but we just can't control everything.

I happen to have a concealed carry permit that allows me to carry a concealed weapon on my person anytime I want to. To get that permit I was required to attend an eight hour class, demonstrate my shooting ability at a gun range, submit a fingerprint card, and agree to a background investigation. Then and only then could I get this permit. I also had to pay money and pay more money everytime I renew that permit. But I will keep this permit until the day I die.

No, there was no mental exam involved in this process, but if I was crazy I would bet some incidents would have shown up during the background investigation. Most crazy people have had a brush with the law at one time or another.

I really suggest you write a hub about your idea of having everyone who wants a gun to submit to a mental exam and see what response you get. It would be very interesting I believe.


Oztinato profile image

Oztinato 17 months ago from Australia

Gun Peeps

the principle of "intent" in law makes arguments against gun control meaningless. Just because other crimes and tragedies occur has nothing to do with stopping the insane having guns. Hence any amount of statistics re other crimes has no relevance. Likewise there is no point in agreeing on this point if you don't take the next step and stop risky people from getting guns.

Lastly this is HP on the net and is an international discussion not limited to gun enthusiasts.


Old Poolman profile image

Old Poolman 17 months ago from Rural Arizona Author

Mental Exam Peeps - I have no problem with you being here but for the last time, this hub is not about crazy people having guns. We agree this is a very bad idea.

But as I pointed out earlier, there are some risks we just have to live with.

We can't stop people who drink alcohol from driving a car even though they may get drunk and kill someone while driving. We can deal with them harshly after they have killed someone, but not before. Why is that? Because drinking alcohol is legal and they have the right to drink alcohol if they are of legal age.

You just seem to be hung up on mental testing that isn't ever going to happen so I think we are pretty much done with this discussion but thanks for your input.


WillStarr profile image

WillStarr 17 months ago from Phoenix, Arizona

"we all agreed that the insane should not be given guns.."

No one is 'giving' insane people guns. That's an absurd claim that you keep repeating as if it was true!

Insane people sometimes do obtain weapons (we had a woman beheaded recently by a Muslim madman, and he did it with a kitchen knife!) and then a tragedy occurs. But we are not about to allow the gun haters to subject our rights to a very subjective 'insanity' exam. That will not happen, so move on.

Yes, freedom does have its risks, but we are not about to give up our freedoms to satisfy the demands of quavering cowards who foolishly think government can defend them in the middle of the night.


Old Poolman profile image

Old Poolman 17 months ago from Rural Arizona Author

Excellent Points WillStarr.


WillStarr profile image

WillStarr 17 months ago from Phoenix, Arizona

There is no gun crisis in America!

Blood does not run in the streets, and unless you are an inner city gang member, a criminal, an illicit drug user, a heroic police officer, or suicidal, your chance of being shot in America is near zero!

That is a hard fact that the international liberals who want to disarm America or want to make the right to keep and bear arms so difficult and expensive that the average citizen cannot comply, simply ignore!

So what does that tell us? That tells us that the entire gun crisis meme is a fraud, and that the real goal is to disarm all citizens to the point of helplessness.

I once met an old woman who had escaped the Soviet Union with her daughter by swimming a river in the middle of the night. She told me that those Americans who want to us give up the right to keep and bear arms are 'damned fools!', and that was a direct quote.


Old Poolman profile image

Old Poolman 17 months ago from Rural Arizona Author

WillStarr - That is a great comment. I suspect that many in other places who have very few civil rights might be a little jealous of the USA. That could explain the tall tales they tell each other about the violence in America, but of course that is done without fact checking or comparing the US crime rate to other places. Those darn facts just keep getting in the way and they refuse to even look at them.


WillStarr profile image

WillStarr 17 months ago from Phoenix, Arizona

Americans who want to protect their right to keep and bear arms would do well to educate themselves on the topic. Liberal gun grabbers are experts at lying with statistics.

For instance, they claim that a gun in your home is more likely to be used on a member of the household than a criminal. They are actually referring to suicides, but the false implication is that it will be used to by one family member against another family member. It also ignores the fact that out of 100,000,000 gun owners in the US, 99.98% will not use it to commit suicide!

They also claim that children are the most likely to be killed by a firearm. What they are referring to is inner city gang members, and they count ages of 16 through 35 as 'children'.

Ask ordinary Americans how many children are killed in firearms accidents each year, and they will reply that it's in the thousands, The actually number is less than 50. That's still 50 too many of course, and we're working on making it zero, but liberals have been very successful in making America believe it's in the thousands.

Again, arm yourselves with knowledge, because most arguments against firearms simply aren't true.


Old Poolman profile image

Old Poolman 17 months ago from Rural Arizona Author

I agree with that.


Oztinato profile image

Oztinato 17 months ago from Australia

To agree that mental health issues exist but not take the next step is illogical and highly irresponsible. Ignoring legal questions of intent and justifying things simply because other crimes are committed elsewhere is extremely bizarre.


Old Poolman profile image

Old Poolman 17 months ago from Rural Arizona Author

Oztinato - Once again you missed the whole point.


WillStarr profile image

WillStarr 17 months ago from Phoenix, Arizona

There is no crisis to fix, Oztinato.


Oztinato profile image

Oztinato 17 months ago from Australia

I didn't use the word crisis. I did use the words "mentally ill" and the "next step". Is there a next step to testing for mental illness? Yes: making it law. Its not complicated


WillStarr profile image

WillStarr 17 months ago from Phoenix, Arizona

There is no crisis to fix, Oztinato.


Randy Godwin profile image

Randy Godwin 17 months ago from Southern Georgia

The South Carolina murderer obtained a gun because the state was lax in processing the data from a recent arrest shortly before the tragic event. Now explain why the system is working to allow such idiots to obtain such a weapon.


Old Poolman profile image

Old Poolman 17 months ago from Rural Arizona Author

Randy - The system is not working because the gun laws already on the books are not being enforced.

It is my opinion we should start enforcing the laws we already have in place before we try to make even more laws that will not be enforced.

We now have databases for just about everything. But there is no coordination I know of to update and share information on many things that should be shared such as arrest records. Most of this is caused by various departments of law enforcement not wanting to share information, not having the manpower available to share information in a timely manner, or not really enforcing the law.

We should make the laws on crimes involving guns very tough and then enforce them. Most gun control efforts are aimed at the honest citizen and little is done to deal with the criminals.


WillStarr profile image

WillStarr 17 months ago from Phoenix, Arizona

'I didn't use the word crisis. I did use the words "mentally ill" and the "next step". '

But crisis is implied. If, as you admit, there is no crisis, then why create a massive and extremely expensive mental exam program in the first place? To what end?

Crisis is always implied when liberals want government to limit our rights. That's always their justification, and it was your justification as well.


Old Poolman profile image

Old Poolman 17 months ago from Rural Arizona Author

Oztinato - You really seem to be obsessed with this idea of mental testing for gun owners. Perhaps you should consider getting this mental testing going in your country and see how it works. Oh wait, you are not allowed to have guns so it would be a waste of time.


WillStarr profile image

WillStarr 17 months ago from Phoenix, Arizona

'Obsessed' is a good choice of words, Mike, but it's the latest ploy by liberals to deny us the right to arms.


Oztinato profile image

Oztinato 17 months ago from Australia

Old Pool

that's the spirit. More of the same would be nice. Just add a few mental health checks and presto we have some gun control


WillStarr profile image

WillStarr 17 months ago from Phoenix, Arizona

"Just add a few mental health checks..."

Why? You have never explained why we need to spend so much money and burden so many unnecessarily when there is no crisis in the first place.

I quoted you and then asked you a pertinent question, but you avoided answering:

'I didn't use the word crisis. I did use the words "mentally ill" and the "next step". '

But crisis is implied. If, as you admit, there is no crisis, then why create a massive and extremely expensive mental exam program in the first place? To what end?

If you refuse to directly and completely answer this, then we will know that you are not serious and simply ignore any further statements you make as internet trolling and not worthy of response.


Old Poolman profile image

Old Poolman 17 months ago from Rural Arizona Author

Oztinato - I agree with WillStarr. I would like to hear the reasoning behind your obsession with mental testing when the facts prove this is not a major issue.

If you choose not to do so, that is fine but any further comments about mental testing are off topic and will just be deleted.


Oztinato profile image

Oztinato 17 months ago from Australia

OP

I have no obsession at all about mental

testing. Its the major topic about gun control currently on the cards.


Old Poolman profile image

Old Poolman 17 months ago from Rural Arizona Author

Goodby my friend, have a good life.


wilderness profile image

wilderness 16 months ago from Boise, Idaho

It is indeed ironic that gun control is being talked about in the face of ISIS. Seems plainly a matter of comforting the fearful without regard to reality to me.

I don't see a problem with that "well trained militia", either. Yes, it would be an anathema to government who would want an iron fist controlling it, but it is to be expected that that would be the reaction. We just need to work around that as a people.


Old Poolman profile image

Old Poolman 16 months ago from Rural Arizona Author

Hi Dan - Thanks for stopping by and the great comment. It just makes no sense to disarm the citizens when they are reducing our Military to the bare bones. This is just not what we should be doing now with the threat of terrorism we face.


yecall profile image

yecall 10 months ago from California

Hi Old Poolman,

The gun issue is one where people feel very passionate on both sides, that is for sure. It is an important issue. I was torn when initially thinking about it as I am a lover of peace. But I listened to both sides. Ultimately what made sense to me was this: "Better to have a gun and not need one then to need a gun and not have one." Well, that makes good sense.

You are right that the timing of ISIS and all that makes the need for protection to be greater still. They can't get up to as many shenanigans with armed people, and they don't try since they like their victims unarmed. At this very moment in Europe, with the migrant waves and the violence, people are wishing for protection and non-lethal protections such as pepper spray are selling out entirely.

Thank you for the great article.


Old Poolman profile image

Old Poolman 10 months ago from Rural Arizona Author

yecall - Thanks for stopping by and the great comment. It would be nice if we could enjoy a time where things like guns were not a necessary evil, but that time is not now. It seems the whole world has forgotten to take their meds and it is getting worse all the time.

If you pay attention, most gun violence takes place in gun free zones where only the bad guys have guns. Armed citizens are at least a deterrent if not a solution.


WillStarr profile image

WillStarr 10 months ago from Phoenix, Arizona

Almost 90% of all gun deaths in America are suicides, minority gang violence, and police interventions. 99.9998% of legally owned guns are never used to kill anyone.

We have a suicide and minority crime crisis. We do not have a gun crisis.


Old Poolman profile image

Old Poolman 10 months ago from Rural Arizona Author

Very true and well stated WillStarr.

    Sign in or sign up and post using a HubPages Network account.

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.


    Click to Rate This Article
    working