jump to last post 1-50 of 100 discussions (645 posts)

Stop the Insanity

  1. PrettyPanther profile image85
    PrettyPantherposted 3 years ago

    Yes, this is about guns.  This is about guns that didn't exist when the right to bear arms was written into our constitution.  I'm sick of hearing that every citizen has a right to own a weapon that can kill dozens of people in just a few minutes.  I'm even sicker of hearing that we should protect a citizen's right to use these weapons for fun.  If Frank the Fake Constitutionalist wants to have his high-powered weapons that can hold enough ammo to gun down a room full of children just so he can target practice, then he can submit to stringent, sensible regulations designed to keep them out of the hands of the mentally unhinged.  I'm sick of hearing that we can't come up with solutions that will lower the rate of these types of crimes.  Surely, we are smart enough to do so.  Now is the time for us to fight the rigid ideologues and the NRA lobbyists to get it done.  Contact your legislators:  http://www.contactingthecongress.org/

    April 1999 - two teenage schoolboys shot and killed 12 schoolmates and a teacher at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colorado, before killing themselves.

    July 1999 - a stock exchange trader in Atlanta, Georgia, killed 12 people including his wife and two children before taking his own life.

    September 1999 - a gunman opened fire at a prayer service in Fort Worth, Texas, killing six people before committing suicide.

    October 2002 - a series of sniper-style shootings occurred in Washington DC, leaving 10 dead.

    August 2003 - in Chicago, a laid-off worker shot and killed six of his former workmates.

    November 2004 - in Birchwood, Wisconsin, a hunter killed six other hunters and wounded two others after an argument with them.

    March 2005 - a man opened fire at a church service in Brookfield, Wisconsin, killing seven people.

    October 2006 - a truck driver killed five schoolgirls and seriously wounded six others in a school in Nickel Mines, Pennsylvania before taking his own life.

    April 2007 - student Seung-Hui Cho shot and killed 32 people and wounded 15 others at Virginia Tech in Blacksburg, Virginia, before shooting himself, making it the deadliest mass shooting in the United States after 2000.

    August 2007 - Three Delaware State University students were shot and killed in "execution style" by a 28-year-old and two 15-year-old boys. A fourth student was shot and stabbed.

    December 2007 - a 20-year-old man killed nine people and injured five others in a shopping center in Omaha, Nebraska.

    December 2007 - a woman and her boyfriend shot dead six members of her family on Christmas Eve in Carnation, Washington.

    February 2008 - a shooter who is still at large tied up and shot six women at a suburban clothing store in Chicago, leaving five of them dead and the remaining one injured.

    February 2008 - a man opened fire in a lecture hall at Northern Illinois University in DeKalb, Illinois, killing five students and wounding 16 others before laying down his weapon and surrendering.

    September 2008 - a mentally ill man who was released from jail one month earlier shot eight people in Alger, Washington, leaving six of them dead and the rest two wounded.

    December 2008 - a man dressed in a Santa Claus suit opened fire at a family Christmas party in Covina, California, then set fire on the house and killed himself. Police later found nine people dead in the debris of the house.

    March 2009 - a 28-year-old laid-off worker opened fire while driving a car through several towns in Alabama, killing 10 people.

    March 2009 - a heavily armed gunman shot dead eight people, many of them elderly and sick people, in a private-owned nursing home in North Carolina.

    March 2009 - six people were shot dead in a high-grade apartment building in Santa Clara, California.

    April 2009 - a man shot dead 13 people at a civic center in Binghamton, New York.

    July 2009 - Six people, including one student, were shot in a drive-by shooting at a community rally on the campus of Texas Southern University, Houston.

    November 2009 - U.S. army psychologist Major Nidal Hasan opened fire at a military base in Fort Hood, Texas, leaving 13 dead and 42 others wounded.

    February 2010 - A professor opened fire 50 minutes into at a Biological Sciences Department faculty meeting at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, killing three colleagues and wounding three others.

    January 2011 - a gunman opened fire at a public gathering outside a grocery in Tucson, Arizona, killing six people including a 9-year-old girl and wounding at least 12 others. Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords was severely injured with a gunshot to the head.

    April 2 - A gunman kills seven people and wounds three in a shooting rampage at a Christian college in Oakland.

    July 20 - A masked gunman kills 12 people and wounds 58 when he opens fire on moviegoers at a showing of the Batman film "The Dark Knight Rises" in Aurora, a suburb of Denver, Colorado.

    Aug. 5 - A gunman kills six people during Sunday services at a Sikh temple in Oak Creek, Wisconsin, before he is shot dead by a police officer.

    Aug. 24 - Two people are killed and eight wounded in a shooting outside the landmark Empire State Building in New York City at the height of the tourist season.

    Sept. 27 - A disgruntled former employee kills five people and takes his own life in a shooting rampage at a Minneapolis sign company from which he had been fired.

    Oct. 21 - Three people are killed in a Milwaukee area spa including the estranged wife of the suspected gunman, who then killed himself.

    Dec. 14 - A shooter opens fire at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, killing several people including children.

    http://www.newsmax.com/US/mass-shooting … z2FE4xTVlX

    1. Marcy Goodfleisch profile image93
      Marcy Goodfleischposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      I counted more than 30 separate incidents, with more than 250 people killed (not counting the shooters who killed themselves).  And this list doesn't even count the McDonald's incident about 20 years ago in Southern California, some other school killings, the University of Texas incident in 1966 and other massacres.

      1. 0
        JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Ok, what about the millions of incidents a year where people defend themselves using guns? Don't those count too?

        1. PrettyPanther profile image85
          PrettyPantherposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          That is not the problem, is it?  I'm not suggesting we address people who defend themselves with guns.  I'm saying it's time we stop tip-toeing around the issue of mentally unstable people having easy access to automatic weapons and start working on mitigating the problem.

          1. LiamBean profile image90
            LiamBeanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Well said. This is not about guns; it's about who has access to them. The last five major massacres had one common component. An individual diagnosed with mental health problems.

            It's not the guns folks, its a denial that our mentally ill are potentially dangerous.

            Now before someone gets their panties in a bunch let me clarify. Ronald Reagan, on the advice of a number of mental health professionals, was convinced that those with mental health problems could be treated with drugs and allowed to live among the sane. This saved a lot of money by closing down institutions and relying on the magic of pharmaceuticals to solve most of the problems. There was also supposed to be a network of mental health facilities, acting on an out-patient basis, to help mitigate possible problems with the occasionally mentally disturbed. Unfortunately, no one wanted those facilities in their neighborhoods.

            So now we are faced with a problem. Though a large percentage of the mentally disabled can be effectively treated with drugs and cause only limited problems a tiny percentage are violent, unpredictable, and dangerous, both to themselves and others around them. Unfortunately the only places available to these people are jail or prison. This is not where they belong since the concept of right and wrong, or "good and evil" is an elusive one to them. Prison is punishment for those sane individuals who can grasp the concept of right or wrong. It is not an appropriate place for the violent mental patient since those concepts are often foreign to them.

            Add to this the fact that almost anyone can purchase a weapon even if they've been found less than competent in a court of law.

            THIS is the problem. Not the gun.

            Finally, there is an undercurrent of misunderstanding about the problems of the mentally challenged. I've read many opinions in which the writer or speaker has a basic misunderstanding about the problem. Terms like "consequences for actions," or "choice." simply demonstrates, to me at least, a basic misunderstanding of mental illness. When someone suffering from this is prone to fantastic thinking, a confusion between fantasy and reality, and a penchant for relating fantasy as truth "consequences" and "responsibility" have little meaning.

            In other words attempting to assign sane thinking to the mentally ill is both fruitless and unrealistic.

            1. Ralph Deeds profile image70
              Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              "THIS is the problem. Not the gun."  Three semi-automatic guns with high capacity magazines ARE a problem when combined with a delusional, paranoid schizophrenic individual.

              1. LiamBean profile image90
                LiamBeanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Ralph, I'm not saying that guns weren't instrumental in these deaths, but I'm asking a vital question here. Why was someone who had acknowledged mental health problems given lessons, by his mother no less, on how to fire and charge the weapon? When the opportunity presented itself he gained access to these weapons and then killed his mother before raiding the school and killing twenty-seven people including himself.

                I don't understand the level of trust given someone who obviously has problems distinguishing fantasy from reality. And let's be honest here entirely too many people out there do not understand what mental illness really means.

                By the way, the only weapon used, beside the one he killed himself with, was the assault style Bushmaster. An M-16 like weapon.

                1. psycheskinner profile image80
                  psycheskinnerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  He was most likely hobby shooting well before the age when his problems became serious.  There is no easy way to predict when a socially awkward young man with turn the corner to becoming dangerous.

                  If you look at the entire group of people with disorders like Schizophrenia, they are less likely to commit violent crime than controls.  So being known to have an illness is not a 'bright line' that helps predict dangerousness.

                  Predicting dangerousness is really very hard and I think we have to do out best at that whilst also using other strategies (restricting gun ownership, making schools safer, reinforcing preventative mental health providers etc).

                  But ultimately, complete safety just isn't possible.

                2. Ralph Deeds profile image70
                  Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  LAnza's mother used very poor judgment, to put it politely.

                  1. LiamBean profile image90
                    LiamBeanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Honestly we don't know that yet. I do know that she is never counted as one of the victims, even when Adam is.

                3. floridawriter profile image59
                  floridawriterposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Mental health definitely has to be considered in many of the mass shootings over the past several years. However, we need to educate ourselves, too. Throwing around terms that aren't precise can cause more harm by stigmatizing individuals with mental illness.

                  As an example, the shooter in CT was diagnosed with Asperger's. This is a form of autism. This does NOT qualify as psychosis (not being able to distinguish reality from fantasy). The two shooters at Columbine had personality disorders. Again, this is not psychosis. They very clearly planned their rampage for months... they were operating in reality here.

                  There is no black and white, easily discoverable solution. But if we look at Adam Lansa, the VA Tech shooter, the Columbine shooters, you will see one thing they all had in common - they felt like outcasts. And, no one addressed this when it was known (read descriptions of these people after the fact). Feeling like an outcast, separated from the rest of society, having no one to listen to them, sensing no escape from this kind of isolation, developing a hatred or a lack of value for "others" and access to weaponry - all these factors resulted in the mass shootings.

        2. Ralph Deeds profile image70
          Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          "Ok, what about the millions of incidents a year where people defend themselves using guns? Don't those count too?"

          There you go again. Making stuff up.

          1. 0
            JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            No, not making stuff up.

            Among a myriad of other studies, Kleck and Gertz's stands foremost. When peer-reviewed by a leading criminologist, who is very, very anti-gun, this man said it was the most perfect study he had ever seen, even if he didn't personally like the results.

            When the Department of Justice did their own study, they found *gasp* the same results as Kleck and Gertz.

            1. Ralph Deeds profile image70
              Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Tell us what they said. a citation with an exact quote wrt the "millions each year"'would be helpful.

            2. floridawriter profile image59
              floridawriterposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              The results obtained by Kleck & Gertz have been debunked over and over and over and over....they are used by the NRA to promote gun sales.

              Back in 1995, K&G did 5,000 random telephone surveys and 1% of those polled said they'd used a gun in self defense. They then used that figure (not based on any documentation, just the person's word), to extrapolate that 2.5 million Americans had used a gun in self defense.

              Google it and you'll see words like "myth" attached to the survey.

        3. Dan Barfield profile image83
          Dan Barfieldposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          To the chap who said 'millions of incidents' of folks defending themselves with guns: if the buggers breaking into their homes didn't find it so easy to get hold of guns themselves then maybe the defenders wouldn't need one... just saying...

        4. LucidDreams profile image82
          LucidDreamsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Who were the so called millions of people with guns defending themselves from? Other people with guns?

          1. Jeff Berndt profile image90
            Jeff Berndtposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Well, a friend of mine once was approached by a couple guys with crowbars, and he scared them away by pulling his pistol.

            It's anecdotal, but there you go.

            Also, this fellow is seriously anal retentive about storing his guns: he uses trigger locks and a gun safe, and he keeps his ammunition locked up in a separate container.

            Not every gun owner is a dangerous nutjob with vigilante dreams.

            1. LiamBean profile image90
              LiamBeanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              And if he'd shot one or both of them who would have gone to jail? Hint: not the guys with crowbars.

              1. Jeff Berndt profile image90
                Jeff Berndtposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Don't know--self-defense is still a valid defense.
                It could be that nobody went to jail. It could be that everyone would have. It would depend on what the state could prove in a trial, and what the prosecutor was willing to try to prosecute.

                1. LiamBean profile image90
                  LiamBeanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Self defense with no describable injuries to the "victim" is not self-defense.

                  Take the Little Caeser's case in Florida. Some guy is whining about how long he's having to wait on his pizza. Someone else in line gets tired of hearing it. There's a confrontation. Mr. "tired of hearing it" gets too close to whiner so whiner pushes him away. Mr. "tired of hearing it" pulls out a .38 revolver and shoots whiner twice. Guess who got arrested.

        5. 0
          Jonesy50posted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Jaxson,

          They won't count these as they're counter productive to there agenda but the anti-gunners have no problem using the deaths of 20 First Grade children to further their political agenda.

    2. Ralph Deeds profile image70
      Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      +++Additional gun control laws and funds to ensure better enforcement are badly needed.

    3. 0
      erickcbposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Guns don't kill people. People kill people.

      1. PrettyPanther profile image85
        PrettyPantherposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Thank you for that pearl of wisdom.  Did you think of it yourself?

        1. 0
          erickcbposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Not all wisdom needs to come from one person. Truth is universal and eternal. Who cares who says it first? Pretty immature..

        2. LiamBean profile image90
          LiamBeanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Wow, I have never heard this one before. How astute!

          pp: I'm responding to the original post, not your reply.

      2. rebekahELLE profile image91
        rebekahELLEposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        If I read this phrase one more time... come on.  Yes, people with guns kill people when they start shooting and the bullets kill the intended or random targets.  Mentally unstable people with easy access to assault weapons kill even more people.

      3. Don W profile image83
        Don Wposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Rubbish. Pull the trigger on a water pistol, see how many people get killed. Pull the trigger on a spray bottle, see how many people get killed. Shout "BANG!" and see how many people get killed. The gun is just as important in the equation as the person. Only the combination of the two can result in gun death. Take either away and such death cannot occur. So how about you change your saying to something more truthful:

        Guns don't kill people, people (and guns) kill people.

        1. LucidDreams profile image82
          LucidDreamsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Guns do kill people. That argument is very old! Same ol same ol from the gun advocates.What would happen if these people did not have guns? Tell me another way to kill 20 something people in a matter of seconds!

          1. chip1775 profile image87
            chip1775posted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Homemade bombs.

            1. 60
              retief2000posted 3 years ago in reply to this

              How about a plan, some chains, a pad lock and a few gallons of gasoline?  The Happy Land Dance Club fire was America's largest mass killing - until the Oklahoma City Bombing.  So many people fail to understand that a determined and patient killer is nearly impossible to stop - after all Lee Harvey Oswald, Arthur Bremmer and John Hinckley all were patient and had a plan.  All three either killed or wounded their targets and acted alone.  Adolph Hitler was nearly killed despite massive institutional paranoia and security.

              China, despite a powerful government with massive police power and presence, has suffered multiple school attacks by men wielding an assortment of non-firearms.  Sometimes all it takes is time, effort, resource and plan.   The weapon barely matters.  After all the Germans slaughtered millions with little more than the cooperation of the victims and a reliable chemical industry and a productive mass execution model.

        2. A Troubled Man profile image59
          A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          But Don, people (and anything that can be used as a weapon) kill people.

          Of course, the argument is in your favor only in the proficiency and ease of use of guns to kill people. But then, leaving a suitcase full of explosives on a crowded commuter train is far more efficient and will probably wind up killing more people than a single well armed man. Were guns used in 911?

          I get what your saying, but your argument doesn't follow.

          1. LiamBean profile image90
            LiamBeanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Adam Lanza, Dylan Kliebold, Eric Harris, James Holmes, and Jared Lee Loughner were not an organized group of religious fanatics, with million dollar funding, intent on taking down the United States.

            If we want an appropriate example Timothy McVeigh is the one. But he bombed the Murrah building in retaliation for Ruby Ridge and Waco. As a second amendment proponent McVeigh is off limits....right?

    4. taburkett profile image60
      taburkettposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      apparently some people still believe that we can eliminate the irrational killing by making more laws.
      laws only restrict the lawful, not the irrational.
      if we really want to stop the violence then
      1. everyone needs to obtain a CCA through proactive training.
      2. we need to eliminate the drugs used to calm the irrational individuals.
      it is the drugs and not the guns that have created the problem.

      1. Ralph Deeds profile image70
        Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        I haven' t heard anyone say that killings can be eliminated.

    5. 70
      SanXuaryposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      You can not stop murder by proxy. No amount of gun control will prevent alienated people with a selfish belief in justice from killing themselves and complete strangers. The disease was created by a new work culture in the 1980's that began in the work place, then it reached families in divorces and has now reached the young. This sickness was almost unknown in America 50 years ago. Your research will determine that  drugs and mental illness are often the brand we give them after the fact and in most cases is the exception. This has far more to do with people who feel alienated, persecuted and who have given up on life and believe that justice will be served by making others pay or suffer. Even drug addicts persecuted for their addictions commit suicide by cop all the time. My point is that disaffected people sabotage those who have singled them out among all the other rats they give a half of piece of cheese to kill one another over every day. Loyalty, and a culture that promotes people with a life that rewards them for what they are worth would go along ways towards destroying this culture we have created. I by no means justify these people for their atrocities and call them weak. The strong recognize the problem and tells these people not to do this, because no justice will ever be found by those who kill the innocent. Stand up and be someone who changes the World by telling the truth. Many in the postal system  where this all began did exactly this and after many cases it has stopped.

      1. Dan Barfield profile image83
        Dan Barfieldposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Ridiculous! Of course it would make a difference if there were stricter gun control! If you want evidence just go look at all the countries that do have stricter gun control and you'll find far fewer incidences of massacre.

        1. wilderness profile image95
          wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Really?  You might explain that to bombing victims in the near east...

          1. LucidDreams profile image82
            LucidDreamsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            bombing victims, I'm sorry wilderness. I'm sure you are a good guy but that argument is completely seperate. We have far to many guns in America and far to many mass shootings. If you cannot see that fact then discussing it further is irrelevant.

      2. LiamBean profile image90
        LiamBeanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        You don't understand the problem and obviously have never dealt with the mentally ill. You are sadly misinformed.

        1. Dan Barfield profile image83
          Dan Barfieldposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Somebody who is mentally ill will have their issues and their violent episodes dependant on the standard of care they are recieving (if they are recieving any, or indeed if they have even had a diagnosis). Their ability to get hold of firearms is most definitely a seperate issue.

          1. LiamBean profile image90
            LiamBeanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            An opinion like this has no basis in reality.

            The simple truth is no one really understands why some people lose their grip on reality and no one really understands why someone like Adam Lanza, most often characterized as avoiding others, would suddenly kill his mother and them go to a nearby school and take down 26 people in there.

            The problem is one must understand what is going on in the mind of the mentally ill to even begin to help them. That particular feat is difficult if not impossible to pull off.

            Yes, their ability to get fire-arms is a separate issue, but Adam Lanza, Jarad Longher, James Holmes,
            Seung-Hui Choi, Eric Harris and Dylan Kiebold did. And all of these boys were reportedly troubled mentally.

        2. floridawriter profile image59
          floridawriterposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          You will find, if you do some research, that there is a connection between violence and some personality disorders among youths, and this is not caused by a break from reality (psychosis) as you've described it repeatedly, but because these individuals have extreme difficulty interacting with others.

          These youth show plenty of signs beforehand including vandalism, burglery, arson, threats to injure others, physically harming others -- and their family and people in their immediate environment KNOW something isn't "right."

          When these signs and symptoms are untreated or misdiagnosed, and when these individuals find it increasingly difficult to interact with or even care about others, and when they are ostracism by their peers, and live with a family in denial AND have access to guns, then mass murder can be the result.

          We need to look at ALL of the above if we want to do something constructive.

          1. floridawriter profile image59
            floridawriterposted 3 years ago in reply to this
          2. LiamBean profile image90
            LiamBeanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            An inability to interact with others is not a break with reality? Do tell! See this is what I mean. We are social creatures. If some of us can't interact on a social level there's a real problem and yes, it is a break with reality.

            You forgot to mention torturing animals.

            I'd say a distinct lack of mental health services might be a problem too. So far Nancy Lanza, by all accounts, was trying to get help for her son. She failed because there currently is no real remedy. Anti-psychotic drugs or prison are not remedies.

            We aren't really disagreeing here. The problem isn't weapons so much as our inability to sequester the dangerous (anyone considering suicide is a danger to others) and inability change our attitudes about our guns.

            I'm talking to a guy on facebook now. He works in a poor neighborhood. His attitude is that everyone that lives in the area he works is out to get him. Who has the problem here, he or the people who live there?

            I keep reading a lot of fear. Fear of robbery, fear of injury, fear of death. But pulling a pistol and blasting someone you are afraid of does not make the person you shot the criminal. It makes YOU (not you specifically) the criminal.

            1. floridawriter profile image59
              floridawriterposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              I think we agree on generalities.

              But, when I use the phrase "break with reality" I am referring to its psychiatric sense, not the layperson's idea. My post was meant in part to point out that these shooters did not operate in a psychotic state, as someone has repeatedly stated.

              And yes, this is a culture of fear. And argument.

              1. LiamBean profile image90
                LiamBeanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Now we are in the land of semantics.

                Psychotic: Of, relating to, or affected by psychosis.

                Psychosis: A severe mental disorder, with or without organic damage, characterized by derangement of personality and loss of contact with reality and causing deterioration of normal social functioning.

                Both delusion and social isolation fall under the definition.

    6. 2besure profile image83
      2besureposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      I read it originally pertained to the militia having the right to bear arms.  They say that guns don't kill people.  The truth is, people with guns kill people.  When US, which is 5% of the worlds population own 50% of the worlds guns...there lays the problem!

    7. chip1775 profile image87
      chip1775posted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Should all semi automatic weapons be banned? They all have the same capability. The 'right to bear arms' was not created to protect hunters, it was created to protect citizens against a tyrannical government. Look at what history tells you about countries that disarm their citizens. It isn't good. Our government may not always be as benevolent as they seem.

    8. taburkett profile image60
      taburkettposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      from the irrational to the nonsensial.
      law abiding citizens have never created this problem.
      but irrational people want them to pay for the evil created by others.
      less than .01% of the evil has been a product of any weapons owned by law abiding citizens.
      more than 20% of criminals have been removed from society by these guns due to legal gun owners.
      removing the guns will priduce a rise in criminal activity.
      http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article … a-U-S.html

      1. Ralph Deeds profile image70
        Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        The actual fact is that the U.S. ranks 10th in fire-arm deaths with 10.2 per 100,000, and the UK ranks 64th out of 75 countries with a rate of .25 per 100,000 citizens.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co … death_rate

        I suggest you check your facts and stop posting B.S. which impairs your credibility.

  2. habee profile image91
    habeeposted 3 years ago

    I've had similar thoughts, even though I'm pro-gun, so to speak. Why do we need assault/semi-automatic weapons? I've owned shotguns, rifles, and pistols but have never felt the need to own an assault weapon. If crazed shooters had to stop and reload, they wouldn't be able to inflict nearly as much damage.

    1. PrettyPanther profile image85
      PrettyPantherposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Agree.  It's just common sense.  It doesn't have anything to do with wanting to take away all guns.

    2. Ralph Deeds profile image70
      Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      "Why do we need assault/semi-automatic weapons?" We don't. the manufacture, sale and possession of assault weapons, large capacity magazines and body armor should be strictly limited to military purposes. They serve no useful or necessary non-military purpose.

      1. taburkett profile image60
        taburkettposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Sorry to burst your bubble, but when the government is the only one permitted to defend me and my family, I am no longer living under liberty.......
        You may wish to wait 20 minutes for the police or military to show up, but I am not.

        1. LucidDreams profile image82
          LucidDreamsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Thats completely rediculous and the exact same argument that almost every pro-gun advocate uses. Old news! Kind of like saying that if you take away our guns, the bad guys will still have them and what then? Well, if the bad guys can get them, so can you and when this so-called government take over happens you will be fine. Meanwhile the amount of guns and assault rifles in the US is out of control. Maybe you are ok with mass shooting but I am certainly not. Also, based on previous shootings, those who had guns during the assault were not able to stop it from happening, so what now?

        2. LiamBean profile image90
          LiamBeanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          You know, I've been hearing about this potential government takeover for the past thirty years.

          When is it supposed to happen?

          Are they running behind schedule or something?

          If it's going to happen it has to be some of the WORST planning ever.

    3. 2besure profile image83
      2besureposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      True habee!  So true!

  3. Stacie L profile image89
    Stacie Lposted 3 years ago

    Where I now live, anyone can go to the flea market and pick up a gun, no questions asked. The rural areas are very lenient and there doesn't appear to be much in the way of regulations. I have lived in other metropolitan areas of the country where gun regs were much more enforced.
    Anyone can get a gun if they want it.-regulations or not. People need to police each other or report suspicious activity to the authorities. I don't know what the answer is but taking away guns from everyone is not.

    1. PrettyPanther profile image85
      PrettyPantherposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      I do not advocate taking away guns from everyone and I never will.  Automatic weapons that hold 30, 50, 100 bullets are not recreational toys, nor are they necessary for hunting or self-defense.  I'm simply saying it is time to stop this nonsense and quit denying we have a gun problem here in the U.S.

      1. 60
        retief2000posted 3 years ago in reply to this

        This is where the confusion arises.  An armed citizen is a guarantor of his own liberty against attack from a tyrannical government.  The Second Amendment is about high capacity, high power, military style fire arms in so far as those are the weapons used free citizens against tyrants.  The authors of the Constitution did not trust government to remain a perfect protector of American liberty and therefore invested in the individual the ability to defend himself against a government that had drifted toward tyranny.

        The problem is hardly in the weapon but in the individuals who have surrendered their natural right of self defense to the agents of the state, exclusively.  We learned from the Sandy Hook shooting that the police could not arrive in time to stop the shooter and that those present were brave enough and quick witted enough to have done so if they had been armed.  The lesson we should take from Sandy Hook is that school principals and teachers are willing to charge armed gun men with their bare hands and surrender their lives to protect their precious students.  We are so immoral as a nation to insist that they continue to do this without a chance of surviving or stopping the gunman.

        Perhaps if someone had been armed during any of the mass shootings you site there would not have been a mass shooting but rather a confronted gunman who committed suicide.  It is the disarming and subduing of the American citizen that has facilitated mass shootings and regular street crime.  Evil is real.  Criminals don't care what rules anyone would make and the only real protection you have is you.

        By the way, the Aurora theater shooter passed several theaters that were much closer and larger because they did not declare themselves "gun free" zones.  Just in case his gun attack wasn't violent and disturbing enough he also booby trapped his apartment.  Nidal Hassan, Muslim extremist engaged in a terrorist attack(regardless of the politically correct labeling by the corrupt Holder Justice Department), targeted the part of the fort where soldiers were not permitted to be armed.  These incidents are not by accident.

        So what is the solution?  An armed and prepared citizenry.  If Andreas Breivik had encountered one well armed well trained adult in the dark on the island where he slaughtered so many innocent young people his plot could have been thwarted.   Breivik killed 8 with bombs and then killed 69 people, mostly teenagers - in Norway.

        If one wishes to empower the government to allow weapons ownership than it empowers it to disallow it, as well.  Once awarded a power government will use it.  Governments always seek greater control and greater authority.  An armed and independent citizen is a threat to a government that seeks plenary power and an end to liberty - as all governments would if allowed.  That is why the 2nd Amendment limits governments power over the ownership of arms and why certain political "philosophies" seek to remove that "threat" to a fair, just, stable, generous national, peoples government of the 99%.

        1. LucidDreams profile image82
          LucidDreamsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Wow, you are so out of touch it's not even funny! As if armed cicitzens could stop the government of the United States fron taking over whatever they choose. Think for a moment, can you imagine how many more deaths would have been possible if a bunch of armed citizens started shooting crazily in a theater? It's not like they would have been prepared for a guy with an automatic weapon to start firing on the crowd while they are watching a movie! There would be no time. This is the same junk gun advocates constantly spit out and it make no sense whatsoever!

          There is no confusion. A tyranical government(if it was the USA) is not going to give you the option of fighting back with a rifle, what a joke!

          1. 60
            retief2000posted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Bamboo traps and AK-47s did a pretty fair job against the deployed military might of the United States in Vietnam.  Perhaps a familiarity with Sun Tzu would help.  As for out of touch, it is interesting how those who know little about firearms and their use are experts in human behavior when legally carrying a fire arm and when under fire.  Thanks, yours is a new perspective that I am sure have over looked.

  4. peeples profile image88
    peeplesposted 3 years ago

    Aug 12, 2010 – Authorities arrested Elias Abuelazam in the cross-country case of 20 vicious stabbings

    "Child-murderer, torture-killer, and rapist known as "La Bestia" ("The Beast"). Convicted of killing 138 victims but suspected of murdering over 400 victims, mostly street children. Sentenced to 1,853 years but could only be imprisoned for 30 which was reduced to 22 after aiding investigators" Throats slit No guns

    "Child-murderer, believed to have possibly raped and killed over 150 victims, primarily young virgin girls. Confessed to killing 72 victims and incarcerated with Pedro Alonso Lopez. Considered to be intelligent and believed to have been motivated to kill from his stepmother abusing him as a child. He strangled young girls in Colombia and was arrested, but he escaped from prison and he started killing in Ecuador; rearrested in 1989, he was killed in jail." Again no guns

    "Truck painter who confessed to killing 71 women. The United States' most prolific serial killer; also known as The Green River Killer. He almost exclusively targeted escorts from Seattle. Once there, he would proposition a prostitute, drive to the banks of the Green River, and strangle her to death. After murdering his victim he would dump her body near the nearby water. Suspected of killing over 90 victims, confessed to 71, convicted of 48" Again No Guns

    "America's first "post-modern" serial killer due to his charisma and good looks. Bundy officially confessed to 30 homicides, but has confessed to killing 35-36 women in the past, and some estimates run upwards of 100 or more. Infamous for escaping from prison twice and murdering multiple victims in one day; sometimes abducting women from the same location within hours of one another."

    "Known to have murdered a minimum of 33 teenage boys and young men between 1972 and 1978, 26 of whom he buried in the crawl space of his Chicago home. Gacy was known as the "Killer Clown" due to the fact he often entertained children at social events dressed in a self devised clown costume. Gacy was executed in 1994" Weapon Used- Rope

    "Corll was responsible for the Houston Mass Murders and was murdered by accomplice Elmer Wayne Henley when Corll turned on him. Corll is responsible for the torture and murder of young boys in Pasadena, Tx and elsewhere in southeast Texas." Weapon used hands

    "Bonin and three accomplices are known to have murdered a minimum of 21 youths aged between 12 and 19 in and around Los Angeles. As the majority of his victims were discarded alongside various southern California freeways, Bonin became known as the Freeway Killer. Bonin was convicted of 14 of the freeway murders and was executed in 1996" Again No guns

    My point to this which could go on and on is that if you take away one thing another will be used. There isn't anything out there that a truly messed up person can't find a way of doing the same amount of damamge with. The highest numbers of victims in killings actually come from other wepons or hands not guns. These situations are tragic, but we need to be looking at the cause not the weapon they chose.

    1. PrettyPanther profile image85
      PrettyPantherposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      We need to take a comprehensive, sensible approach.  I am not anti-gun, but the idea that we can't do more is not acceptable.

      1. peeples profile image88
        peeplesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        I agree we should do more. There should be more requirements before someone can own a gun. I just don't think taking them away will solve anything.

        1. PrettyPanther profile image85
          PrettyPantherposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Again, I said nothing about taking away all guns.  Why do so many people leap to that assessment?

          1. 0
            JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            I don't agree with you that we should take away 'assault rifles'.

            1. PrettyPanther profile image85
              PrettyPantherposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              I didn't even say we should take away all assault rifles.  Again, why can't we have a discussion about guns without the pro-gun ideologues assuming the worst?

              1. wilderness profile image95
                wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                To answer that particular question; probably because of the anti-gun ideologues.  I can just see the reaction after getting an assault weapon ban through - the licking of lips, cheering and prompt moving on to the next target of handguns or rifles.  They don't accept compromise except as a first step of the ultimate goal and the "pro-gun ideologues" know this.  The obvious reaction, then, is to refuse any compromise at all and not allow that first step. 

                It's how our political system works today - there is no real compromise ever offered.  Just the appearance of compromise and then ask for another - keep chipping away until the final goal is reached.

                1. PrettyPanther profile image85
                  PrettyPantherposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Sorry, but why does everything have to be about who is winning?  We have a serious problem.  Let's deal with it rationally and stop with the turf wars.  It's sick, sick, sick.

                  1. wilderness profile image95
                    wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    You asked why pro-gun ideologues would fight the idea.  The reason is that want to keep their guns and recognize that "give an inch, give a mile" is what is behind cries to remove even the smallest part of a personal arsenal. 

                    Understanding that, I still agree with you - there is no acceptable reason to keep assault capable weapons in the home.  It's one small part of the anti gun crowds desire to eliminate all guns that I won't argue with and would happily accede to; let that battle continue somewhere else.

                    Mind you, I'm not certain at all that it would affect anything as it only takes a second or two to flip another clip in, but it can't hurt and I just see no reason at all to own these weapons (or at least the large ammunition clips).

              2. rhamson profile image75
                rhamsonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                I think more and more people don't trust the government to solve a problem by taking away a right. The governmnet has proven time again that they don't stop at just one right. If there is an advantage that can be made by the government by taking away a right they will step up to the plate and take it farther. Do I believe you need a weapon capable of discharging three hundred rounds in a minute? Of course not but having the discussion about regulations has to begin from common ground. Unfortunately we the people lack this ability with the current political climate from which we operate.

                1. LiamBean profile image90
                  LiamBeanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Give some examples.

              3. GNelson profile image83
                GNelsonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                They believe that their second admendment rights trump your first admendment rights.  I like my guns but I don't like what is happening here in America.

                1. 61
                  whoisitposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Our 2nd amendment right is equal to our 1st amendment right and our 3rd,4th,5th.

                  1. GNelson profile image83
                    GNelsonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Yes it is but the NRA doesn't want to hear that!

            2. habee profile image91
              habeeposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Why do you think we need semi-auto weapons that can hold long banana clips? I'm interested in your perspective. I've never needed one for hunting, target shooting, skeet shooting, or even for killing a wad of cottonmouths. The one time I really needed to use a gun in order to protect my small children, my 12-gauge Wingmaster sufficed. What am I missing?

              In no way, shape, or form do I think all guns should be taken away. The thing is, law-abiding citizens seem to have the most trouble buying guns because they do so legally. The last firearm I bought was a .308 rifle, and I had to fill out all sorts of papers. Even if I thought guns should be illegal in the US, which I DON'T, I think it would be an impossible task. We share a border with Mexico.

              I think guns should be relatively easy for sane, law-abiding citizens to procure, but they should be harder to obtain illegally. A person's mental stability should be assessed, too. No, that won't stop all the crazies from acquiring guns, but maybe it would catch some of them.

              1. Quilligrapher profile image91
                Quilligrapherposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Greetings, Habee.

                You asked, “Why do you think we need semi-auto weapons that can hold long banana clips?” I thought your question was valid and I, too, would be interested in hearing a reply. Too bad, no one has a perspective they are willing to share.
                http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg

              2. 0
                JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Sorry habee, I missed much of this thread for some reason. Just a few thoughts, this is in no way thorough. Although, I'll post more detail to someone who I know will respect what I say rather than simply attack back smile

                The first thing I will say, is the term 'assault weapon', or even 'semi-auto weapon', are used so vaguely and ambiguously, that it's difficult to have meaningful discussion without defining them.

                Is a weapon bad for being semi-automatic, or for holding lots of bullets? I have my grandpa's .22 which holds something like 15-20 bullets(been years since I used it). It's pump-action, but I can operate it just as quickly as a semi-automatic. Is that a gun that isn't needed? What about an AR-15 chambered in .22? Is that worse than the pump-action that I have?

                That being said... a 12-gauge is often an amazing weapon for self-defense, although not always the best. A rifle fills roles that a shotgun can't, and I personally want to have a tool to use in any situation. That requires a shotgun, a handgun, and a rifle, at a minimum.

                The second amendment was designed to, among other things, ensure that the populace had access to the same kinds of arms as the government, to serve as a final balance of power. People like to argue that such a scenario would never play out again, but look around. Revolutions still happen. Our nation is suffering, and we could easily see the collapse of the USD within our lifetimes. There are so many possible scenarios that could lead to mass violence, revolution, anarchy, or even attempted dictatorship. In any such situation, a shotgun or handgun quickly becomes a very ineffective tool.

                I won't bother with hunting/hobby/sport, because only pro-gun people care about that. Suffice it to say, for self-defense, a semi-automatic rifle, along with correct knowledge and training, can be the most effective all-around tool. I simply advocate shotguns more because they are cheaper, easier to buy, and much less complicated.

                As to magazine capacity... 30 is the standard... that's what the guns were designed for. Really though, it's just a spring. We can't have magazine-loaded weapons and effectively ban high-capacity magazines. The good thing is, if someone tries to use a 100-bullet beta mag to shoot up a theater, unless he has thoroughly tested that particular mag in his particular gun with a variety of ammunition to find one that will cycle reliably, it will likely jam the gun before it gets through 10 bullets.

                Did you know that more people are murdered every year with hands and fists, than with ALL rifles(ARs and hunting rifles)? It's mostly an emotional topic, the scary-black-rifle syndrome.

                I guess that's enough for now smile

                1. PrettyPanther profile image85
                  PrettyPantherposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  "The second amendment was designed to, among other things, ensure that the populace had access to the same kinds of arms as the government, to serve as a final balance of power."

                  The level of firepower our government possesses has grown to astronomical proportions.  There is no way the populace can or should have access to the same kinds of arms as our government now has. Unfortunately, the balance of power tipped a long time ago, and not in favor of the populace.  So, the question becomes, where do you draw the line.

          2. peeples profile image88
            peeplesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            I didn't leap to anything, I simply said MY opinion. I also don't think taking away assault rifles will do anything.

        2. Ralph Deeds profile image70
          Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Assault weapon sales should be limited to military purposes.

    2. Jeff Berndt profile image90
      Jeff Berndtposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      "Weapon Used- Rope...Weapon used hands...My point to this which could go on and on is that if you take away one thing another will be used."
      Right. That's why we're constantly hearing about people walking into a crowded area with a length of rope and strangling a couple dozen people to death before hanging themselves. roll

      What an eye-pokingly, flat-EEG-having, mouth-breathingly, bleach-drinkingly stupid argument.
      Everyone who read that galacticly stupid argument might just be stupider for having read it.

      I think an argument this stupid deserves its own monument: perhaps a statue of what a mass-roping might look like?

      Sheesh.

      Now, this is not to say that banning guns is a good idea. I don't think it is. But arguments like the one above are so freaking stupid. They do nothing to address the real problem, and deliberately ignore the fact that guns are much more efficient killing tools than knives, hands, or (oh, for crissakes) rope.

      Like cars, guns are tools. Like cars, guns can be misused. And like cars, there are tools other than guns that will help you to do what guns are for (which is killing living things). But just because roller skates help you move from place to place, that doesn't mean that in the absence of cars, people would be able to travel just as quickly and efficiently on roller skates. And likewise, just because rope (oh, for the love of God! I can't even believe the stupidity of this argument...) can be used to kill people, that doesn't mean that in the absence of guns, people will be able to kill just as quickly and efficiently with (oh, for for the love of Pete!) rope.


      *Sigh*
      Okay, now I'm gonna go read A Brief History of Time and The Elegant Universe in an attempt to push the stupid residue from that last post out of my brain.

      roll

      1. PrettyPanther profile image85
        PrettyPantherposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Thank you.  I didn't have the patience to reply to that nonsense.

      2. peeples profile image88
        peeplesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        "I think an argument this stupid deserves its own momument" We have had more cases of mass killers who killed without guns than with. It's statistics not an argument. Most of those listed killed more with whatever weapon they used than any mass shooter in American history.

        1. Marcy Goodfleisch profile image93
          Marcy Goodfleischposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Read my comment above about 'mass killers' vs 'serial killers.'  They are not the same thing.

      3. A Troubled Man profile image59
        A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        I had to go back through the OP and substitute the words guns/weapons for the word cars, and found it to be equally valid.

        1. Don W profile image83
          Don Wposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Can we stop all the crap arguments equating guns to cars.

          Guns are designed and created specifically and solely for the purpose of killing and injuring living things as quickly as possible. There is no incentive for manufacturers to make guns safe. If you created a gun that could not kill or injure living things it would not be a gun. It would be a paperweight. Manufacturers employ new technological advances to make guns as destructive as possible. The reason d'etre for a gun is literally to cause destruction. Destruction is its primary function.

          Cars are designed and created specifically for the purpose of transporting people and things from A to B as quickly and safely as possible. There is every incentive for manufacturers to make cars as safe as possible. If you created a car that significantly reduced associated risks, it would still be a car (and possibly be more desirable). Manufacturers employ new technological advances to make cars as safe as possible. The reason d'etre for cars is anything but to cause harm. Harm is an undesirable by-product of its operation.

          Guns and cars are different both in the literal sense, and in the philosophical sense, and arguents equating the two are old, tired and idiotic.

          1. Ralph Deeds profile image70
            Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            +++

        2. Jeff Berndt profile image90
          Jeff Berndtposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          "I had to go back through the OP and substitute the words guns/weapons for the word cars, and found it to be equally valid."

          H'mmm:
          If everyone had their own car, there would be fewer car-related deaths.

          Yes, if you substitute "gun" for "car," it would be equally valid statement. roll

          1. A Troubled Man profile image59
            A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            You're right, that one doesn't work.

    3. Marcy Goodfleisch profile image93
      Marcy Goodfleischposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      The examples you list here are NOT mass murderers, they are serial killers.  There's a difference.  Serial killers are defined as those who kill three or more people in separate events (a series of events, hence the term 'serial' killer).  Mass murderers are different - they kill multiple victims at one time. A "mass" of people has been killed, so it's called a Mass Murder.

      Serial killers can use any number of weapons or methods of killing. The big difference between them and mass murderers is that they kill over and over and over, one at a time.

      FYI - I teach a course about Serial Killers at a university, and my graduate work was about sociopathic behaviors in certain types of cinema.

      1. tirelesstraveler profile image87
        tirelesstravelerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Interesting how violence in cinema is never linked to real life violence despite the studies that prove otherwise.

    4. 0
      Motown2Chitownposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      +1

      Well said.

    5. floridawriter profile image59
      floridawriterposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Firearms are the single most often used weapon in violent crime. This fact is according to the FBI's Uniform Crime Reports.

      "Information collected regarding type of weapon showed that firearms were used in 67.7 percent of the nation’s murders, 41.3 percent of robberies, and 21.2 percent of aggravated assaults."
      Source: http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/cr … lent-crime

      Do you have a reliable source that says something else? If so, I'd like to see it.

      1. Ralph Deeds profile image70
        Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        True. Moreover, there are all kinds of shootings--accidental, gangs,suicides, bar fights, road rage--that result from widespread gun ownership. Sorry, guess I'm off topic.  The mental health issue may be the most difficult one to deal with. But that does't mean we shouldn't try.

  5. PrettyPanther profile image85
    PrettyPantherposted 3 years ago

    One idea:  Why can't we register guns just like we do cars?  Registration is required to be in the same location as your gun at all times, must be renewed yearly for a fee with the gun produced at the time of registration; if the gun is sold, sale must be reported and new owner must pass all registration requirements before taking possession.  These are just off the top of my head, but I don't see why any law-abiding gun owner should object to stringent regulations on guns.

    1. 0
      JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      What good is that going to do?

      Registration forms won't stop anyone from using a gun they already own. They won't stop someone from using a gun they stole. They won't stop someone from using a gun they bought off the black market.

      1. PrettyPanther profile image85
        PrettyPantherposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        What good do vehicle registrations do? 

        roll

        Nothing is perfect, Jaxson, so yeah, let's just throw our hands up in the air and support gun anarchy in the name of freedom.

        1. 0
          JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          I'm not saying there's nothing we can do, but that doesn't mean that any idea is a good idea.

          1. PrettyPanther profile image85
            PrettyPantherposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Sure, not every idea is a good one, but we have to start the conversation and listen and stop automatically dismissing everything as not going to work.  It will take brains, perseverance, and thought.  Let's just get it done and stop fighting over trivial fears about losing the freedom to shoot 50 rounds of ammo for personal amusement.

      2. LucidDreams profile image82
        LucidDreamsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        So you are completely against any sort of gun control. Well, Guess if you have a say, things will just keep happening as usual, Mass shootings every month!

    2. wilderness profile image95
      wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Now that one I would fight tooth and toenail.  Not only will I not pay to keep my second amendment rights I will absolutely NOT notify Uncle Sam that I have a weapon so that when the ideologues do finally get around to confiscating them all they know where to come.

      1. Paul Wingert profile image79
        Paul Wingertposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        The Supreme Court in 2008 agreed that indiviuals can keep and bear arms, however, they did say that the government can restrict and regulate them. That's why you or I cannot legally own a rocket launcher or hand grenades. Origionally the second amendment was for members of the militia to keep and bear arms, not the individual.

  6. rebekahELLE profile image91
    rebekahELLEposted 3 years ago

    I think this is not the mindset at all.  As PP said, it's not about winning.  How many more horrific school shootings do you want to mourn?  Why the assault weapon ban was reinstated, I'm not sure.  There is a bill being crafted, ready to present on the first day of the new session.  It was discussed this morning on Meet the Press.

    "It will ban the sale, the transfer, the importation and the possession, not retroactively, but prospectively," and ban the sale of clips of more than ten bullets, Feinstein said. "The purpose of this bill is to get... weapons of war off the streets."

  7. Marcy Goodfleisch profile image93
    Marcy Goodfleischposted 3 years ago

    Okay - here's a new piece of insanity - on the news just now - a church in Newtown Connecticut (where the shootings were) has been evacuated & armed law enforcement officials converged on it.  No word yet on why, or which church, etc.  And of course it could be some sort of false alarm.

    That poor town . . .

    1. Marcy Goodfleisch profile image93
      Marcy Goodfleischposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Update on the church evacuation - it was a Catholic church, and after police investigated, they found nothing. I think there may have been a report of a threat or something. I'm thankful, of course, that nothing was found, but sad that this stressed community had a scare like that on top of Friday's events.

  8. Ralph Deeds profile image70
    Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago

    Here's a thoughtful op-ed by Nicholas Kristof from today's NYTimes:

    " ...The fundamental reason kids are dying in massacres like this one is not that we have lunatics or criminals — all countries have them — but that we suffer from a political failure to regulate guns.

    "Children ages 5 to 14 in America are 13 times as likely to be murdered with guns as children in other industrialized countries, according to David Hemenway, a public health specialist at Harvard who has written an excellent book on gun violence.

    "So let’s treat firearms rationally as the center of a public health crisis that claims one life every 20 minutes. The United States realistically isn’t going to ban guns, but we can take steps to reduce the carnage...."

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/16/opini … ef=opinion

    1. wilderness profile image95
      wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Do you remember this?

      http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/ju … ng-breivik

      It seems that strict gun controls aren't the answer, either.

      1. Ralph Deeds profile image70
        Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Yes, I do remember Breivik. It was even worse than similar tragedies in the U.S. But gun mayhem in most of the rest of the civilized world is less prevalent than in the United States. We could do worse than looking to Canada which is much more successful in regulating firearms than the U.S.

        1. wilderness profile image95
          wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          I dunno, Ralph.  bBerean brought up a good point in this thread, that if guns aren't around bombs are.

          I remember seeing a while back where an elderly woman, mad at her bank (or morgage company or something) had her son program the address into the car GPS, found the place, got a running start and smashed through the wall.

          If we take away the assault rifles (or all guns) is that next?  Maybe with a few gallons of diesel and fertilizer inside?  Better an assault rifle!

          As bBerean says, neither the problem nor the solution is in the tool being used, it's in the mind behind it.  We simply have to get the mentally ill out of society somehow - the damage being done is unacceptable.

          1. LucidDreams profile image82
            LucidDreamsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Better an assault rifle? Are you serious man? So in your theory, since these same people could potentially start using bombs, don't take away assault rifles because bombs are worse.
            Are you an NRA member because that soudns an awful lot like the junk that they use to scare people into buying more guns.

  9. bBerean profile image59
    bBereanposted 3 years ago

    Careful what you wish for.  Consider the last two high profile cases...Aurora and Newtown.  In both cases the shooters were determined, and far from stupid.  You will never keep those bent on evil from procuring their guns of choice if they want to, but if you do manage to make it difficult enough to obtain them, what do you suppose they will do?  Wring their hands, shake their heads and say "gosh darn I wish I could kill people but I can't get my hands on a gun"? 

    No, they will go to bombs.  Bombs that can be made from household goods that will never be banned.  Bombs that result in many deaths in a fraction of a second and don't care who the targets are.  In both cases cited they were bent on killing as many as possible, and did so as quickly as they could...but not as quickly or efficiently as a bomb.  How many would have made it out of that theater if that had been the weapon of choice? 

    It is good to try to find ways to stop these incidents, or mitigate their damage, but forcing those bent on destruction to up their game with more efficient means may not be the answer.  I know I am not offering any answers here, and I think trying to find some is a good idea.  Blaming the tools and the method is not the solution.

    1. wilderness profile image95
      wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Good point.  The death toll from insane gun users on a rampage pales beside that of bombers.

      Blaming and eliminating the tool isn't going to do much good.  Other solutions are needed.

  10. 0
    JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago

    Funny thing, we still don't know(last time I checked) if the Aurora shooter really had body armor, how much of it, or what type. Too many rumors and quasi-facts associated with these stories.

    1. LucidDreams profile image82
      LucidDreamsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      You guys are all right! Lets just keep the guns. In fact, let's do all we can to promote them so the 300 million guns in America jumps to a billion,. I am sure we will all be safer then! We should all be packin, all the time. That way, just in case somebody happens to come in with an assault rifle we can have a good ol shoot out. If were really lucky, it will be in a place with lots of people. I'm sure with this line of thought that nobody could ever get hurt. That's a great point!

  11. LiamBean profile image90
    LiamBeanposted 3 years ago
  12. LucidDreams profile image82
    LucidDreamsposted 3 years ago

    Amazing..................just what we need, more guns!

    Are Americans really this out of touch? Yep!

    Tim Daniels, owner of The Hock Shop in Port Huron, said he’s seen a significant increase in sales of high magazine rifles and AR-15s since Friday’s shooting. The same goes for many local gun shops.

    “We’re going to be sold out by the end of today or tomorrow,” Daniels said Tuesday morning.

    http://www.thetimesherald.com/article/2 … ult-rifles

  13. Kramar profile image66
    Kramarposted 3 years ago

    Right on

  14. LiamBean profile image90
    LiamBeanposted 3 years ago

    This is China's official statement (translated of course) regarding the massacre in Sandy Hook.

    “The United States has mighty strength in human, financial and material resources to exert effective control over violent crimes, However, its society is chronically suffering from violent crimes, and its citizens’ lives, properties and personal security are in lack of proper protection.”

    Bear in mind the Chinese government is almost completely silent on the recent knife attack in Chenpeng Village’s Wanquan Elementary School, where twenty three children were attacked by a man wielding a knife*.

    * I saw a short segment of video from the school's security camera. This "knife" is the Chinese equivalent of a meat cleaver. He routinely went for these children's heads!

  15. LiamBean profile image90
    LiamBeanposted 3 years ago

    Has anyone bothered to run the numbers on "a cop in every school?"

    1. Silva Hayes profile image94
      Silva Hayesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      The numbers I've seen several places online are:
      1 police officer on guard duty in every public school:  $5 billion
      compared to war on drugs 2012:  $39 billion
      compared to occupation of Afghanistan:  $111 billion

      1. LiamBean profile image90
        LiamBeanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Close 98,000 + public schools (and that many officers) at $50,000 per year for a properly experienced officer. Right around four billion, nine hundred eighty million dollars.

        Of course Columbine had an officer, a sheriff's deputy if I remember. I cannot determine what happened to him when the shooting started. I can tell you he was not one of those killed.

        1. Jeff Berndt profile image90
          Jeff Berndtposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          He actually discharged his firearm at one of the shooters, from extreme range,  without hitting the shooter, and then the deputy lost sight of the shooter.

          1. LiamBean profile image90
            LiamBeanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Uh huh. And why wasn't he in the school?

    2. Kramar profile image66
      Kramarposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      The cost of police protection does not have to cost one additional dollar. A cop in every school should not imply  a newly hired officer. It could mean a repositioning  or re deployment of existing forces from a precinct to a "Public Safety Center" at the schools. See my recent post on the matter.

      1. LiamBean profile image90
        LiamBeanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        So, by your reasoning, an officer required to be stationed at a school from say 9AM to 3PM can split his or her time between school duty and regular duty. What about lunch breaks?

        So I'm not sure how you can rationalize "repositioning or re-deployment" when the time an officer would be required to stay at the school is the better part of a duty day.

        I agree with your "newly hired officer" assessment.  I would most certainly not want a trainee or fresh recruit guarding my children. Still an experienced officer taken off of regular duty would require that now empty position to be filled somehow. And with 98,817 public schools (as of 2010) that's a lot of personnel.

      2. Jeff Berndt profile image90
        Jeff Berndtposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Moving a cop to school duty from street duty will leave the street duty undone. Doesn't seem like a great idea to me unless we're willing to hire another officer to do the street duty that's not getting done by each guy who got moved to the school beat.

        This is one of several (hilarious!) paradoxes in the "Armed guard in every school" plan:
        1) Most gun-rights-ers are paranoid of government power, yet they want to put an armed agent of the government in every school building?
        2) Most gun-rights-ers are against taxes (all taxes, no matter what they pay for). Are they willing to pay extra taxes to fund the recruitment, training, and deployment of nearly 100,000 new police officers nationwide?
        2)a) Most gun-rights-ers are against deficit spending (except when it pays for blowing up foreign-looking people on the other side of the planet). If they aren't willing to pay more in taxes to support the cop-in-every-school plan, are they willing to approve deficit spending to pay for it (even though the thing that goes bang will theoretically be going bang in their own backyard)?
        3) Most gun-rights-ers are union-haters, too, but most cops are members of a police officers' union (NAPO or IUPA). Are they going to be okay with nearly 100K new unionized government employees?

        Hilarious.

        1. Ralph Deeds profile image70
          Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          True. Moreover, I'm skeptical about introducing police into school because of the danger that ordinary disciplinary matters traditionally handled by teachers and administrators may be turned into juvenile criminal issues.

          1. LiamBean profile image90
            LiamBeanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Let us be honest here. If having a cop in school was the answer Columbine would not have happened.

            1. Ralph Deeds profile image70
              Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              +++

  16. Dontei profile image80
    Donteiposted 3 years ago

    It would be nice to have the information on the weapons and how they were obtained in your sites incidents. Besides that, guns  are just objects, they don't  shoot themselves. There has always  been a battle in this country.  Liberty vs Safety. There have been many cases when these
    Weapons have actually saved lives in self defense. I'm all for maybe a couple more courses and qualifications when purchasing guns. On the other hand there is always a political agenda coinciding with Every Thing going on in this country.  It's disgusting to be perfectly hounest.

    1. LiamBean profile image90
      LiamBeanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      I'm not sure how the lives of twenty six and seven year olds qualifies as "political agenda." Perhaps you can enlighten the rest of us.

  17. Dontei profile image80
    Donteiposted 3 years ago

    cited* incidents. I'm writing this on an iPhone and the auto correct is lovely.

  18. LucidDreams profile image82
    LucidDreamsposted 3 years ago

    Another jerk shoots 5 people including 4 firemen and 1 police officer!  2 FIREMEN WERE KILLED! Several houses burn down as the firemen could not help while emergency services arrived to cart off the wounded and dead. Disgusting!

    This is practically weekly folks and if you count the NON MASS MURDERS it's daily!

    http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/24/us/new-yo … index.html

  19. surrealteen profile image60
    surrealteenposted 3 years ago

    If the mentally unstable people have the desire to cause harm, then they will do so with/without guns. With the school shooting in Newtown, CT, Adam Lanza (an insane man who was not allowed BY LAW to own guns, ahem, which he managed to get anyway. He broke the law, and more LAWS aren't going to stop murderers) commit suicide.

    I do not want to offend anybody, and this is my opinion, although I am not alone in thinking this.

    Anyway, Lanza killed himself. Had he not had a gun, he might have just made himself a bomb and blown up the entire school along with himself. You can bet there would be a whole lot more than 27 dead, then. Yes, what happened is disturbing and wrong. However, taking away guns is not going to solve this, or even make it better.

    I agree in that we should try to enforce and uphold the laws to prevent the mentally unstable from acquiring assault weapons, but there are many responsible gun owners who should not be denied their Constitutional rights to own and bear arms.

  20. LiamBean profile image90
    LiamBeanposted 3 years ago

    Merry Christmas to All

  21. LucidDreams profile image82
    LucidDreamsposted 3 years ago

    Merry Christmas!

    1. Ralph Deeds profile image70
      Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Same to Liam and Lucid and everyone!

      1. LucidDreams profile image82
        LucidDreamsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Thank you Ralph, have a wonderful day!

  22. LiamBean profile image90
    LiamBeanposted 3 years ago

    This really can't wait. It will be old news tomorrow so I'm going to post it now. Once I assign the attribution I'm sure some heads will explode. But it's necessary.

    "...I would like to propose that while all of the above will certainly reduce gun deaths (ask Mayor Bloomberg -- it is virtually impossible to buy a handgun in New York City and the result is the number of murders per year has gone from 2,200 to under 400), it won't really bring about an end to these mass slayings and it will not address the core problem we have. Connecticut had one of the strongest gun laws in the country. That did nothing to prevent the murders of 20 small children on December 14th.

    "In fact, let's be clear about Newtown: the killer had no criminal record so he would never have shown up on a background check. All of the guns he used were legally purchased. None fit the legal description of an "assault" weapon. The killer seemed to have mental problems and his mother had him seek help, but that was worthless. As for security measures, the Sandy Hook school was locked down and buttoned up BEFORE the killer showed up that morning. Drills had been held for just such an incident. A lot of good that did.

    "And here's the dirty little fact none of us liberals want to discuss: The killer only ceased his slaughter when he saw that cops were swarming onto the school grounds -- i.e, the men with the guns. When he saw the guns a-coming, he stopped the bloodshed and killed himself. Guns on police officers prevented another 20 or 40 or 100 deaths from happening. Guns sometimes work. (Then again, there was an armed deputy sheriff at Columbine High School the day of that massacre and he couldn't/didn't stop it.)"
       --- Michael Moore

    From this article by Michael Moore. Yes, the very same Michael Moore of "Bowling for Columbine."

    Celebrating the Prince of Peace in the Land of Guns

  23. LiamBean profile image90
    LiamBeanposted 3 years ago

    Woman arrested for supplying the Webster NY shooter with fire-arms.

    http://news.yahoo.com/ny-woman-arrested … 32926.html

    1. Ralph Deeds profile image70
      Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      I hope they make an example for her and close the loophole.

      1. LiamBean profile image90
        LiamBeanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        As usual there are complications. She's claiming the weapons were stolen.

  24. Silva Hayes profile image94
    Silva Hayesposted 3 years ago

    "Gun owners in suburban New York are incensed after a local newspaper, the Journal News, published an interactive Google map showing their names and addresses.

    The Journal News received the data, which includes the identities of every registered handgun owner in Rockland and Westchester, via a Freedom of Information Act request. (Data on gun owners in Putnam County is still being compiled, the paper said.)"

    Read more: http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/12/26/out … z2GTAdAudm

    I'm outraged about this; what do you all think?

    1. LiamBean profile image90
      LiamBeanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      If it is a matter of public record, and obviously it is, why the outrage?

      1. wilderness profile image95
        wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        If it is, and it would seem to be, then knowledge of what is inside your house is available to all.  Does that sound reasonable? 

        It is none of my neighbors business what (legal) things are inside my home, and it is even less that of the thieves we find everywhere.  Or should we require registration of all jewelry and cash, publishing the location for all to see?  Tell everyone that you're a coin collector, or keep a few pounds of bullion behind those curtains?  Where do you stop?

        1. LiamBean profile image90
          LiamBeanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          It is part of the public record. They got that information exactly the way you would if you were so inclined.

          I think one good place to stop is to quit seeing potential tyranny everywhere you look. Our government can't even avoid the so called fiscal cliff and they have time to plot making a slave of you?

          Please!

          And let me say this once more because no one seems able to respond. I've been hearing about this potential "take over" for decades. Why hasn't it happened yet? Seems like incredible bad planning to me, that or <gasp> there are no such plans.

          1. wilderness profile image95
            wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            ??  You lost me with this.  What has that got to do with requiring that I tell the govt. what I have in my home and then them promptly making that information public to anyone that asks?

            Can you point to why my neighbor will be told that I have guns but not that you have jewelry or bullion?  Of should we give an itemized list each year of everything?

        2. LiamBean profile image90
          LiamBeanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          I would think a criminal would look at this list and say "Well, there's a home I won't rob. I might get shot."

  25. A Driveby Quipper profile image60
    A Driveby Quipperposted 3 years ago

    In the USA, over 40.000 people a year protect themselves successfully with a fire arm. That includes the 84 year old woman in Cocoa, Florida who shot an intruder in her home. I suppose you would have her call you for help instead.

    1. Silva Hayes profile image94
      Silva Hayesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      To clarify my post (in case you are addressing me, Mr. Quipper), I am outraged that a newspaper would print the names and addresses of owners of legally purchased handguns.  This mainly serves as an aide to burglars - they can choose to break into the gun owner's homes and steal their weapons, or they can choose to break into the non-gun-owner's homes, knowing they are not at risk of being shot.  What the newspaper did may technically be legal, since this information is in the public domain, but I do not think it was a socially responsible act.

      1. A Driveby Quipper profile image60
        A Driveby Quipperposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        I must have stuck this reply on the wrong post, or failed to clarify who I was addressing. I have already forgotten. Gun control is just another form of control that they want over us. How about focusing more on economic control, and human relations? You know, the real problem.

        1. LiamBean profile image90
          LiamBeanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          How about requiring everyone who purchases a fire-arm to pass a background check regardless of how the weapon is purchased? It could even be set up to protect the identity of the seller.

          Since no other steps seem acceptable this should be the bare minimum.

          Again I'll ask this. If the firearm owners are a matter of public record, and they are, why the anger. Couldn't a criminal look that up too? I'd say he or she could.

          1. livewithrichard profile image84
            livewithrichardposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            You can't just look at the public record and take that information out of the context in which it was delivered. Placing all those names and addresses on a map and then publishing it in such a public manner was an implication that those law abiding gun owners are somehow responsible for all the gun violence that is occurring.

            1. LucidDreams profile image82
              LucidDreamsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              I don't agree with you on much as far as guns go, this though was wrong I believe and can only do more harm then good.

          2. A Driveby Quipper profile image60
            A Driveby Quipperposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            There goes my permit.

          3. 60
            retief2000posted 3 years ago in reply to this

            A patient and resourceful individual might do this but those are not usually the characteristics of the typical criminal.  I often tell people that if I were to turn to a life of crime I would move from my home state where even liberal Democrats are known to be armed to Illinois or New York where wealthy liberals live in parochial enclaves in the false belief that will protect them against a patient, resourceful armed man.  But, happily, crime is just not my style.

    2. LucidDreams profile image82
      LucidDreamsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Hey Quipper
      Based on the PRO GUN websites the number is actually higher but who really knows. The fact is, they fail to mention that close to 3,000 children die each year in the USA because of guns in homes. This is homicides, suicides and accidents. Not to mention that it kind of seems like a trend lately to grab an assault rifle and go kill some people because of depression.

      1. A Driveby Quipper profile image60
        A Driveby Quipperposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Answer me this. What is the real reason you and yours don't want me to have a gun?

      2. wilderness profile image95
        wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Sorry, suicides don't die because there is a gun in the home, and neither do victims of homicides.  Accidents, maybe, but even that is debatable as it wasn't the gun that caused it, it was either lack of care by the owner or lack of training.  Very few guns explode and, in so doing, kill someone.

        1. LucidDreams profile image82
          LucidDreamsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Geez, you seem like a level headed guy with good intent but these suicides were completed using a gun, these homicides were commited using a gun and these accidents occured because a gun was available for it to happen.

          Yes, suicides can happen in a variety of ways (but a gun was used because it was readily available in the home) The homicides by gun also could have happened another way but did no because it is easier to kill with a gun when readily available. Accidental killings by gun pretty much only happen one way, by accident because someone was messing around with a gun because it was easily accessible (as it is in most gun owners homes unfortunately)

          1. LucidDreams profile image82
            LucidDreamsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            During the 1980s and early 1990s, homicide rates surged in cities across the United States (see graphs at right).[22] Handgun homicides accounted for nearly all of the overall increase in the homicide rate, from 1985 to 1993, while homicide rates involving other weapons declined during that time frame.[23] The rising trend in homicide rates during the 1980s and early 1990s was most pronounced among lower income and especially unemployed males. Youths and Hispanic and African American males in the United States were the most represented, with the injury and death rates tripling for black males aged 13 through 17 and doubling for black males aged 18 through 24.[12][18] The rise in crack cocaine use in cities across the United States is often cited as a factor for increased gun violence among youths during this time period

            1. LucidDreams profile image82
              LucidDreamsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Car accidents have been the leading cause of non-medical deaths in the US for decades, but new data shows that the number of firearm fatalities will soon exceed traffic deaths for the first time.

              While motor-vehicle deaths have been declining over the years, gun fatalities have steadily increased, according to data from the Centers of Disease Control and Prevention. Motor-vehicle deaths reached a low point in 2010 and have decreased by 22 percent from 2005 to 2010, while shooting deaths have been gradually rising since the late 1990’s.


              Based on the data, shooting deaths will likely rise to 33,000 in 2015 and surpass the number of traffic fatalities, which are predicted to be around 32,000 that year, Bloomberg News reports. The news comes at a time when Americans are engaging in a nationwide debate about gun control after 20-year-old Adam Lanza massacred 26 people with an assault rifle at an Elementary School in Newtown, Conn. If current trends continue, gun-related deaths will only continue to increase.

          2. wilderness profile image95
            wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Sorry, but your entire post is one huge logical fallacy.

            You cannot assign cause based on proximity or even use.  Those homicides did not happen because there was a gun - they would happened whether there was a gun available for use or not.  Or at least they might have, which negates the idea that guns caused them.

            This is something that many seem to misunderstand - that you cannot assign cause simply because two actions are related in some way.  The gun was used, yes, but that does not mean that the gun caused the use of it or even that a different tool would not have been used.  There is no indication that if guns were not available that homicides would decrease; indeed  what evidence there is indicates the opposite.

            1. LucidDreams profile image82
              LucidDreamsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              I guess I just don't get it! Why are you so insistant on fighting for your right to have guns? Why in the world do you really need them? It has already been proven that for the most part, guns will not help you save yourself or your family if you are targeted. There simply is not enough time to respond in most instances! We really don't need them to hunt for food! by allowing guns you are just making it easier for those who commit crimes to get them. I know, either way criminals will find a way. But who are you protecting yourself from, criminals with guns for the most part! Guns, they are the problem and we need less of them! I really don't care so much in the end. If a gun toting criminal comes to my house and shoots up the place , I will really have no choice but to take him down or die. Most die, that's because these attacks are never expected which gives you no time to respond. But in the end, thousands of innocent children die each year because people HAVE to have guns in their home. Hey, as long as your good with that, who am I to argue!

              1. wilderness profile image95
                wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                I'm late responding here, but perhaps you'll see it anyway.

                No, you don't get it.  You don't need most of the rights you have.  The right to choose where you'll live, the right to pick your own car or even if you can have one, the right to choose where you will work or play.

                You don't need any of those and in some countries the people don't have them.  You could live as a slave, too.

                The point is that as our govt grows ever larger it becomes every more controlling.  As people form groups wanting to control others lives they take away ever more rights.  Some places you cannot order a large soda, for God's sake!  It behooves us to fight to maintain what few rights we have left, and to give them up only reluctantly and for a very good reason.

                Gun control is not such a reason.  If removing guns would significantly decrease the homicide rate I would be on your side, but it won't and available data shows that very clearly.  It will just take away one more right, one more right like all others that somebody thinks we don't really need

                I've spent the last several days looking at this.  I collected the data, I formatted it into something easy to see and understand and I draw my conclusions from that.  If you're interested, there's a hub on it, but either way simple statements to the contrary, based on your "gut" feeling or on "common sense", doesn't tell me anything.  You want to convince me to give up any right, let alone a constitutionally guaranteed one, and you're going to have to show me it will be of considerable benefit to society.  Not just something to make people feel good that they've tried while another classroom of kids die.

                1. LiamBean profile image90
                  LiamBeanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Thank mayor Bloomberg, a right leaning independent. You know, don't you, that he came up with this for health reasons? The health of the population.

                  My feeling is if you (the metaphorical you) want to poison yourself or cultivate a diabetic attack that's entirely up to you, but I shouldn't have to pay for it.



                  Any steps congress takes will not really address the problem. Limit magazines to twenty rounds? Carry an extra magazine.

                  We need a different attitude about guns in this country. That and background checks on all sales should be enough. How we change attitudes is the mystery, but we shouldn't have gun-show or private sales loopholes. There's always going to be an unscrupulous ass out there who'd rather make a profit than make sure the firearm he sells is not going into the hands of a criminal.

        2. LucidDreams profile image82
          LucidDreamsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Wilderness, kind of sounds like you are saying......GUNS DON'T KILL PEOPLE, PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE, that argument is very old and totally worn out! People with guns kill people and too many of them period~!

          1. wilderness profile image95
            wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Yes, there are lots of people saying that.  And it's an old saying, and one I'm sure the pro-control folks are tired of hearing.  Does that make it incorrect or false? 

            If the pro control people quit saying that guns kill, maybe the anti control group would quit pointing out that no, actually, they don't.  Accept that guns are merely a tool used by murderers and quit insisting that they are the cause of the murder, that without guns murders won't happen.

        3. Ralph Deeds profile image70
          Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          It's true that guns aren't the only way to commit suicide, but they are the most final, the most irretrievable. Would-be spur-of-the-moment suicides with drugs are often saved by medical attention. However, if somebody really decides to commit suicide they will find a way to do it guns or no guns.

          1. 60
            retief2000posted 3 years ago in reply to this

            If it is one's fervent desire to end his life who are religious zealots to insist that the law prevent him.  In fact, shouldn't the government facilitate rational suicides as a means of reducing health care costs, insuring personal liberty and prevent the religious zealots from dictating to whom one's life belongs.

            1. Quilligrapher profile image91
              Quilligrapherposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              roll

            2. wilderness profile image95
              wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              How did Scrooge put it in A Christmas Carol?  "And decrease the surplus population"?  Don't think I can go quite that far. sad

              1. 60
                retief2000posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Thanks for another positive to government funded rational suicide.  Human population control, green house gas reduction and eliminating the bio-hazard of cleaning up a decaying corpse in a neighborhood.  Perhaps it could be funded, regulated and mandated in the next Obamacare bill.

          2. LiamBean profile image90
            LiamBeanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            If I were so inclined a gun would be high on my "self-snuff" list. Not that I'm so inclined.

  26. LucidDreams profile image82
    LucidDreamsposted 3 years ago

    Guns won't stop our government if it came down to that.. c'mon man! You really think some gun toting citizens are going to stop a country that could wipe us out in a single shot with drones or any other weapons of their choice? Give me a break!

    1. GNelson profile image83
      GNelsonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      That argument is really out there.   Fighting off tanks, jets and drones with an assault rifle.  Hey, go get them!!!

      1. 61
        whoisitposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Better than being left with sticks and rocks.

        1. GNelson profile image83
          GNelsonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          I'll bet on the tank.

          1. 61
            whoisitposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            You assume our military would turn on us, why?

            1. LiamBean profile image90
              LiamBeanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              The military would do what it is ordered to do.

              1. 61
                whoisitposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                You really think so? It would turn on its parents,brothers,sisters and friends because our government and this president ordered it to? I doubt it.

                1. wilderness profile image95
                  wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Think back 150 years when two "governments" gave  that order and soldiers and civilians both jumped to do just that.

                  How quickly we forget.

                  1. 61
                    whoisitposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Not exactly the same thing.

                  2. LiamBean profile image90
                    LiamBeanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Machine guns, rifled firearms, submarines, iron hulled ships; the first truly modern war. Americans fighting Americans.

      2. 60
        retief2000posted 3 years ago in reply to this

        The NVA and Vietcong defeated the assembled might of the American military with little more than AK47s and bamboo traps.  You should really read Sun Tzu.

        1. LiamBean profile image90
          LiamBeanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Ah no. Not true. Nixon screwed that up. We won every battle and had we been allowed to attack the North again they'd have come to the negotiating table. We literally had the arms and military will to utterly destroy the north. Nixon made a terrible mistake invading Cambodia and completely lost the support of the American people. Had that not happened there's no doubt in my mind Vietnam would have had a Disneyland and a huge CocaCola factory by the 1980s.

          1. 60
            retief2000posted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Who controls Vietnam, Walter Cronkite's fellow travelers.  The scoreboard tells the story.  General Giap understood far more about his opponents than they understood about him.  Jane Fonda, John Kerry and their ilk have far more to do with America's withdrawal from Vietnam than  necessary expansion of the war into the Western parts if the Indo-Chinese peninsula.  Just goes to show wars should never been run by a Democrat Congress.

            1. LiamBean profile image90
              LiamBeanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Every time we bombed Hanoi and other installations in the North they couldn't get to the negotiating table fast enough. In fact that was the only time we made any headway with those people.

              Now had Nixon not gone behind Johnson's back during the presidential election we really don't know where this would have gone. Johnson knew he was doing this, but did not expose him to the press for fear of an all out revolution in this country. By the way, there's a word for what Nixon did; that word is treason.

              As usual you are blaming the wrong side.

              http://www.consortiumnews.com/2008/120808.html

              http://consortiumnews.com/2012/06/14/ad … s-treason/

              http://hnn.us/articles/60446.html <-second paragraph

  27. LucidDreams profile image82
    LucidDreamsposted 3 years ago

    -When was the last time you used your gun to defend yourself or home? ( for most..never)

    -Do you keep your guns locked up in a secure place even if you live alone? (for most the answer is no and if yes, kind of hard to use it during an intrusion if it's locked up like it should be)

    - Statistics show that some mass killers have used guns from neighbors homes if they know they are not secured.

    -Do you really believe that owning a gun will help you if we have a government take over in the USA? (as if a gun could stop our governments new age weapons and intelligence)

    - Do you hunt for sport or do you have no other means to put food on the table? ( if you watch any hunting shows on tv, this is not sport anyway), sitting in a Camouflaged hiding spot with a high caliber rifle and scope against an unknowing animal and then shooting it and claiming victory is very sad indeed.

    -Are you a gun collector? If guns did not exist, would you collect something else or is it just that important to you?

    -Do you ever wonder why in America, with 50% of the worlds guns, we also have the majority of death by gun violence? ( considering we are supposedly not a third world country by definition)

    -Have you ever considered how other countires manage to survive without all the guns we have here in America? ( do they have the gun violence we have or are they onto something)?

    -Is this just a macho thing that you cannot let go of? Are you part of the total right conservative party of Republicans that will never say never? When is enough enough to you? Are you really that worried about your rights as a citizen in the US?

    -Do you have locks on your doors to protect you from potential invaders? (Seems like people this worried about being invaded could take measures that would make sure no one ever broke in) If not, will you be awake with gun in hand to protect your family, or just another victim with a gun in the house?

    -Are you concerned with how many children, and people in general, get killed each year from gun accidents and gun exposure? (take the latest mass shooting and multiply it by 150

    -Have you heard enough about gun deaths and violence on the news each day, or does this just make you want to buy more guns?

    It's a sad affair our country is in! It does not have to be this way. We can learn from other countries who have effective laws and still possibly protect your beloved 2nd ammendment rights. We have to work together to make it happen.

    If you care about your guns more then our civil liberties( not just gun ownership rights) then this is not possible. If you care about the citizens of the USA then hopefully someone( or some group) who is willing to dedicate the time and effort will come up with a valid solution. Until then, the same thing will keep happening and our children and adults will die.

    Why do you really need a gun?

  28. Mighty Mom profile image91
    Mighty Momposted 3 years ago

    In regard to every citizen can and should be packing, America's allies pretty much universally disagree with us.
    But isn't it interesting that Sharia law also includes an intrinsic freedom to own arms?
    Just sayin'.
    smile

    1. 60
      retief2000posted 3 years ago in reply to this

      America's allies also nearly universally agree that the United States should provide the bulk of their national defense.  Interesting that the one ally that insists on neither an unarmed citizenry nor the US providing the bulk of its national defense is also the ally most publicly despised by the others and the ultimate target of the Muslim extremists who insist on Sharia compliance - Israel.

      By the way Sharia also insists that infidels not be armed or pay a high price for being armed.  If an infidel ever uses his arms in self defense against an attack by a believer his arms, property and life could be forfeit.

        Too bad we couldn't author a more moderate corollary here, perhaps insist if a silly pacifist liberal is defended by a legally carried firearm in the hands of a conservative the liberals property be surrendered to the criminal or, given the reliable use of that fire arm, the criminals surviving family.

      1. LiamBean profile image90
        LiamBeanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        I'm not sure how you are going to propose a moderate view on anything when you refer to people who disagree with you as "silly pacifist liberal."

        1. 60
          retief2000posted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Fragments tend to lose context - more moderate in relation to Sharia Law.  As for silly, pacifist liberal - reality is neither moderate nor immoderate.

          1. LiamBean profile image90
            LiamBeanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            My point is if you want a reasonable dialog, you don't come out swinging with labels.

            Hell, I could come out with "Nazified control freaks," but the phrase is designed to insult only and has little to do with reality.

            1. 60
              retief2000posted 3 years ago in reply to this

              "Nazified control freaks,"  is considerably more harsh than calling liberals silly pacifists - I will remember your words of wisdom from your popped bubble and not call liberals "Nazified control freaks" - what ever that may actually mean.

              1. LiamBean profile image90
                LiamBeanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                That's your opinion. I'd say the target of the insult has some say in the level of offense taken.

                Of course this tag you used says more about you than it does about me. One, that you are so used to using it that you no longer see how offensive that might be to someone else.

                1. 60
                  retief2000posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  or that I am unconcerned with the whining of silly, pacifist liberals.  That one is definitely it.  I anxiously await option two. As well as why "Nazified control freak" would not be an offensive name to call a liberal.

                  1. LiamBean profile image90
                    LiamBeanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Oh you are a tough tough man. LMAO at that one.

  29. Kangaroo_Jase profile image81
    Kangaroo_Jaseposted 3 years ago

    I don't even know why you are all debating this on the forums of HubPages. Nothing will change.

    1. Your 2nd Amendment gives you a belief of a right to bear arms, no matter what.
    2. The NRA are a large lobby group when it comes to US Politics. Money speaks volumes.
    3. Its also a cultural viewpoint. So many states within the USA have an intrinsic belief of the right to own arms. Like racism, a person learns culture, they are not born with it.

  30. Mighty Mom profile image91
    Mighty Momposted 3 years ago

    It appears, to the extent that I can make any sense at all of your "moderate corollary" that either
    a) the conservative and the criminal are one and the same entity, or
    b) the conservative is an officer of the law, in which case, the protected liberal citizen's property is already being surrendered in the form of taxes to pay for said law enforcement officer's salary.

    While I do not pretend to speak for either liberals or pacifists, I quite imagine that even the silliest among us favor paying our law enforcement officers (union protected as they may be) appropriately for risking their lives for ALL citizens without demanding to see their voter registration card. 
    smile

    1. 60
      retief2000posted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Quite a leap from legally carried firearm in the hands of a conservative to law enforcement officer, all legally carried firearms are not carried by law enforcement officers, not all law enforcement officers are conservative, etc.... Logic is hard.

      1. PrettyPanther profile image85
        PrettyPantherposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Quite a leap to think a "silly pacifist liberal" would have a legally carrying conservative standing by to heroically defend against evildoers at a moment's notice.

        That's almost funny.

        1. LiamBean profile image90
          LiamBeanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          John Wayne would be proud. Here's that western shoot-em-up attitude again.

        2. 60
          retief2000posted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Good research thanks for solid reasoning.  Yet liberals do expect this in the form of the police. If one is not personally prepared to defend one's own life it is continually, and unnecessarily, in danger.

          1. LiamBean profile image90
            LiamBeanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            There's the bubble mentality again. Stop watching Fox; it's frying your brain.

  31. Silva Hayes profile image94
    Silva Hayesposted 3 years ago

    Any and all attempts to address this problem quickly degenerate into factions, sarcasm, and name-calling and nothing gets done. 

    I call on all politicians and ordinary citizens and everyone in between:  How do we keep society safe (or safer) from mentally disturbed individuals with access to weapons?  How? 

    How can we keep our children safe?  No point in arguing about guns.  They are here, they are here to stay.  What do we as a nation need to do to improve the situation?  Education?  More law enforcement?  Deploy law enforcement differently?  Install metal detectors?  Lock down the schools each and every day?  Crack down on the medical community and their pharmaceuticals?

    If we could go back in time and change things around, I would have the police stations built in front of the public schools.  I could see a system designed so that some services could be shared and money saved.  I can see where a deranged killer might hesitate to go past the police station to access the children.  Crazy idea?  Maybe.  But perhaps some form of it might be feasible.  At least it's focusing on the main issue:  How can we keep the children safe(r)? 

    I had an idea whereby off-duty police cars, sheriff's cars, etc. could be kept parked in front of the schools instead of at the station or in front of the officer's home.  Simplistic?  Yes.  Will it work?  Don't know.  Is it economically or logistically feasible?  I don't know; maybe someone with more working knowledge than me could figure it out.  Again, it may be a crazy idea, but at least it is focused toward our main goal, keep the children safe. 

    Should mothers and grandmothers form some kind of order where we park in front and back of the schools in our minivans and SUVs with walkie-talkies and observe activity all day, prepared to call in a warning to the principal to lock down and call 911?

    Let's try not to argue in circles and get nowhere.  That's what happens so often when there's a crisis.  It's argued about, the Republicans and the Democrats form opposite sides, the conservatives and the liberals sling arrows at each other, there's a media frenzy for about a week, then the furor dies down, a task force is formed, and four or five years later, perhaps something is done or perhaps not.  What can we do right now before school starts back up next week to help keep our children safe?

    1. grand old lady profile image88
      grand old ladyposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      It's really the high powered weapons that are useless in a peaceful country. These are war weapons where you can shoot 100 bullets in a minute that are being used for the mass killings. Nobody needs these, whether sane or insane because the US is not in a state of war.

      As for protection, a rifle could do or a handgun but personally, I prefer a trained K-9 dog if you want real protection that does the job right.

      Maybe there are so many high powered guns that have been manufactured but since America is pulling out of wars there is no use for them, so they can only sell to citizens in the country where they are of no use at all. Maybe it's all about money.

    2. grand old lady profile image88
      grand old ladyposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      @ Silva Hayes,

      Why is letting go of high powered weapons non negotiable for you?

      1. Silva Hayes profile image94
        Silva Hayesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        I never said anything like that.  I don't want any private citizen to own a combat-type weapon capable of firing rounds of bullets into crowds.  That is crazy.  I said there's no point arguing about guns, they are here to stay.  That's just being realistic.  When you read the forums and you read the news it's clear that people are not going to quietly give up their weapons.  I'm just trying to be realistic and I am making an observation that when a tragedy happens, the citizens of the US split up into factions and start arguing and nothing ever gets done.  I wish that instead we would all work together to make things better.  I have no problem at all with all military-type weapons being confiscated and never sold again to private individuals, is that what you mean?

        1. 61
          whoisitposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          No one with out the proper license has military style weapons.

          1. LiamBean profile image90
            LiamBeanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            An AR15 is a military assault rifle without the three shot auto option. That's the only difference between the so called civilian version and the military M16/M4. The modified AK47s available are also assault rifles.

            A properly licensed American citizen can own an M2, M60, or any other fully automatic weapon. Many of these are not just "military style" they are unambiguously military.

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_F … _transfers

            1. 61
              whoisitposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              An AR-15 is a semi-automatic weapon and entirely legal for a civilian to own therefore not a military style weapon. We can debate the similarity but to what end?

              1. LiamBean profile image90
                LiamBeanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                I see. So an M1Garand, unmodified from it's military design, is not an assault weapon because it is semi-auto only. Right?

                You know what the real difference between the AR15 and the M16/M4 is in practical use? Zero!

                We were issued 250 rounds of ammunition. Do you know how long that load lasts at 600~900 round per minute? Not very damned long. We didn't fire full auto unless we were laying down suppressing fire and even then going full auto for any length of time was either an act of stupidity or a death wish.

                No the only real difference between your so called civilian weapon and my military issue was the type of ammunition. Your civilian loads are more deadly; ours were jacketed.

                1. 61
                  whoisitposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  An M1Garand is simply a semi-automatic weapon. Guess what, cars go faster than they did in 1942 and an M1 is no longer in military use. It is an excellent deer rifle, I have one.

                  1. LiamBean profile image90
                    LiamBeanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Nice dodge. Guess what, you failed to refute my point. Carry on.

        2. grand old lady profile image88
          grand old ladyposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          @ Silva Hayes, then we agree there:) . @ whoisit, well, that license certainly didn't do any good to those children in the school nor the people who watched Batman in a theatre in the mall. And why do they need the license for these guns anyway? Maybe there should be no license issued to citizens for people who want to buy war weapons of this calibre. And you can't compare these guns to cars.

  32. Truly Different profile image61
    Truly Differentposted 3 years ago

    Hello all! I came across this thread because it popped in my news feed. I don't have an opportunity to read each and every post, since I saw it just now. If it is okay, I would just like to give my input by showing how the gun laws work in Israel. I apologize if this was already covered somewhere in the thread. Also, I apologize for just giving links, but not covering this myself. If you are willing to learn how gun laws work in Israel, you will read the two small articles and if you wish, you can find more information about how it works in Israel.

    Israel's example of gun laws is the model for any country.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wor … s-suggest/

    http://news.yahoo.com/israel-rejects-us … 08159.html

    There are only 7 privately owned guns for every 100 Israelis; the rate in America is 89.

    Gun licensing to private citizens is limited largely to people who are deemed to need a firearm because they work or live in dangerous areas, Licensing requires multiple levels of screening, and permits must be renewed every three years. Renewal is not automatic.

    Automatic weapons  are banned for private ownership in Israel. It is also rare for a person to be authorized to own more than one firearm.

    1. LiamBean profile image90
      LiamBeanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      You can say the same thing about Switzerland. They may have a militia, but after September 27, 2007 all of that ammunition had to be turned back in to the armory. Citizen soldiers may have automatic weapons, but they don't have any ammunition in the home.

  33. livewithrichard profile image84
    livewithrichardposted 3 years ago

    An Illinois senate committee approved a plan on banning assault weapons that goes much further than just assault rifles.  They want to ban semi automatic handguns, shotguns with cylinders, and clips that hold more than 10 rounds.  The ban is on future sales and those that already have those types of weapons would be allowed to keep them.  However, they are also considering, at least here in Chicago, adding a $10 tax to each round, so a box of 50 would be cost plus $500... as if we couldn't just go to the suburbs and buy them cheaper. 

    You can only imagine the rush to the gun shops to purchase weapons...

    I think, Illinois at least, could do a better job than cause mass panic that I'm certain is going to result in some nutcase getting a gun that shouldn't have a gun.  I have many guns but I am also in favor of certain types of gun control that goes further than what we have now:

    1. Federalize background checks and run them through Interpol as well. (this might prevent some nutjob from New Mexico, or even Poland, from coming to my state and purchasing a gun that he/she couldn't obtain where they live or even hide that they purchased a gun.)

    2. I'm not opposed to submitting a psychological test from a personal doctor and going through some predetermined waiting period.  Would probably even endorse a required gun safety/use course prior to purchase.  It amazes me how many people own guns and have never fired them or even know how to take them apart to clean them.

    3. Close down secondary routes of purchase of guns.  Personal transfers to friends and family or to the general public, even through gun shows, should go through a licensed gun brokerage that requires the same checks as above. ( I just sold 4 rifles and gave one as a gift at Christmas without any restrictions.  The 4 I sold went to a close friend and fellow collector and my dad received my gift.)

    4. I might even consider a national database IF it was NOT subject to the Freedom of Information Act and only accessible to law enforcement by an issued warrant.  Joe Schmo does not have a right to know my personal assets.

    I'm not in favor of a ban on any weapons though I am in favor on banning certain people from obtaining weapons.

    1. LiamBean profile image90
      LiamBeanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      We have a similar ban in California. You can only buy 10 round magazines; no larger. It is against the law to own a bullet proof vest and you can't own more than 2.5 ounces of pepper spray.

      Two weeks ago Los Angeles held a gun buy back program. This was a no questions asked $100 gift certificate for pistols and $200 gift certificate for rifles program. The buy back ran for three days.

      Along with pistols AK47s and AR15s, two rocket launchers were turned in.

      1. 61
        whoisitposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Yeah I heard about the rocket launchers, its not illegal to own one its illegal to own the rocket/grenade. With out its projectiles they make great movie props. Wait, Los Angeles, movie prop? Can anyone say propaganda?

        1. LiamBean profile image90
          LiamBeanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          I'm not sure how you got "it's not illegal" out of "They don't have capability to discharge anything anymore," - Det. Gus Villanueva

          I assure you owning a rocket launcher in L.A. is illegal without proper federal or military clearance. And props can't even be loaded with rockets much less fire them.

          Nice try though.

          1. 61
            whoisitposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Not a try at all, propaganda is what it was, disinformation to ratchet up the low information consumers.

            1. LiamBean profile image90
              LiamBeanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              I live here. I know the laws. It's not propaganda it's fact.  And a movie prop is just that; a prop. Nothing more.

              Have you actually seen unmodified footage of "hollywood" firearms? Those that "shoot" have a charge equal to about half a firecracker. When they go off they make this ridiculous "pop." But that charge does make sparks and does produce smoke, which is the whole point.

              That loud bang you hear at the movies is added in post-production.

              1. 61
                whoisitposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Did you actually see the thing turned in?

                1. LiamBean profile image90
                  LiamBeanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2 … chief.html

                  That looks like an AT4.

                  There was a LAW too.

                  http://www.newsy.com/videos/rocket-laun … n-buyback/

                  Seeing as this was the news item of the day, yes I saw it.

  34. grand old lady profile image88
    grand old ladyposted 3 years ago

    A gun buy-back program sounds very reasonable to me. The economy isn't great, and people can get money and still protect themselves with the less powerful guns. But since Americans love dogs so much, I think it would be good if there were some kind of cost friendly K-9 training program so they could have protection that really bites.

    I have three dogs, and no one robs me. My dogs aren't K-9 but people would rather rob a house without dogs than one with dogs. It's just common sense.

    1. wilderness profile image95
      wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Great answer, but one I can't go with.  I don't like dogs (don't particularly dislike them either) and have no desire to own one.  I also don't like my neighbors all around having barking dogs that won't allow me a peaceful afternoon in my own backyard.

      There is another aspect as well.  A gun will never rear up and shoot someone by itself, but dogs do bite without provocation.  I know, every dog owner says their dog would never bite, but they do.  They even kill small children and occasionally the elderly. 

      No, thanks I would far rather have a world full of guns than of dogs, trained to attack but owned by people that aren't trained to handle and care for their dogs.

  35. LiamBean profile image90
    LiamBeanposted 3 years ago

    Just for the record, unless you are paying my salary, supplying my food, the roof over my head or are recognized by me as my boss demands will be met with silence (and a lot of laughter from my side of the monitor).

  36. SpanStar profile image60
    SpanStarposted 3 years ago

    I have and still do point to the gun as one of the major contributing factors for the  killing that goes on in this country and around the world. You see for me it is About the Gun!

    For years now when ever we talk about killing we always gravitate to this item or that item avoiding looking at the root of the problem which is in fact the gun user and the gun however just like people get the courage from a bottle of alcohol people also get their courage from The Gun!

    Targeting the mentally unstable is a no-brainer, making attempts to keep guns out of the hands of adolescents is also a no-brainer. But gun violence do not only emanate from these 2 sources. There are gun deaths in domestic violence, there are gun deaths in robberies, there are gun deaths in jealousy, and there are gun deaths in simple hatred.

    By always focusing on the obvious problems we will never end this senseless violence of gun murders. Too many innocent people have died from guns and we have sat back and done not enough to end this plague. It is time we commit ourselves as to being serious about stopping the violence or simply admit to the world that we can create a violent society but we can't fix it!

    1. wilderness profile image95
      wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      "You see for me it is About the Gun".  I like the qualifier "for me" and I have no doubt that is true.  Unfortunately the opinion is not rooted in facts and is not likely to be accepted by anyone that is concerned enough about the killings in this country to actually look into root causes.

      The simple fact is that to the best of our knowledge and experience world wide limiting guns does nothing for the rate of killings.  It absolutely does limit the number of killings by guns, but not the number of killings by any and all methods.

      1. grand old lady profile image88
        grand old ladyposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        ? ????? Don't get that. It's about mass killings in the US, and these are done by people using high powered guns. Let's stick to the issue and get those guns out of the way.

        1. wilderness profile image95
          wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          That's correct; it's about killings in the US (mass or single).  The tool most often used in the US is a gun, but experience with other countries plainly shows that if we take the guns away the killing goes on.  It just isn't a gun being used there, but something else. 

          The killings is the issue, not the particular tool used.  If a specific tool is unavailable it just means that the killer will use other tools.  Unsure if that would actually be true or not, I gathered data from 42 different countries, all with varying rates of gun ownership, and found that how many guns were in a country had no effect on the homicide rate of that country.  I wrote that up in a hub, showing the raw data as well as graphs of it and the conclusion is pretty plain - without guns the homicides continue unabated.

          Why, then, remove the guns?  It doesn't do any good.  We will be far better off to find and attack the actual cause, not the tool used.  Sure, taking guns away will make us feel better - we're doing something, even if we know it won't help - but the pile of dead will be just as high.  I would far rather put our limited resources and efforts into finding something that will actually reduce the killings than simply put on a "feel good" show that will accomplish nothing.

          1. Jeff Berndt profile image90
            Jeff Berndtposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            First of all, nobody--that is, nobody smart--is advocating for the banning of guns, full stop.

            But this argument:
            experience with other countries plainly shows that if we take the guns away the killing go on.  It just isn't a gun being used there, but something else.

            is misleading. Yes, if someone wants to kill someone else, they'll find a way. That bit is absolutely true.

            But what the argument overlooks is that (most of) the other ways of killing people are less easy, less efficient, and less random than using a high-capacity semiautomatic firearm to take out as many folks as possible.

            A bomb is just as random, but much less easy/efficient. Other weapons (bow/arrow, knife/sword/machete, baseball/cricket bats/other clubs) are less easy to kill with (it's harder to bludgeon someone to death than to shoot them to death), less random (you have to really mean to kill that particular person), and less efficient. If you want to kill someone with a blade or a blunt object (especially in the presence of others) you're going to have to do a lot of work. Unless you've been training for this, you're probably going to get tired before you reach your 20th victim, and a guy with a chair might just try to stop you.

            Also, other countries with gun bans might still have homicides, but what they don't have are mass shootings.
            The UK, for example, has laws limiting gun ownership, and while they still have crime (yes, and killings) they have had exactly three mass shootings in the past 40 years. In the same period, the US has had over 100. (The actual number is somewhere around 130, but "over 100" is close enough to make the point.)

            I'm not saying that we should ban guns--that'd be a bad idea, no question in my mind.

            But the argument that "If you take the guns away, the only thing that will change will be the weapon of choice" is full of fail.

            1. wilderness profile image95
              wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Forget shootings - it is beside the point and completely a red herring.

              Do the countries without guns have mass killings?  Bombs, perhaps?  The middle east has relatively few guns, but it sure has mass killings - is the UK the same?  What is the rate of mass killings in countries with low gun ownership? 

              You make a nice claim: "But the argument that "If you take the guns away, the only thing that will change will be the weapon of choice" is full of fail." but can you back it up?  Where is the data?  Links, please.

              I specifically noted that killing, mass or single, was the subject; you are trying to change it to only mass killings but haven't backed up the claim even for that small subsection of homicides.

              1. Jeff Berndt profile image90
                Jeff Berndtposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                "Forget shootings - it is beside the point and completely a red herring."
                No, it really isn't. 'Cos shooting someone is a lot different than knifing someone, or bonking them with a baseball bat.

                "Do the countries without guns have mass killings?"
                Well, let's look at the mass-knifing that happened in China on almost the same day as the mass killing in Connecticut.
                The article mentions that Tight controls mean that gun crimes are rare in China and make knives and sometimes explosives the weapons used in mass attacks in China. and yeah, there are still mass attacks. But you know what? Lots of the victims of those attacks live. In fact, in stark contrast to the Connecticut attack in which 23 kids and 6 teachers were KILLED, the 22 victims of the mass-knifing in China all survived the attack: ...a Guangshan county hospital administrator said there were no deaths, although two of the children were badly injured.

                So yes, mass attacks still happen, and people do still die from them, but not nearly as many as the ones that die from the mass shootings that happen with what seems to be increasing regularity in the US.

                A mass shooting is different from other kinds of mass attacks in that the weapon used in a mass shooting is much more effective, efficient, and deadly than the weapon used in a mass-knifing or a mass clubbing, for example. As for comparing to a bombing, well, sure, a bombing is certainly deadly. But it's harder to get a bomb than it is to get a gun, and to make your own bomb requires certain esoteric knowledge that not everyone has, plus a certain level of planning that isn't needed when someone just picks up a gun and starts shooting.

                So the argument that in the absence of readily available guns, the only thing that changes is weapon of choice is still full of fail.

                There may still be a high number of attacks, but there will be fewer deaths.

                "The middle east has relatively few guns,"
                Wait, what? A region where there are several hot conflicts going on right now has "relatively few guns?" Okay....

                "I specifically noted that killing, mass or single, was the subject; "
                Sure, but mass killings are different from single ones, for reasons that ought to be self-evident (not least of which being that the body-count is higher).

                Tell me, in your conclusion that the number of killings remains the same in a population with limited access to guns, did you count mass killings as one killing? Or did you count each individual death as a single killing?

                'Cos if you count mass killings as one incident instead of, say 26 separate homicides (as in the case of Sandy Hook) you're going to get a different result.

  37. ahorseback profile image46
    ahorsebackposted 3 years ago

    PRETTY PANTHER ......good moring ....:-}  Stop the insanity hmmmm,  my dear if you really want to stop the insanity you have to do this and before you jump all over me  !....Listen , if you want to  REALLY stop the insanity , then you must point your pretty little finger at  the sane !  We are the  ones that  are doing absolutely Nothing about insanity to begin with !  Available help with  mental health issues is NON- existant in America , hell , in the world !   Call a doctor and your insurance company and say "I need help , I'm insane " ......this is what will happen ,   the doctor will say " we are not taking new patients at this time ", actually he won't say it ,he'll [or she'll ]have his secretary tell you that , sorry !........  The insurance company will send you a very official letterhead stating ' We regret to inform you that there is a clause in your policy { which you never saw ...ever } that states , mental health coverage has been denied because of pre existing sanity conditions !"........One thing I do know  this insanity will never stop . Hypocracy !

  38. SpanStar profile image60
    SpanStarposted 3 years ago

    wilderness,

    I cannot agree with you regarding the utilization of guns. As it has been said by others with a gun even the biggest coward feels brave. If one removes the crotch by which others are leaning on then their cow wittiness once again appear meaning they will no longer take the action they normally would have had with the crotch.

    Those who believe that guns are a necessity are they not saying that people are innately killers? Is not the implication people cannot help themselves and that we I just naturally born killers? If that is basically our nature then you are correct we need to maintain guns and as many as we can get our hands on however if you are wrong and we are able to behave like mature human being than the number of guns we have hoarded in this country is instantaneously ridiculous!

    1. wilderness profile image95
      wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      *shrug*  You can go with "common sense" or an emotional appeal to what looks right or you can go with actual experience and information.

      Personally, I choose to look at the facts and what the experience of countries that limit guns is - if it doesn't agree with I thought would be true then I was wrong.  OK, I was wrong; reducing gun ownership rates does not reduce homicide rates by a measurable amount and I will have to go with that whether it "feels" right or not.

      1. grand old lady profile image88
        grand old ladyposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        I question your stats. Are some of the countries ranked higher in deaths because they are in a state of war? Do the cultures of some countries permit types of death like honor killings or the like? Kindly source your stats so we can see the reliability of the source. With a knife you may injure but be stopped before you can kill. With high powered weapons you can release 100 bullets back while moving the gun back and forth in a theater in a mall  to guarantee killings. Pls show source of your stats so we can better understand the basis of your argument.

  39. SpanStar profile image60
    SpanStarposted 3 years ago

    What I'm hearing said as fact is that removing guns has no viable effect on killing outcome-I have to say that sounds like fantasy for me.

    I propose an experiment should one choose to do so:

    go to a toy store pickup of rubber knife and pick up a repeating projectile shooting toy gun. The person with a toy knife try and kill the same number of people that the toy gun is going to kill in the same amount of time, I seriously doubt science with agree they are the same.

    1. wilderness profile image95
      wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Instead of playing games or drawing conclusions with any information to back them, why don't we look at the statistics for different countries?  What the gun ownership rate is vs the homicide rate? 

      Or will the facts be ignored because our "common sense" tells us different?  The conclusion is drawn without the benefit of facts so don't confuse the issue with them?

  40. LiamBean profile image90
    LiamBeanposted 3 years ago
  41. SpanStar profile image60
    SpanStarposted 3 years ago

    Wilderness,

    it seems clear to me you not really interested in anything I have to say since from what I'm reading from you continues to skirt around the real issues of violence in America and around the world.

    Let's not look at the statistics and let's stop pretending that statistic is the justification for violence in a country. It appalls me that people say hey only 30 people got killed as if that is justification for feeling okay about violence. People's mothers, fathers, children are not statistics they are people who had hopes and dreams and life but there those who write them off because what's more important than other people's lives is the fact that they can play with their guns.

    It is my hope that one day more Americans will wake up to the insanity of people who are in love with guns.

    1. wilderness profile image95
      wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      You are quite mistaken:  I am not interested in skirting around the issue of violence in America.  Our country has a massive problem with violence, specifically in our homicide rate, and I for one am very interested in finding a solution to the problem.  I'm just not particularly interested in people stating that this or that will accomplish that goal without any reason to even make the statement.

      Whether or not I'm particularly interested in what you have to say depends on if it is based in fact or simply an opinion based on not liking guns.  Paraphrasing and simplifying, this is what I see in our discourse:

      Wilderness:  Other countries that limit guns do not see homicide rates go down, and therefore, there is no reason to think we would be any different.  We need a different solution.

      You:  I'm not interested in statistics because statistics aren't people.  Therefore, guns kill people; get rid of guns and you lower the homicide rate.  It doesn't matter that it hasn't worked anywhere else in the world; it will work in the US because....because....well, because I think it will.

      It is my hope and reason for posting here that I can actually convince a few people to examine the problem from an objective standpoint and find an answer rather that vomit up opinions without any rationale behind them.  Only then will we actually accomplish anything.  Spending resources and time taking actions that will produce zero results will only add to the pile of bodies.

      I have seen a few answers down that line but precious few.  The majority simply declare, as you do, that taking guns away will prevent murders but, just as you, won't look at the experience of other nations.  They aren't interested in solving anything, at least not enough to spend some time analyzing and thinking about the problem.  It's more important, apparently, to waste our time so that we can tell bereaved loved ones "Well we tried" as the body count grows.

      1. Jeff Berndt profile image90
        Jeff Berndtposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        So, your argument is that gun regulations make no difference, and that countries with more gun regulations (and rarer guns) have the same homicide rate as countries where guns are common and less regulated?

        http://chartsbin.com/view/1454
        The US has a homicide rate of 5.22/100k.
        Canada, in contrast, has a homicide rate of 1.67.
        Sweden? 0.89.
        The UK? 1.57.
        France? 1.35.
        Australia? 1.23.
        New Zealand? 1.25.

        What's the pattern? All of these countries have more restrictive gun laws than the US does, and all of them have a much lower homicide rate than the US does. (These countries are also economically and politically stable, and are ruled by democratic governments.)   This data doesn't parse out the gun-homicides from the non-gun homicides, so clearly, sometimes countries with stricter gun laws also have fewer homicides (gun ones or otherwise).

        I've already pointed out one possible reason for this: it's harder to kill someone on purpose with a knife, a baseball bat, rat poison, or a car than it is to kill someone on purpose with a gun.

        If you're really interested in looking at the experience of other nations, and y'know, data and stuff as opposed to emotion, then please account for the lower homicide rates of these countries with more restrictive gun laws than the US has.

        Look, I want to be clear: I'm not suggesting that a gun ban is a good idea. Nobody wants to ban all guns. But it's just plain fact that in many places with stricter gun control, fewer people (less than half as many!) get killed. Therefore, it might be a good idea to look into exactly how guns are regulated in those countries, and how those regulations are enforced, if we want to keep people from getting killed in a mass shooting

        You do a great job sounding reasonable, but the facts don't support your assertions.

        1. wilderness profile image95
          wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Good start, Jeff.  Now find 37 more, enough to actually find something.  Graph gun ownership against homicide rate and find a correlation.  That's what I did, up to the point of finding a correlation.  I didn't find it because it isn't there; as gun ownership rises, homicides rise, then fall.  Rise again and fall back,  Rise a third time, at the end of the graph where the US is.  There is no correlation.

          You can't see any correlation except to pick out a single one that is high in both and declare that that means ownership=deaths.  Statistics don't work that way; if there actually IS a correlation you will find it throughout the data, (usually with a few anomalies) but you don't because the whole graph is one giant anomaly, completely inconsistent throughout.

          http://s1.hubimg.com/u/7520496_f248.jpg

          Sorry, I can't make the photo bigger.  It's on my latest hub, if you're really interested.  But if you can find any kind of correlation between the axis on that graph you've got a great imagination.

          1. Jeff Berndt profile image90
            Jeff Berndtposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            "Graph gun ownership against homicide rate and find a correlation."

            Also, you'll need to look up the regulation of firearms (and whether they're consistently enforced), the kinds of firearms that are available (low-power, low-capacity sporting guns aren't the same [not as deadly as] high-power, high-capacity guns, handguns are easier to conceal than, say, deer rifles), whether ammunition is widely available or restricted, whether the country is economically and politically stable, etc.

            Look, I want to be clear: I'm not saying that banning guns is a good idea.
            I think a gun ban is a stupid overreaction and an unnecessary infringement on the people's liberty. Nobody with an ounce of sense wants a gun ban. We're on the same side of that part of the argument.

            However: it is not unreasonable to limit the capacity of detachable magazines. The 2 seconds it takes to swap out an empty clip for a full one are an eternity--they can make the difference between someone being able to get out the window or getting shot. They can give someone the window of opportunity to throw a chair at the gunman. For example, the guy who shot Rep. Giffords et al was subdued when he was changing his high-capacity magazines. If he had lower-capacity magazines, he'd have had to reload sooner, could have been subdued sooner, and would have killed fewer people.

            It is not unreasonable to require trigger locks to be sold with every firearm. It does nothing to infringe upon anybody's right to own a gun, and it removes an excuse for not securing the gun. (You've got a trigger lock; it came with your gun. Why didn't you use it?)

            And so on.

            1. wilderness profile image95
              wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              All true.  Finding a causal relationship in a batch of statistics, even one with a strong correlation being shown, is very difficult as there are always additional factors that are not being considered.   However, a set of stats that does not show a correlation does indicate that there is no causal effect; in this case the lack of correlation between ownership and homicide rates tells us that neither one is causing the other.

              However.  That does not mean that we can't try to limit it some anyway.  We're shooting in the dark here, trying things that probably won't have any affect but if the cost isn't too high it might be worth a shot anyway.  Smaller magazines, for example, have a very small cost in that very few people would be affected or care.  Same for trigger locks - we can be pretty sure that requiring that will result in fewer child accidents in the home and the cost is very low in terms of both money and "harm" to owners.  No argument in either case and , depending on monetary cost and how it works, I could even argue for a sensor system on all new weapons to only allow it to fire when in the hands of the owner.

              Confiscating all semi-automatice weapons, does have a very high cost both socially and economically.  (I know you didn't propose that, but a great many are).  We either steal them from the owners or pay those owners for them; in money terms it will be very expensive.  The loss of 2nd amendment rights needs considered, as does the loss of enjoyment from them.  Both are intangibles, but both are very real and there are others as well.  If we could see a clear correlation and causal effect, I would probably ("probably" because the cost is so high) agree with a ban, but without that connection we can't justify either the confiscation OR banning all new sales of those weapons. 

              It is a free coutnry, after all, and we don't just run around taking rights or objects from people because we don't like them or don't want people to have them.  There needs to be a solid reason, a hard foundation behind our decision to do that before we ever begin.

              *edit*  Mostly, though, I am of the strong opinion that we need to put our limited resources and efforts in another direction than gun control.  It's a red herring, we won't accomplish much (if anything) with stronger controls, and we desperately need to find and fix the cause of the violence in America.  I think it is a social problem, and needs a social answer, but there are other possibilities as well.

        2. wilderness profile image95
          wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Germany, with the same ownership rate as Canada, has 5% of the homicide rate. 

          Spain, with the 1/3 the guns of Sweden has the same homicide rate.

          Cyprus, with 6X the guns of the UK has slightly lower homicide rate

          Italy, with 1/3 the guns of France has just a trace lower homicide rate.

          Denmark, with 80% the guns of Australia has 5% of the homicide rate.

          Poland, with 5% of the guns of New Zealand has the same homicide rate.

          Switzerland, with 1/2 the guns of the US has just 1/8 of the homicide rate

          There is simply no correlation here.  You can pick the US at the highest guns and the highest homicide rate and claim that proves something, but it doesn't.

  42. platinumOwl4 profile image41
    platinumOwl4posted 3 years ago

    The problem is not with the firearms, the problem is with the insane people who lack skill in humanity that has been drilled into there skull and allowed escapes clauses by the insanity of the psychiatrists.

    1. SpanStar profile image60
      SpanStarposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      That claim has been made a number of times. Are we to say then that gun violence in domestic disputes means people are crazy?

      Gun violence in armed robbery does that mean people are insane?

      Hiring hitmen to eliminate a spouse for the insurance does it also mean they are insane???

      We have eyes and still we cannot see.

      1. LiamBean profile image90
        LiamBeanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        I'd call that pretty crazy. If you have that little faith in your spouse it's time to move on; not shoot them.



        Considering the success rate of armed robbery that seems pretty crazy to me as well. But what do I know?



        A love of money over a love of your fellow human is an indication of sociopathy. A form of insanity.



        Indeed.

        1. wilderness profile image95
          wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          There is more than a little truth to that, especially as "insanity" is a matter of definition.

          Most animals, including humans, show other signs as the insanity progresses, but at lower "levels" it is purely a defined state.

  43. SpanStar profile image60
    SpanStarposted 3 years ago

    Wilderness,

    Your comments are old, stale in that we have been living with this gun problem for years upon years and still we come back to the same problem year after year. It is obvious to a blind man that guns in this country are a serious problem. Having these guns have not stopped the violence and noting a downward fluctuation periodically is no answer to the violence that continues.

    If we were to elevate our minds to scientific perspective we wouldn't have to rely on the statistics of others.

    Take a knife and threatened someone with a gun-scientifically will do you think is going to win?

    Take a baseball bat and threatened someone with a gun who do you think is going to win?

    Take someone with a bomb-granted they may have the edge assuming they can get away from the explosion themselves in time. We all know however that these kind of devices are cumbersome.

    It doesn't take Einstein to know when there are over 300,000,000 guns in circulation something needs to be done to in this insanity.

    But listening to the same old rhetoric year after year does nothing to stop the violence in this country.

    1. wilderness profile image95
      wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      I'm sure it is obvious to a blind man that guns are the cause of the problem.  To the sighted, able and willing to read, it isn't so clear.

      A scientific perspective, huh.  As in take away the guns and observe what happens maybe?  Document the results and submit for peer review?  Peers that can also do the experiment in their country and add to the information?  Or is your "science" a silly game with two people armed differently killing each other and then declaring that the results are applicable to an entire nation with a different scenario?

      Apparently it does take an Einstein, or at least someone willing to actually research it.  Playing guessing games seldom works as the world seldom works as we think it should  Cause and effect are very often misunderstood, just as they are here.  Like so many others you have assigned the cause of high homicide rate to gun ownership, but the facts just don't support that conclusion.  Instead, they clearly show that removing guns from any modern society has no effect on the general homicide rate; people go right on killing - they just use different tools.  You choose to ignore those facts, preferring a pre-formed conclusion based solely on a dislike of guns, but that doesn't change reality and it won't stop the bodies from accumulating.

      You're right here.  The same old rhetoric year after year, and even the same old reactions of increasing gun controls year after year does nothing to stop the violence.  Let's try something else for a change.

      1. grand old lady profile image88
        grand old ladyposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Again, kindly source your stats so that everyone can look at what you're referring to.

        1. wilderness profile image95
          wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Sorry, I didn't see your post.

          My source was the UNODC and the small arms study.  Between the two I found numbers for gun ownership, gun homicides and general homicide rates over 42 countries in 2007.  The data was gathered and graphed in a recent hub with both the raw data and sources clearly listed.

          Anyone can do the same; that information is open to all.  Yes, it took a little work and several hours, but I did come to a conclusion based on facts rather than an emotional upset over Newtown or fear of guns.

  44. LiamBean profile image90
    LiamBeanposted 3 years ago

    There MUST be a middle ground on guns and reason in American Society. Perhaps this is it.

    http://ordinary-gentlemen.com/blog/2013 … hree-acts/

    Hunting, not with guns in particular, but hunting as an act of challenge and wit. These are the folks with a purity of pursuit. Guns are simply a tool toward and end. The act is modified by the sophistication of the weapon. At all times equity between the hunter and the hunted is paramount.

    1. Jeff Berndt profile image90
      Jeff Berndtposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Oh, don't go being all reasonable! That'll just get people treating each other with respect and stuff, and how much fun is reasonable, respectful discourse?.

      1. LiamBean profile image90
        LiamBeanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        This entire discourse is entirely too black and white. Black and white do not exist in nature or anywhere else for that mater.

        There is nothing at all wrong with expressing horror and remorse at the loss of young life. It is not an admission of guilt or culpability. But it is an admission of being human.

        And if you aren't human you have no stake in this debate.

        whoisit. Do you realize that it is a Federal crime to impersonate an American soldier?

  45. Ralph Deeds profile image70
    Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago

    Why not let's debate the topic and skip the ad hominem comments?

    1. LiamBean profile image90
      LiamBeanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Because a lack of humanity is at the very core of this problem.

  46. ahorseback profile image46
    ahorsebackposted 3 years ago

    Liambean, There sir , Lies the answer !  And the illusiveness to the unreasonable !

  47. Silva Hayes profile image94
    Silva Hayesposted 3 years ago

    As Habee said at the beginning,

    Why do we need assault/semi-automatic weapons?  . . .  If crazed shooters had to stop and reload, they wouldn't be able to inflict nearly as much damage.

    1. wilderness profile image95
      wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Your source?  Something showing that limiting automatic weapons will limit the carnage on our streets?  Other countries that have tried it maybe?

      Bear in mind that bombs don't get reloaded, that it takes about 2 seconds to change out an empty magazine and that multiple guns will hold a lot of ammunition....

      1. Silva Hayes profile image94
        Silva Hayesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        If semi-autos were outlawed, wouldn't it decrease the effectiveness and therefore the lethality of firearms?

        If a shooter is limited to bolt-action rifles and revolvers, would that slow the shooter down compared to a semi-auto handgun with a 15 round mag and a rifle with a 30 round mag?  Can't you can aim and shoot at more people quicker with a semi-auto than with a bolt action or revolver?

        1. wilderness profile image95
          wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Yes, I think so, at least to some degree.  There are other pertinent questions, though:

          1.  Will outlawing these guns get them out of the hands of criminals?  Doubtful

          2.  A lever action, also common, is nearly as fast as a semi-automatic - will you outlaw these too?  Keep in mind you are now talking about tens of millions of guns; who pays for them?  Do we just steal them from their owners, owners that paid hundreds or thousands for a perfectly legal gun in good faith?

          3.  If semi automatic weapons are removed from our society, will criminals then use revolvers or will they switch to something more lethal?  Experience in other countries shows they will switch; limiting guns has never resulted in a reduction in the homicide rate.

          Of these, I find #3 the most powerful.  Society seldom performs the way we think it will, and the obvious solution of limiting guns just doesn't work.  We see that all over the world and even though it flies in the face of what we think would happen it's true; remove guns and the killers keep right on killing.  They just use different tools.

          Our efforts, then, need to be directed elsewhere.  Can we do something about the mentally ill - mass killers are ill but we allow (force) them to remain in society.  Would limiting the violence our kids see help?  I don't know the answers - I just know that more gun controls isn't it.  There is too much experience from other countries that make that very plain.

          1. Silva Hayes profile image94
            Silva Hayesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Thank you for a reasonable, well-thought-out answer.  A lot to consider.  This situation needs to be addressed from several different angles; that's obvious.  Perhaps some type of gun control; perhaps not.  For sure, the way we in the U.S. treat the mentally ill just is not working.  Time and time again, we read in the news where a shooter has a past history, yet there he is, struggling to live in among us when he obviously cannot cope: example, the recent shooting of volunteer firefighters near Rochester, where we learn that the shooter murdered his grandmother back in the eighties.  So, mental facilities, the medical community, law enforcement, the justice system which needs an extreme overhaul, metal detectors in public places; it's complicated.

            1. wilderness profile image95
              wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              And thank YOU for listening - few care to put aside their prejudices. 

              I believe that mental illness must be addressed, and for the very reasons you mention.  I believe that we are creating/have created a culture wherein violence is glorified and that that, too is being reflected in our homicide rates. 

              Unlike the matter of gun control, however, I can't provide any actual proof that either matter is a cause of our violence.  Someone a lot smarter than I am is going to have to research and propose a solution, if indeed there is a link between our homicide rate and either concern.

            2. wilderness profile image95
              wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Silva, let me throw another idea at you, one that just came up from a comment on my hub.  Look at the graph here, noting that prohibition ran from 1920 till 1933:

              http://polyticks.com/polyticks/beararms/liars/usa.htm

              I agree with the writer that one cannot assign cause from that graph; there were too many other social changes going on for that.  However, should we be looking at the possibility that our "war on drugs" is causing a good bit of our violence problem?  If so, what might an answer be?

  48. SpanStar profile image60
    SpanStarposted 3 years ago

    Silva Hayes,

    I agree with your position by affecting the mechanism of a device you affect the effectiveness. If a person had to frequently reload that weapon that period of time would provide a possible means of an escape for some people.

    Gun violence does not only come from crazy people. We are inundated with store crimes, bank robberies, people being accosted-(can anyone say Mister Zimmerman), domestic violence. This idea that only crazy people kill is crazy.

  49. ahorseback profile image46
    ahorsebackposted 3 years ago

    IN ORDER TO STOP THE INSANITY , WE HAVE TO UNDERSTAND IT ! the old saying insanity is the
    equivelant of repeating the same acts over and over expecting  different results !   Anti gun peoples rants in particular come to mind !

  50. SpanStar profile image60
    SpanStarposted 3 years ago

    Ahorseback,

    I would say the irrational love for killing weapons would be the starting point for psychiatrists to concentrate on such a bizarre desire to begin reducing the insanity certainly in this country.

    1. 60
      retief2000posted 3 years ago in reply to this

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punitive_p … viet_Union

      another brilliant political policy brought to you by the "rational" left.

      1. SpanStar profile image60
        SpanStarposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        RETIEF2000,

        The article seems to be talking about the abuse of the use of psychiatric evaluations.

    2. ahorseback profile image46
      ahorsebackposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Guns have been in this culture sinse the beginning ,  so has insanity , but then again ,and so has the mass  hysteria of shallow minds  !

      1. Ralph Deeds profile image70
        Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        "Guns have been in this culture sinse the beginning ,  so has insanity , but then again ,and so has the mass  hysteria of shallow minds!"

        Assault weapons have not been in this culture since the beginning. The "hysteria of shallow minds" is found among the 2nd Amendment fanatics and survivalists who are stockpiling guns and other weapons to resist a "tyrannical government." Their shallow minds fail to comprehend that the source of the tyranny is greedy banksters, drug companies, for profit medical providers, the NRA and oil billionaires who are polluting American politics, denying global climate change, etc.

 
working