ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel

Is it Really Gun Control?

Updated on August 15, 2013
Both clinging to what they love!
Both clinging to what they love! | Source

A Brief History of the National Rifle Association

The following is paraphrased from Wikipedia:

The National Rifle Association was chartered in New York in November 17, 1871. The Civil War had ended in 1865 and records from the Union Army had shown that it took at least 1,000 shots to hit a confederate soldier, because they were using the volley tactics that were designed for smooth bore muskets. General Burnside who was a Civil War general had said that his troops could not hit the broadside of a barn compared to the European technology on rifles that were available. Therefore, he formed the NRA to develop training tactics that were used by the Europeans. They then had a shooting match with the Europeans and they won using breech loading rifles built by Remington Arms and Sharps Rifles companies. New York Herald publicity established the obsolescence of muzzle-loading firearms, demonstrated the quality of breech-loading firearms, provided public support for military marksmanship training, and promoted the NRA to national prominence.

The NRA Today

Since then and because of the 2nd Amendment, the NRA has evolved into a political super power. It has wrapped itself around the 2nd Amendment since Reagan was President because he owned and loved firearms. In June of 2010, the Supreme Court ruled:

"The Second Amendment provides Americans a fundamental right to bear arms that cannot be violated by state and local governments."

The NRA today is a 501(c)(3,4) organization which means it operates as a tax exempt charity and participates in campaigns and is one of the most powerful lobbying groups in Washington D.C. It has the same rights and privileges as a Super PAC and does not have to disclose the source of its donations.

To it's credit, the NRA has done a great job in teaching and promoting gun safety to the public and its members.


The Head of the NRA

With all the mass killings we have had and especially with Newtown, there are two schools of thought as to how to make our country safer. One is to take away guns and the other is to add more guns. This is what the head of the NRA, Wayne La Pierre said in response to the killing in Newtown.

"If it's crazy to call for armed officers in our schools to protect our children, then call me crazy," LaPierre said defiantly. "I think the American people think it's crazy not to do it. It's the one thing that would keep people safe."

LaPierre also strongly suggested that the NRA would fight any new measures that would limit gun purchases, calling them ineffective and denouncing the assault weapons ban as a "phony piece of legislation."

Source: Huffington Post

AR-15 with 100 Round High Capacity Magazine
AR-15 with 100 Round High Capacity Magazine | Source

Gun Control

When gun enthusiast hear the phrase gun control, it raises the hackles on their necks. I don't think we can have absolute gun control, but what we do need is to ban high capacity assault weapons from public access. Those weapons were designed for military use to do maximum damage to the enemy in the shortest amount of time. High capacity magazines make them weapons of mass destruction. I can understand how firing these machines can give one a thrill. I grew up with guns in my life and used to get the same kind of thrill when going hunting with my father. But these machines are not designed for hunting. How dead do you have to kill an animal? Yes gun enthusiast fire at targets and get a thrill from doing it. But there is a price we pay for those people getting that thrill.

There are those that feel they cannot trust law enforcement and the military to protect them. and will protect themselves against any invasion, even if it against our own government. Then there are those that trust the establishment to protect them.

The price we pay for having these guns available to the public is that some unstable people also have that same access. If that access is removed, it will lessen the probability of those that are unstable to getting that access.

AR 15 Modification to Near Automatic Weapon

The link below is to a video that shows how a perfectly legal modification to an single fire AR15 was converted to an extremely rapid fire and for all intents and purposes almost fully automatic weapon. It's quite sobering to watch.

Arguing Against the Ban

We are currently in a vicious cycle. When there is a mass killing, more people buy these weapons which also makes them more available to the unstable people. The gun enthusiast like to use the slippery slope argument. If you ban these weapons, then you have to ban knifes, forks cars, trains planes and anything else that can be used as a weapon, but that is a very weak argument. It is part of the "what if game" that takes control away from the person playing the game. The way they get control back is by being armed. The whole idea about protecting themselves from tyranny is a what if game on a slippery slope. It is completely based on fear. Another argument is that there are already so many guns owned by the public, it's too late to do anything about it. That also is a weak argument propagated by the NRA. It's never too late to do something that will curtail the use of these weapons. Another argument is that guns don't kill people do and those that do have been influenced by computer games, the media, and a moral depravity in our culture.

Arguing for the Ban

A ban on high capacity assault fire arms was passed in 1994. It had a sunset provision that stated it would expire in 10 years. The ban expired in September of 2004. The law explicitly specified those weapons that were classified as assault weapons and high capacity magazines. And gun manufactures were not to manufacture those specific items except for law enforcement use and military use. It raises the question as to why the sunset provision was placed on the law. If the law was valid for 10 years, why wouldn't it be just as valid today, if not more so with all the recent mass shooting we have had? The 2nd amendment was written for another time and another place, but it is still valid today.

The Second Amendment

Here is the 2nd amendment:

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

It was ratified in 1791 to protect the people from another incursion of the British or their own newly formed government. That's why it states a "Well regulated militia." They were much like the Minutemen of the revolutionary war. That's why they wanted them to "keep and bear arms." Their state of the art weapon was a flintlock musket.

The 2nd amendment is a one of the 10 amendments that form our Bill of Rights. So therefore through the years it has been interpreted to mean many things to many different mentalities. You have the right to keep and bear arms, no matter what the circumstances are and if you are not given that right, then it is in violation of the constitution. These words have been used by many to promote the following:

  • Protect themselves against tyranny and any invasion of their well being.
  • Gun collectors
  • Hobby and sports
  • Hunting
  • Gangs mobs
  • Criminals

Conclusion

The jury is still out as to which way we are headed. As was stated earlier, the NRA has a very influential and powerful lobby group in Washington DC. In the final analysis will the NRA win out and make more guns available for everybody including the unstable people or will the people win out and will they ban assault weapons from the time the determination is made? If there are more mass shootings will it be easier to make the case for banning high capacity assault weapons or will be easier to make the case for adding more weapons and arming more people?

Here are some statistics from a Washington Post article by Fareed Zakaria:

  • The number of deaths by firearms in the United States was 32,000 last year. Around 11,000 were gun homicides.
  • England and Wales have about 50 gun homicides a year — 3 percent of our rate per 100,000 people.
  • The U.S. gun homicide rate is 30 times that of France or Australia, according to the U.N. Office on Drugs and Crime, and 12 times higher than the average for other developed countries.

In capitalism, there is an effect to a third party that is called Externality. It is a price a third party pays for something that was done without out them being a party to it. There are both positive and negative externalities. If your neighbor's house is painted and it causes an increase in the value of your property, that is a positive externality. If on the other hand there are many neighbors who houses are in disrepair and it lowers the value of your house that is a negative externality. The sale of high capacity assault weapons can be thought of in the same way. When there are mass killings, there are those who are involved who had nothing to do with the transactions of selling and buying those weapons, but those involved pay the price, some of them with their lives.

What do you think would make our country safer from mass killings?

See results

Comments

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    • movingout profile image

      movingout 4 years ago from Georgia

      Very informative. It's a shame so many out of fear, are allowing such a Large Lobbying Group to speak for them. Fear is a powerful way for them to generate even more gun sales! Voted up!

    • peoplepower73 profile image
      Author

      Mike Russo 4 years ago from Placentia California

      movingout: You are right. Fear can be a great motivator. Thanks for dropping by and thanks for the vote.

    • AM Hanson profile image

      Adam M. Hanson 4 years ago from Mankato, MN

      I think that guns are not the problem, neither is security or training or defense. I think that we need to really think about how many mass killings (especially school shootings) would have been entirely prevented due solely to a ban on assault weapons... I mean, if a human being would be motivated enough to pick up an assault rifle, then they'll be ok with picking up a handgun or a knife as well, and I doubt that legality of the weapon will matter much at all. we need to all learn that weapons are simply tools, albeit tools that must be treated with care and respect. the more powerful the tool, the more dangerous it can be. To try to stop killings, we can try to teach our kids to properly respect the tools and, more importantly, the value of life.

    • profile image

      Howard Schneider 4 years ago from Parsippany, New Jersey

      Excellent overview of the gun control debate, Peoplepower. I never knew the origins of the NRA. I feel that the assault weapons ban must be reinstated. Background checks should be strengthened with the gun show loophole removed. The 2nd amendment is not an absolute right. Public safety demands require common sense regulations.

    • ib radmasters profile image

      ib radmasters 4 years ago from Southern California

      The answer is that we can not be protected from random acts of violence by people that have gone over the edge.

      In California yesterday a man used a kitchen knife to stab two people in a mall. He got away. So is the answer to now ban kitchen knives.

      The best solution is to improve the economy, get more jobs out there and have people focus on living, and not just surviving.

      These dollars or food for guns is ridiculous, as only the law abiding citizen is going to turn in their guns. The bad guys will have access to guns even if there is a total prohibition on guns.

      Recently a person was pushed to their death from a NY subway platform.

      Gun control should be used to license guns with whatever criteria enforces gun safety, and the gun owner.

      There are too many non weapon ways to kill people, even many people at a time.

    • peoplepower73 profile image
      Author

      Mike Russo 4 years ago from Placentia California

      AM Hanson: I agree with you as far as the more powerful the tool, the more dangerous it can be. And you can add to that the more efficient it will be. Thanks for reading this piece and thanks for the comments.

    • profile image

      An AYM 4 years ago

      That was an impressively even presentation. I don't think I'd be able to approach it that well since guns fill me with vehement spit.

      On a small side note, I found this sentence a touch awkward "And if the probability of some invasion of their well being is to take place they will protect themselves, even if it against our own government."

      Only the first part feels odd to me. I got what you meant, it just took me a couple reads to catch it. Funny thing is I'm not sure what it is, maybe some small play of grammar my brain notices but my eyes don't?

      I dunno! I liked it all though, and interesting to learn the history of the NRA to boot.

    • peoplepower73 profile image
      Author

      Mike Russo 4 years ago from Placentia California

      HSchneider: I agree with your comments totally. It seems the Supreme Courts ruling on the 2nd Amendment was not done using good judgement for public safety, but rather to promote the business of selling more guns. Thanks for dropping by.

    • peoplepower73 profile image
      Author

      Mike Russo 4 years ago from Placentia California

      ib radmasters : i agree with you as far as anything can be used as a weapon. But when a person is stabbed, it is not the same thing as a mass killing with a very efficient machine that was designed for that purpose and that purpose only. We can take the other side of the argument. You have the right to bear arms according to the 2nd Amendment. What is an Arms: a 50 caliber machine gun, a rocket propelled grenade launcher, a bazooka, a stinger missile, an F15? Hey, thanks for dropping by.

    • peoplepower73 profile image
      Author

      Mike Russo 4 years ago from Placentia California

      An AYM: Thanks for the comment and the constructive criticism. I know what you mean, it took me a while to write this as I could feel myself getting emotional, especially after viewing the videos. I needed a day or so to cool off.

      I usually have my daughter proof read my stuff before I publish it, but she wasn't available. You are right that sentence is awkward. I changed it to read as follows:

      "There are those that feel they cannot trust law enforcement and the military to protect them. and will protect themselves against any invasion, even if it against our own government." Probability, "well being", and "take place"are all implicit in the sentence. As always, thanks for dropping by.

    • ib radmasters profile image

      ib radmasters 4 years ago from Southern California

      PeoplePower

      There are already controls on the automatic and military type weapons.

      Gun control and even gun prohibition won't contain the people that want to use weapons to kill other people.

      To start with the gangs have these weapons, the drug cartel has these weapons on both sides of our borders.

      Bombs can easily be made with simple ingredients available to anyone, and they can take out multitudes of people.

      A vehicle can be driven into a crowd and kill or injure as many people as would an automatic rifle.

      Controlling the law abiding people doesn't help control those that are willing to kill by any means.

      The point is not to focus on the methods of killing but the people that are doing the killing.

      How is gun control or gun prohibition going to help control these people? How is gun control or gun prohibition going to stop the gangs from getting and using these or any other deadly means of killing?

      Gun control reminds me of the sermon in church where the priest is giving harsh words about the people who didn't come to church. The good people had to listen to the sermon while those people that were the focus of the sermon didn't have to listen to the sermon.

      Negligent or dangerous handling of guns and rifles can be made safer through gun safety, not gun control.

    • peoplepower73 profile image
      Author

      Mike Russo 4 years ago from Placentia California

      ib radmasters: A person who is unstable could care less about gun safety. How is anybody going to find out what is in the darkest secrets of a person's mind who who wants to buy an assault weapon? By controlling public access to high capacity assault weapons, it decreases the probability of unstable people getting their hands on them.

      It's not gun control prohibition. It's stopping the manufacture of high capacity assault weapons, except for law enforcement and the military. Granted, those weapons that people already have are going to stay in their possession, unless they turn them in. But I think that will be done on a voluntary basis. It will not be a law, if they re-instate the law that expired in 2004.

      I know one thing. Right now the sale of assault weapons is going through the roof. It's not gun control of all guns, it's control of high capacity of assault weapons. Look at it this way, several of the mass killings have been done with those weapons. Do you think those same people would have driven cars into schools or malls to take out those people? It will be interesting to see what Joe Biden and his team come up with. Thanks for your comments.

    • ib radmasters profile image

      ib radmasters 4 years ago from Southern California

      PeoplePower

      You keep disregarding the facts, and that is that gun control is not the answer.

      I mentioned gun safety for those people that talk about gun accidents, but the people that we are talking about are not making accidents.

      You are only fooling yourself if you think that the problem is the gun manufacturers, or that gun control of any gun will significantly reduce the gun violence.

      Any law abiding citizen that would voluntarily turn in their guns as you say they would are fools.

      When you take away even the assault rifles under gun control, that won't stop the gun violence, as there will always be a black market for anything that the government prohibits.

      Fast and furious was assault weapons given to the bad guys by our own government.

      Laws can't protect us from the criminals or the terrorists as they are willing to break these laws.

      We have laws and controls on narcotics, and it doesn't seem like it is very hard for the people that use them to find them. 'Guns will be no different.

    • peoplepower73 profile image
      Author

      Mike Russo 4 years ago from Placentia California

      ib radmasters: You are right nothing will stop the gun violence, but by preventing any further public access to assault weapons will lessen the effect. And who knows maybe will save some lives. It is better than doing nothing. If the mother in Newtown didn't have access to assault rifles, then her unbalanced son wouldn't have access either. The same goes for all the shootings where they used them. I can understand what a thrill it is to fire military grade weapons. I was in the Air Force and had to fire a grease gun with three clips of 45 caliber rounds with 15 rounds in each clip. It scared the hell out of me,but was still a rush. The point is, they don't belong in the public environment.

    • ib radmasters profile image

      ib radmasters 4 years ago from Southern California

      PeoplePower

      You don't have a compelling argument.

      It is not just assault weapons that can kill, it is any gun.

      Most of the deaths in the US from guns have not been from assault rifles. I don't have an assault rifle, but my point is that you can't prevent random acts of violence.

      We have over 300 million people in this country, and a certain percentage of them are certifiable, but don't take it out on the law abiding citizen.

      Your arguments seem to be circular, the Sandy Hook shooting was with a semi automatic .223 rifle, but with no opposition to the shooter two 9mm handguns with clips holding 15 rounds could have done the same thing.

      As in the shooting in Colorado there was no big shootout with the police, and there were extra firearms that were not used. So just gun control on assault rifles won't do much good.

      Passing this type of gun control is actually worst than doing nothing because it make these weapons wanting by those that are violent. You can't stop these rifles, or weapons because like alcohol prohibition there will always be a way to get them.

      You avoided the fast and the furious.

      BTW, there are many unnecessary firearm deaths caused by negligent shooting by the police.

      I really don't care whether they take assault rifles out of circulation, my point is that it won't solve the problem.

      Also consider that a single law abiding armed person at Sandy Hook could have stopped the killing at some point. The same is true in the Colorado shooting.

    • AM Hanson profile image

      Adam M. Hanson 4 years ago from Mankato, MN

      I would like to add one more thing, which I talked about in a hub I wrote about how the real tragedy of mass killings is that they will be forgotten in a few years after being used by multiple political and social causes who don't really try to solve anything...

      Attacking guns for being used in mass shootings is like blaming the car that was used by someone who went on a hit and run spree. Yes, the gun allowed them to kill more people than a knife would have, but a faster car would have allowed someone to hit more people in less time too. I'm not saying everyone should carry around assault rifles, but how many people do? Every year, we get bombarded with instances of shootings, but we rarely hear about the shootings that were stopped because of people with conceal and carry permits. Yes, I know they were carrying handguns, but it was still someone using a firearm.

      I doubt that anyone will argue that the average, everyday citizen should have easy access to, as you put it, "a 50 caliber machine gun, a rocket propelled grenade launcher, a bazooka, a stinger missile, an F15?" but gun control is more than that. Even if we completely got rid of assault weapons , people would still commit crimes with less powerful guns, and then people would be calling for the banning of handguns and hunting rifles.

      As I said before, the problem is not with the tools, it is with the killers. If more people had gun safety training, there would be fewer gun-related accidents. If more kids today learned that guns are simply tools that should only be used RESPECTFULLY by those who know how to, instead of seeing them as instruments of evil that are the easiest way to kill lots of people, I think we'd see a change.

    • peoplepower73 profile image
      Author

      Mike Russo 4 years ago from Placentia California

      AM Hanson: I'm going to keep this simple. Why does any civilian have to own a military grade assault weapon?

    • peoplepower73 profile image
      Author

      Mike Russo 4 years ago from Placentia California

      ib radmasters: What you have stated as facts are not facts but your opinions. Why does any civilian have to own an assault weapon?

    • peoplepower73 profile image
      Author

      Mike Russo 4 years ago from Placentia California

      ib radmasters: A 9mm handgun with clips holding 15 rounds is an assault weapon. You are the one calling them assault rifles. Fast and furious was a SNAFU. Those weapons were never intended to get into the hands of the cartel. It was all blown out of proportion by Darrel Issa for political reasons. Again I will ask one more time. Why does any civilian have to own an assault weapon?

    • AM Hanson profile image

      Adam M. Hanson 4 years ago from Mankato, MN

      I'll keep it simple as well: I never said they'd ever need to, but keeping them from owning one won't stop shootings.

    • profile image

      An AYM 4 years ago

      It's strange to watch the arguments saying "Yes we should have guns" as though the presense of guns is a good thing. How many people do you believe are intelligent and logical, and thereby responsible enough to be in constant possession of a tool capable of almost instant lethality?

      I've had a man try to fight me because I "Didn't know who he was". I go to restaurants or stores and see grown adults throw tantrums like entitled children. Next time you're out and about take a look at everyone around you and ask "Is that someone I would feel comfortable about having a loaded weapon in their possession".

      Maybe taking more guns out of circulation wouldn't stop shootings, but they would lessen them. Everyone says "Oh they'll find a way to get the guns anyway" as though you can just walk into your local gun shop and say "Yes, can I see your black market selection please?"

    • Alberic O profile image

      Alberic O 4 years ago from Any Clime, Any Place

      Quite frankly I think the assault weapons ban is a joke. The law bans semi automatic weapons that have the same cosmetic features of an assault rifle, sub machine guns, automatic pistols and machine guns. All weapons that can be fired in burst or automatic modes were not covered by the assault weapons ban at all. Automatic weapons are governed by federal laws such as the National Firearms Act of 1934 so they are not under the Assault Weapons Ban- meaning you can buy an automatic weapon even while the 'Assault Weapons Ban' is in effect if you have the money and clearance to do so through the BAATF.

    • peoplepower73 profile image
      Author

      Mike Russo 4 years ago from Placentia California

      That's the same logic as saying having airline inspections won't stop airplane crashes, so why have them? It lessens the chance of something going wrong and increase the probability of things going right. Have a happy new year.

    • peoplepower73 profile image
      Author

      Mike Russo 4 years ago from Placentia California

      An AYM: Their argument presupposes that it's not going to work, without any statistics or facts to back it up. We won't know if it will work unless we try and then develop metrics over a period of time to see if it is working. Here is a hub page that is below my hub page that provides a great argument as to why arming everybody won't work.

      http://missing-link.hubpages.com/hub/Debunking-the...

      Have a happy new year.

    • peoplepower73 profile image
      Author

      Mike Russo 4 years ago from Placentia California

      Alberic O: Please read this about the assault weapon ban that has expired in 2004. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapo...

      Have a happy new year.

    • ib radmasters profile image

      ib radmasters 4 years ago from Southern California

      People Power

      Airplane inspections are not the same logic, as there is an identifiable potential source of a problem the safety of the passengers. Each plane is its own source of potential problems for air worthiness.

      Random acts of violence don't have this identity feature.

      You made a statement that my facts are not facts, then if that is true your statement is then your opinion about my facts. Otherwise, you would have shown why my facts are not facts.

      I am still waiting for your comment on the fast and the furious, and also the negligent killings of suspects by police officers.

    • peoplepower73 profile image
      Author

      Mike Russo 4 years ago from Placentia California

      ib radmasters: Facts,especially about guns should be backed up with statistics or metrics that make comparisons, other than that, it is just opinions. And that holds true for my side as well. Until I can back up my writings with verifiable evidence, then it is just opinion. Airplanes are the same logic. My point is how are you going to know unless you try? Other than that, it's just opinion. As far as Fast and Furious, Please read this, it is too complex for my to voice my opinion on it. I'll let you draw your own conclusions.

      http://features.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2012/06/27/f...

    • ib radmasters profile image

      ib radmasters 4 years ago from Southern California

      People Power

      That article made no sense and it didn't provide any facts, just a bunch of statements.

      How does a minor pass a criminal check to buy guns?

      The fact is that the government didn't stop the fast and the furious, and the cartels did get the weapons.,

      In ether case, it is a losing story for your opinions.

      The gun control of licensing was there and it apparently was sidestepped.

      You also didn't respond to my statement on negligent shootings, and deaths caused by police.

      The airplane inspections are totally different.

      Punish the bad guys, and don't make everyone pay for their misdeeds.

      You also didn't respond to my comment on the urban gangs in the US, and their arsenal of weapons. The police know them, and yet they can't stop them.

      If you want to challenge any of my statements as lacking any factual support, then do so. But remember, you say things like gun control is better than doing nothing, and it may help?

      Has that reasoning really had any major effect on narcotic drugs and their use in the US? Assault weapons if banned like drugs would have the same results.in my opinion.

    • profile image

      An AYM 4 years ago

      "Punish the bad guys, and don't make everyone pay for their misdeeds."

      How is not having a gun a punishment?

    • ib radmasters profile image

      ib radmasters 4 years ago from Southern California

      an AYM

      How is it not a punishment to deprive someone by changing the rules because of what someone else is doing.

      The object is to focus on the people doing the criminal action and not on the method of their action. Drunk drivers kill thousands of people a year, and their method is the car. So do we make cars the object of preventing drunk drivers?

    • Alberic O profile image

      Alberic O 4 years ago from Any Clime, Any Place

      peoplepower, That's the ban I was referring to. There is no standard definition of an assault weapon. Look at the Federal statue verses other states like Connecticut- they are different in the wording of the law. Those familiar with firearms don't use the term 'assault weapon.'

      I've read the actual law in the assault weapons ban that expired in 2004 and the laws governing actual automatic weapons. Current laws dictate you can own these weapons if you get approved through the ATF and pay a lot for the weapon and the permit. Now let's say that the Assault Weapons ban was passed again with no changes to the original law that has expired. You won't be able to get a semi automatic version of a machine pistol, submachine gun or assault rifle. However, if you pass a background check through the ATF and have money, you can get yourself an assault rifle that can fire on burst or automatic.

      Here is the laws governing the purchase of automatic/burst fire firearms in the US

      http://www.atf.gov/firearms/nfa/

    • peoplepower73 profile image
      Author

      Mike Russo 4 years ago from Placentia California

      ib radmasters, An AYM, Alberic O: We can argue all day about whether assault weapons bans will increase or decrease mass killings. I do know one thing, a law was passed in 1994 to ban assault weapons for 10 years. That law expired in 2004. It tells me that in order to get the law passed, there had to be a compromise made from it being permanent to having a Sunset Provision. I suspect, that compromise was forced by the NRA.

      Here is a wikipedia link that tells you everything you wanted to know about the ban, but were afraid to ask. After reading it, I came to the conclusion, there is no substantial information that indicates it increased or decreased mass killing by assault weapons. Hopefully, if the proposed ban gets passed, it will be permanent and they will keep better records this time. Thank you all for your comments. Here is the link. The article is quite lengthy, but is very educational and well written. Here it is.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapo...

    • profile image

      An AYM 4 years ago

      It just strikes me as a peculiar entitlement to feel.

      I don't understand your metaphor. In response to drunk driving there are a bevy of laws, I mean, we even set-up checkpoints to see if we can catch even more people. It's unreasonable to imagine a heavier regulation of weapons because it's perfectly legal to drink and drive?

    • ib radmasters profile image

      ib radmasters 4 years ago from Southern California

      AYM

      I also don't understand your comment.

      People Power

      I don't understand how both of you ignore the facts. The laws don't protect us from the criminals.

      Criminals are not stopped or encumbered by the laws or controls. It is only the law abiding citizen that is constrained by the laws or controls. You can delude yourselfs into thinking that they make a difference, but look at Alcohol Prohibition, it didn't stop alcohol consumption, in fact, it increased it.

      We have the same problem with Narcotics, and man made drugs, and even with prescription drugs.

      Then there is prostitution, have the laws curtailed prostitution?

      As for my drunk driving example, the point is the checkpoints, and arrests have not stopped drunk driving, and I don't believe that it has even diminished it.

      I don't understand why I have to repeat the same examples several times.You contend that my statements are simply my opinions, yet you fail to demonstrate how they differ from verifiable facts.

      Like the drug companies, you can't find a solution by trying to deal with the effects rather than the root cause of the problem.

      How many of the gun deaths were not related to suicides, and gang shootings? There are solutions or at least paradigms for handling them. Both of these will improve when the economy recovers, and the unemployment rate goes way down' Something that hasn't happened in the last four years.

    • peoplepower73 profile image
      Author

      Mike Russo 4 years ago from Placentia California

      An AYM: That's true. It's called a false equivalence.

    • peoplepower73 profile image
      Author

      Mike Russo 4 years ago from Placentia California

      Here is a real simple question for you. If the laws don't protect us from criminals, why do we have the laws? Let's remover the laws and see if we have any increase or decrease in crime. So you are saying mentally unstable people who use assault weapons for mass killing will go down once the economy improves and the unemployment rate goes way down? And the fact that it hasn't happened in the last four years, you can blame on Obama?

    • ib radmasters profile image

      ib radmasters 4 years ago from Southern California

      Here is a real simple question for you. If the laws don't protect us from criminals, why do we have the laws?

      ib----

      First of all lets focus on the subject of gun control, and other types of controls on products. These are the laws in question.

      They didn 't stop alcohol, drugs, prostitution for illegally being continued.

      --------

      Let's remover the laws and see if we have any increase or decrease in crime.

      ib------

      The other point that I was making is that laws are not controlling those that are willing to break it, no matter what the legal consequences. The death penalty doesn't scare them before they commit their deadly crimes.

      ---------

      So you are saying mentally unstable people who use assault weapons for mass killing will go down once the economy improves and the unemployment rate goes way down? And the fact that it hasn't happened in the last four years, you can blame on Obama?

      ib--------

      Yes, and so will a lot of other crimes. When people become desperate because they can't make it in a bad economy, they do things that they wouldn't do in a good economy where they are busy making a living and taking care of themselves and their family.

      23 million people out of work, and that doesn't include those people who have given up. 47% of the people on food stamps. People are still losing their homes.

      The eight hundred billion dollar stimulus package didn't help the people, neither did the 700 billion dollars from TARP.

      Obama spent 2012 running back and forth across the country with over two hundred fund raisers, numerous political rallies, when he wasn't playing golf, or writing executive orders.

      So yes, Obama was a major factor in failing to revive the economy. But for the point here, it doesn't matter who is responsible for the bad economy, the economy is bad. This brings out the worst in people, and it puts people in situations that make them desperate.

      -------------

    • peoplepower73 profile image
      Author

      Mike Russo 4 years ago from Placentia California

      ib: I want you to read this hub. It makes a lot of sense, at least to me.

      http://missing-link.hubpages.com/hub/Debunking-the...

    • ib radmasters profile image

      ib radmasters 4 years ago from Southern California

      People Power

      I read it, but how is it relevant to our dialogue?

      Is it a diversion from answering my last comments?

    • peoplepower73 profile image
      Author

      Mike Russo 4 years ago from Placentia California

      ib: Look I get it. I'm not going to sit here and argue with you. It's as bad as arguing about politics. You are not going to convince me and I'm not going to convince you. I can see you don't like Obama and want to blame him for things that he didn't do , like inheriting TARP and the financial meltdown. You even want to blame him for the killings as a result of unemployment. But I think that's consistent with conservative gun enthusiast, so is protecting yourself with assault weapons for fear of your government turning against you. It's all part of the culture of not trusting anyone to protect you. That's great, do you want me to say you win, then you win. But I believe the jury is still out until either we bring in more assault weapons or less. We have to wait and see what Biden and his team come up with. And that won't even show anything until trends are established. Everything else is supposition because it's too complex and involves many stakeholders and variables. So you go out and buy more guns to protect yourself, while I believe in our government and law enforcement to protect me.

    • Lipnancy profile image

      Nancy Yager 4 years ago from Hamburg, New York

      Unfortunately we need a change in consciousness in how we treat people. Maybe if we invested in our people, both mentally ill and convicted criminals and found ways to help them instead of just institutionalize them, we would have less shootings.

    • peoplepower73 profile image
      Author

      Mike Russo 4 years ago from Placentia California

      I remember in 1980, when Reagan in his quest to cut back on government spending, stopped the funding to mental institutions. That put all kinds of mentally ill people on the streets. I don't think that funding has ever been re-instated. I remember going jogging and being chased by an unstable person. i had to hide in the bushes to get away from him.

      Several years ago, I had a bout of depression and had two doctors. One was the psychologist who's only job was to prescribe drugs and the other was the therapist who couldn't prescribe drugs, but who could talk to you. This was called a panel. And the two people on the panel could never meet or share information. So I think you are right, the mental health problem needs to be fixed. There was a time when one doctor could serve as the shrink and also prescribe medication. I think that changed because of law called HIPPA which says your information cannot be shared. Thanks for your comments. There are a lot of aspects that need to be fixed in this matrix of the 2nd amendment and keeping the bad guys from getting weapons.

    • ib radmasters profile image

      ib radmasters 4 years ago from Southern California

      People Power

      ib: Look I get it. I'm not going to sit here and argue with you. It's as bad as arguing about politics. You are not going to convince me and I'm not going to convince you. I can see you don't like Obama and want to blame him for things that he didn't do ,

      ib------

      You don't get, I am commenting of Obama's actions or lack thereof, not him personally.

      --------------

      like inheriting TARP and the financial meltdown.

      ib--------------

      Senator Obama was a part of TARP, and he was campaigning for president from 2007 until the election in 2008. He didn't along with Congress and President Bush didn't treat the economy as a problem, and it blindsided them right before the election. Senator Obama didn't have a plan just a bunch of worthless election speeches.

      --------------------

      You even want to blame him for the killings as a result of unemployment.

      ib--------------

      It is a fact, that during bad economies people are put against the wall and they do things they would never do otherwise. President Obama and his democratic congress didn't work on the economy, other than pass an expensive Stimulus Package that failed. Last fall the Federal Reserve said that they were investing $40 billion a month into MBS every month until the economy showed signs of recovery.

      TARP gpt its money back but it didn't really help the economy. The banks didn't loan out the money that they received from it, and people were still losing their homes, and unemployment didn't go down enough.

      --------------

      But I think that's consistent with conservative gun enthusiast, so is protecting yourself with assault weapons for fear of your government turning against you. It's all part of the culture of not trusting anyone to protect you. That's great, do you want me to say you win, then you win. But I believe the jury is still out until either we bring in more assault weapons or less.

      ib-------------------------

      As long as you and others continue to play pin the guilt on the other party, the country will continue its slide down hill. Congress has failed the country, it has been doing so for the last one hundred years. And that is both parties, they only move the country left or right, hardly ever forward, and many times backwards.

      --------------------------

      We have to wait and see what Biden and his team come up with. And that won't even show anything until trends are established. Everything else is supposition because it's too complex and involves many stakeholders and variables. So you go out and buy more guns to protect yourself, while I believe in our government and law enforcement to protect me.

      ib------------------

      You fail to see the root cause of most of the violence in the country. The root cause is not assault rifles, it is the over 33,000 multinational gangs, with their over 1.4 million gang members dealing in a multibillion dollar illegal crime business. They deal in illegal drugs among many other illegal products and services. These drugs are even sold to children. Don't you think that children and young adults on drugs create an unstable society. The mass killers as the media likes to tag them, kill many people in a single incident, but these are not normal occurrences. And that is why they are so shocking and horrific.

      But the criminal violence of the gangs is 24/7. The assault rifle and gun ban is a red herring. Mexico has a strict gun control law, but that doesn't prevent the Mexican Cartels from getting these weapons. And AK-47s which is very popular is not made by this country.

      As far as deaths, there are more suicides from guns than there are from mass killings or assault rifles.

      Read my hub, if you want details.

      What I call a discussion, you want to make into an argument.

      Your hub your choice.

      bye

    • profile image

      An AYM 4 years ago

      This is off topic, but did you happen to receive the satire of the gun control from the Onion? I'm not too used to trying to send things other than through comments, so I wasn't sure if it worked.

    • peoplepower73 profile image
      Author

      Mike Russo 4 years ago from Placentia California

      No I didn't, just email me at mike2696@sbcglobal.net. I'm looking forward to seeing it.

    • Anna Sternfeldt profile image

      Anna Sternfeldt 4 years ago from Svenljunga, Sweden

      Great info, I voted up! Guns are produced to kill, that is how it is. And it is just to look at the statistics as you show. Less weapons around in the society, less killings. Easy. Thanks for writing about this important issue.

    • peoplepower73 profile image
      Author

      Mike Russo 4 years ago from Placentia California

      Anna Sternfeldt : Wow! I'm truly honored to have you read three of my hubs in one day. Thank you so much for taking the time. I'm very happy to have a friend like you from Sweden. I know with your experience, background and interest that you will add value to the hub page community.

    • torrilynn profile image

      torrilynn 4 years ago

      Really great information that you have here. I don't necessarily feel that

      gun control is the problem, i think social media, movies, and books about violence

      are the problem constantly showing guns off as being in a bad light... etc etc.

      anywho, really nice hub that you have here and I hope to read more from you in the future.

      Voted up and shared

    • peoplepower73 profile image
      Author

      Mike Russo 4 years ago from Placentia California

      torrilynn: I'm sure there is some kind of connection with what you stated to mentally unstable people, But I believe it is the availability of those weapons that makes it possible. It's like a pipeline, they bigger the pipe, the more water flows out the other end to make it available for good use as a well as bad use. Thanks for dropping by.

    • peoplepower73 profile image
      Author

      Mike Russo 3 years ago from Placentia California

      I have complied with the following style tip from Hub Pages:

      Uh-oh! It looks like you have a large number of Amazon or eBay products grouped together. We recommend placing one relevant product next to the text where the product is mentioned.

    Click to Rate This Article