I'm curious as to what you think. I'm also curious as to some information about you. Please if you would not be shy or sensitive or politically correct or defensive. I will start: My family originated from England in the 1300s then through France then through Germany to the U.S. in the early 1800s. I am 56 years old. I am a pacifist. I do not believe in guns for anyone for any reason. I think the shooting was equally motivated by a hatred of white-skinned people and a complete disregard for human life made possible by easy access to guns.
sort by best latest
I cannot agree with you more!
I agree that guns are at least part of the issue. If a gun was not available to these boys, they could not have shot the man. Why are guns SO important to so many in this country that gun violence is rationalized away.
RealityTalk, perhaps that question is best directed to someone who has used a gun to successfully protect their life; or the life of another, from someone who was trying to harm them. This happens all the time.
So you must be hit by a nuclear weapon to decide nuclear weapons are dangerous? You must be stabbed by a knife to decide a 5 yr old should not carry a knife to school? Your logic leaves much to be desired.
If you speak to someone who has defended themselves with a gun against someone who would have killed them if they hadn't had it; such as a 100 lb woman vs. a 250lb rapist, perhaps she could give you a more relevant answer as why it was so important.
Again Jeff, I'm not going to dispute gun laws w/you. Please re-read the question. I'm asking if the killing of an innocent man was the result of a race or gun issue, not whether you should own a gun. Do you have an answer or not?
you asked why guns were so important. I answered. As for the question you just asked me to re-read, I already answered it.
For Jeff: The question: "Is the shooting of the Australian man in Oklahoma a race issue, a gun issue, both or neither."
Race: yes. One of the killers has social media full of racist hate agaisnt whites. Gun: No. A gun is an inanimate object. We do not have a gun control problem. We have a sin problem. Our morals have gone in the toilet.
It is sad all around. One innocent man doing nothing wrong to anyone has his life & the life of his family destroyed because of a senseless act by 3 boys who should pay for their misdeed, but it is sad they put themselves in this position.
I totally agree with the issue of violence on television. When children are seeing killings on television from the time they are young, they think that is normal and think there are no consequences to their actions.
Well written Tom. I cannot disagree with one word you wrote. We are all complicit indirectly. Violence permeates the media & society in general. Ethics in sports & business is second to violence & victory. Why is peace & good news so
It's incredible that in an instance a senseless act with no legitimate purpose takes the life of a young man out of the blue. The man never knew it was coming. Think about it. In an instance he's down, in pain, knowing death is approaching.
Anyone buying a gun without a good reason should have to undergo a psychological examination. Same for anyone applying for a driving licence.
I think most men who buy guns have issues with the size of their phallus.
“The rifle is a weapon. Let there be no mistake about that. It is a tool of power, and thus dependent completely upon the moral stature of its user. …Naturally, it may be used by evil men for evil purposes, but there are more good men than evil, and
I agree that gun availability makes for opportunities that may never have arisen.
cebutouristspot, guns do not MAKE you do anything. That is a cop-out. Easy access to knives or rocks does not make someone "feel" like going out and stabbing or bludgeoning someone.
It is the availability of weapons that make the opportunities a possible practicality. It is naive & cliche to say "guns don't kill, people kill." With no nuclear weapons whole cities wouldn't die, but let's all have nuclear weapons - 2nd Amendme
Talk, weapons will always be available. Government regulations only give them MORE CONTROL over the citizens who try to obey the law. Criminals LIKE gun regulation---it makes them safer. Why won't you see that?
I mean black, biracial and white :)
I think the race argument had to do with tweets of one of the perpetrators that distinctly manifested a hatred towards whites which was the skin color of the victim, not the shooter.
There is talk that they were stopped from attacking another intended victim who was black.
Can white on white be considered a race issue? When a group of individuals attack another individual, the individuals of the group have differing reasons for joining in the action. Race was one of those reasons, so the group is racist.
I will agree that the media manipulate issues to rake in ratings & financial reward. I listened to John King direct inflammatory questions toward Travon Martin's parents which appeared intent on eliciting a racist response. Terrible reporting.
Instead of work parents who can should ensure the child has the inner resources to enjoy time where they can do what they want rather than sliding into boredom. Work is, as the Bible says, a curse and children should learn to use their freedom.
I disagree on the gun issue & there is no question a gun is not organic, but I agree on the race issue and there being a social issue. Allowing nearly anyone in a populous socially interconnected world to arm themselves at will is dangerous.
Chicago, Illinois = very strict gun laws. Very high murder rate.
Kennesaw, Georgia = very pro gun laws. Very very low violent crime rate.
Your right Jeff, more guns are the answer. By the way, this question is not "should we or shouldn't we have gun laws." The question is about why an innocent man was gunned down. This is not the place to promote your agenda for gun advocacy.
You don't want different opinions. Odd you mention this isn't the place for what you call my pro gun advocacy, yet, in the original question, started by you, there's your anti gun stance.
Jeff, if your read my backgrnd to the question as you say you did, I was asking for bkgrnd about commentators as to who they are so we can all understand a little better where comments r coming from. I did not promote anti-gun, but defined me.
In the course of our discussion, I have defined myself as pro-gun. So you should understand where my comments are coming from. It's obvious we aren't going to come to agreement here, so, this back and forth is going nowhere.
Jeff, I appreciate your giving me your backgnd. All I really want to focus on pertaining to this question is the 3 brats, the innocent Australian and why they shot & killed him. I want to hear you. The gun issue itself is something else.
Great historical backgnd. I am anti guns, but I understand your view pt. & history. It is interesting that many people grow up poor & don't resort to violence. A poor socioeconomic upbringing is not a valid excuse; it is merely an excuse.
Good explanation, Borsia. I'd like to add that people who advocate restricting constitutional rights (in whatever form) are not the friends of liberty, but of bondage.
The arming of citizens in the 2nd Amendment was at a time when a standing military did not exist. It was meant to defend our nation from other nations, not to defend Americans against Americans. It has little to do with liberty or bondage.
Where does it state in the 2nd that it was meant merely to fend off foreign invaders?
Jeff, I'm not going to argue Constitutional law. Read historical accounts. There is always a reason & intent behind every law whether local, State, Federal or Constitutional. Again, I'm waiting 4 your answer to the question asked.
I bet you don't want to argue the 2nd. Certainly not with the foreign invaders line. Answer what question? I've answered each that's been asked. Read through the answers. It's right there. Goodnight. I'm off to bed. Enjoyed the debate.
I probably should go to bed, but I'm usually up until 2 a.m. Good night to you too, Jeff. Thank you for visiting the site and contributing your comments.
You are partially correct, Talk. Dictators existed during the time of the Founding Fathers. They understood that firearms were necessary to defend themselves from all enemies---whether dictators or foreign armies.
Borsia-you are correct. Those environments that permit the individual to arm themselves legally have much lower crime rates. The criminal always goes after the victim where less risk is involved. Deterring crime requires direct action, not reaction.
Two houses sit side by side. One has a sign next to the front steps that reads "Gun Free Zone". The other has a sign that reads "This House Protected By Smith & Wesson".
Which house do you think gives a criminal pause?
We are so far off the question, but I love your scenario! LOL.
There should be more pacifists like you.
In the event that you are ever assaulted by a violent person (God forbid), make sure you tell him you are a pacifist---he'll probably put down the gun, chain, or club and let you go home in peace....
In your world even 5 yr. olds are armed to the teeth. Everyone should be armed to protect everyone from everyone else who is armed. That makes good sense. Don't solve a problem just make it worse.
It is interesting that in cities such as Chicago, Washington DC and Baltimore, where gun laws are strict, there is a far higher percentage of murder than in Kennesaw, Georgia; where every household is required by law to own a firearm.
That's the answer Jeff, arm everyone. I used to love watching those cowboy movies where everyone was armed to the teeth & shot anyone that they didn't like. Let's all live in fear. I'm buying a missile tomorrow; that will keep kids off my lawn.
Live in fear? I don't live in fear. Where does that come from? Can you dispute the Kennesaw results? Kennesaw allows anyone to refuse to own a gun. The law is merely symbolic. Yet, effective. Would a "Gun Free Zone" sign be better, you think?
Let's see, Kennesaw population 29000. Chicago - 2.7 million. Detroit - 707000. D.C. - 601000. Kennesaw also has a high growth rate in jobs, income & education. There are reasons for everything if you look beyond what only you want to see.
I'm speaking of percentages. Why would living in a bigger city make you want to shoot someone more often than if you live in a smaller city? ...what makes someone pick up an inanimate object and kill in Chicago and not in Kennesaw? The gun? No.
Jeff, Kennesaw is not Chicago. There is no comparison; research the demographics & socioeconomic differences. If you think you have the answer to gun problems in this Country then by all means suggest Kennesaw to the Feds. I believe it won't fly
Talk, you response to my comment was just plain exaggeration. No one is advocating the handing out of firearms to 5 yr. olds! The fact is that violent criminals will always be around...and you don't have the right to take self-defense away from peop.
CS, you are advocating arming everyone & one commentator remarked being certified by NRA at age 8. It is not a stretch to parents arming children to "protect" them. More devices designed to kill is not an answer to killings by weapons.
Learning how to use a firearm at a young age is very different than simply handing them a weapon and letting them do whatever they want with it whenever they want.
I assure you Chicago, and all their gun control, is not the answer, either. My point is not so much from a pro gun stance (which I have), but a degradation morals, ethics and values. The gun is the same now as it was 100 years ago. Morals aren't.
Jeff, I don't mean to b argumentative, but guns have changed over the years. An AK-47 is not the same as a one-shot little ball loaded in a musket. And morals have been redefined over & over historically, going from bad-good-bad-good-as defined.
There have been semi-automatic guns for well over 100 years. Yet, gun violence has escalated in the last 15 years or so. You're safe with me and a pistol. You're not safe with a criminal and a pistol. Same pistol, different morals.
The forefathers did not anticipate weaponry like we have today, nor the populations & technology. But I am glad to know I am safe with you.
Whether a rifle is single-shot or semi-auto is not a reason to restrict firearms ownership and use. Thousands of automatic guns are owned in this country...funny that these guns haven't driven their owners mad with blood lust.....
Caleb, lol. We all know guns don't kill, people kill, right? Funny thing, just the other day I saw a gun pick up a person & throw him at someone. Damn near killed the guy. Seriously. A gun is a "people" instrument designed for people to kill.
I have heard that argument about guns, but isn't that paranoia? Should we all be violent and mistrust everyone because one of "them" might kill us? It seems we go deeper into the hole by arguing everyone must be armed. Kindergarteners too?
No, RealityTalk...it's not paranoia; it's common sense. If the Colonists had not been armed (or had access to arms), this country would never have existed. There's REALITY for you....
Yes it is paranoia, not common sense. If the British had no weapons, the colonists wouldn't need weapons either. You suggest we live the wild, wild west. Let's arm everyone. Hey, you might have a tank, so we all should have tanks too.
The FACT is that governments will ALWAYS be armed. That's the way it is. And as long as corruptible governments have means of using force, the citizens will need to be armed. What do Mao, Pol Pot, Hitler, Stalin, etc, have in common?
You are correct lesliebyars. Youth learn to live the life broadcast by their parents and environment. These youth appear to have been enjoined through their immoral environment where life is not considered to be sacred. To them it is simply a joke.
There are commonalities, but not guns. Hitler came to power inciting the impoverished masses against the Jews. Mao united the workers. It was persuasion & ideologies, not weapons that brought these leaders to power.
What they have in common is that they murdered their own people through force of government. The the majority of the victims were unarmed.