Is the damage to society from the misuse of guns worth the freedom to have guns?
The Question
Are we as a country willing to accept the several hundred thousand situations and incidents year year when those who mis-use an otherwise legal substance create problems and harm innocents? Or do we demand that freedom for all be curtailed so that the innocents be spared?
A Similar Problem
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention:
Every day, almost 30 people in the United States die in motor vehicle crashes that involve an alcohol-impaired driver. This amounts to one death every 48 minutes."
There are 147 million self-reported episodes of alcohol-impaired driving among U.S. adults each year.
The annual cost of alcohol-related crashes totals more than $51 billion.
We can perhaps put a dollar figure on alcohol abuse, but that doesn't even begin to put a face on the shattered and lost lives from drunk drivers, the beaten and abused wives, the children who grow up under intolerable and cruel conditions, the jobs lost, the companies gone bankrupt, and the hazards it creates for everyone else who is innocent. Do those people who demand that all alcohol either be strictly controlled or banned all together have the right of it?
Is the damage to society from the misuse of alcohol worth the freedom for you and me to have a glass of wine with dinner, a cocktail at a party, or a bottle of beer after work?
Can society tolerate retail stores where any adult can walk in and buy as much liquor as he wants with no questions asked? Where parties are held where there is no limit on the amount and type of alcohol served? Where a keg of beer that can get many people drunk is as freely available as a bottle of beer?
Prohibition and Beyond
We do know that the people of the United States decided that question decades ago.
Remember Prohibition? Those who pushed the 18th Amendment in the early part of last century had dreams of utopia. Just give the government tight control over demon rum, or even get rid of it all together, and the world will be a better, safer place. No individual needed to drink alcoholic beverages. There was far too much damage to society from that freedom.
It didn't work out as those who had good intentions had planned. Crime skyrocketed and vicious, law breaking gangs who ran booze to the people who wanted it become entrenched in society to this day. People found a way to drink, and ruined their health from cheap, poisoned whiskey. Innocent wives and children still suffered.
So what happened? The American people, knowing full well that millions of their neighbors would misuse alcohol, that families would be destroyed, children abused, jobs lost, lives lost, tens of thousands of more car wrecks, and more homeless roaming the streets, still passed the 21st Amendment giving back to Americans the freedom to choose what they would do.
The people spoke. They considered the "collateral damage" well worth the price of freedom.
It's the same with guns.
Freedom vs. The Nanny State
There are laws against the misuse of guns. There are laws against the "wrong" people having guns. But as long as we are a free society a very small percentage of the firearms will wind up in the hands of those who find a way to hurt themselves and others with guns.
My paternal grandfather committed suicide with a gun. My maternal grandfather died an agonizing death a year after being carelessly and negligently shot by his son, my uncle. My brother in law attempted to shoot and kill my sister, and failing that, committed suicide with his gun while my sister was in a phone conversation with him. I was robbed at gun point so many times at the retail store where I worked that I became best friends with the mugshot books at the police department.
Yet -- the very same as we tolerate alcohol in our society with all the damage done to our communities by those who abuse the freedom to drink -- we've made the decision to tolerate the freedom to have firearms.
And I am the son of an alcoholic -- I have very intimate first-hand knowledge of just what harm comes to a family, and to individuals from demon rum. But I've never called for it to be prohibited. There was never a bottle invented that picked itself up and poured it down my dad's throat. Or my brother's throat. Or my other brother's throat. You think they would have learned better from the bad example Dad set. But society gave them that freedom to make bad choices that sometimes hurt themselves and others. Even to the point where my oldest brother lost his life in a car accident while drunk.
There is also not a gun that has picked itself up and put itself in the hands of someone who is then forced to misuse it. People use their freedom to make bad choices with firearms and sometimes innocent people are hurt.
I'd rather have the freedom of choice than to live in an obsessive nanny state that desires to control the actions and essential freedom of others.
Freedom is freedom. It is not to be balanced against the evils that people do either purposefully or willfully. There is no tipping point, no level of unacceptable behavior by those who choose to live outside society's rules that counterbalance the concept of freedom. Once we begin to quantify freedom and parcel it out in part based upon some kind of social formula where the most fearful, the social deviants, the least apt among us have controlling interest in what we are allowed to do or not do then it is far from freedom and becomes instead merely privilege.
As Charles C. Cooke states it, "Does a preference for human liberty in an imperfect world yield unfortunate, even tragic outcomes from time to time? Indeed so. Should we give that preference up in consequence? Absolutely not."
If you're going to fall back to the argument that firearms are different because they only exist to kill people, then you're also going to have to back the argument that alcohol is just as different as it only exists to get people drunk. Neither argument is going to impress the hundreds of millions of gun owners who do no harm to anyone with their firearms, and the equal number of social drinkers who never get drunk and hurt others.
A special request...
If you think this hub helps clarify the issue for those who are unsure of the concepts of freedom and rights, please like or share it on Facebook. I have a little "like" button up near the top that you can use.
To help this info reach the greatest number of people please feel free to post a link to it on any gun-related forums that you participate in.
Thank you very much...
My Other Writing
You're more than welcome to mouse around and discover some of my other writing on firearms such as Reduce firearm accidents -- The Fundamentals of Gun Safety and The Second Amendment as a Prophylactic.
![Gun Rights: Part 5: A Deeper Look: Can Reasonable Gun Control Save Lives? [209*2]](https://usercontent1.hubstatic.com/8292488_f120.jpg)
Comments
Freedom is a priceless commodity, generations of Americans have paid a steep price to keep it.
On a spiritual note, God thought freedom was so important that He sacrificed His own son to secure it. And not only freedom from sin's grip but the freedom to make wrong and damaging decisions because He thought it was worth it that our worship wasn't forced but freely given.
Freedom is a God given inalienable right of all people, shame on anybody or any governmental body who would attempt to subvert it.
sacman:" All I will say is that the main difference between alcohol and guns in my opinion is that guns have the capacity to kill far more people per incident than alcohol does unless the drunk is driving a bus of some kind and everyone dies (doesn't usually happen)"
And yet with all of that capacity, more damage does not result.
There is no way to say that the damage done by alcohol (physically and socially) is any less than any damage you ascribe to the misuse of firearms.
Thank you.
The reason the political classes do not want ordinary citizens to be armed is the same reason the Founding Fathers guaranteed our right to be armed.
It has nothing to do with crime or suicides. If it did, the political classes would take the obvious step of flooding the offending neighborhoods with police or even the National Guard and putting a stop to it. They would also institute a national mental health program to stop most suicides.
But if they actually moved to limit such deaths, they would lose the gun issue, so they do nothing.
- AUTHOR
I have not found much "common sense" behind them.
“common sense” gun control laws: Dictionaries confound political discussions by making people live up to agreed upon standards. My dictionary defines “common sense” as “sound practical judgment that is independent of specialized knowledge.”
For any law to be “common sense” oriented, there must be a clear end result, an expectation that it will be enforced, and some validation that the scheme has the desired effect. No proposal from the Brady Campaign, Violence Policy Center, or Criminals for Societal Manipulation (a.k.a. Michael Bloomberg’s Mayors Against Illegal Guns) meets the definition of “common sense.”
The desired results all depend on the assumptions that criminals will obey the new laws even though they are criminals who freely disobey other inconvenient laws.
Common sense requires incarcerating miscreants, not unviable and unprovable wishes expressed as laws.
One may judge the honesty of an approach to solving the problem of gun violence by the degree to which the fact of human volition is ignored or evaded. In the case of the the gun-controllers, the evasion is obvious. They do not consider evil or negligence to be the problem, but instead concentrate on inessential and irrelevant attributes of the weapons themselves, such as their appearance or the fact that they are considered "assault rifles." Human volition, which means the responsibility of an individual for his own actions, is the one issue that they dare not discuss.
This is because the corollary of individual responsibility is individual rights, the very concept that they have set out to deny.
Yes, there is a tendency for people to want to take away other people's freedom for some perceived greater good. What about the argument of "common sense" regulations?
Again, if you are not suicidal, not a gang member, not a criminal, not a brave police officer, and don't use the illicit drugs that force you to deal with criminals, your chance of being shot in the United States is almost zero.
There is no gun crisis in America.
- AUTHOR
Unfortunately "deaths" are not the only problem social deviants and thugs cause by the mis-use of firearms.
"There is no gun crisis in America. You are in far more danger of dying from a fall."
Overall there are about twice as many deaths by falls than firearm homicide each year but it depends hugely how old you are. Deaths by falls are massively concentrated in the over 75. If you are between 15 and 45 you are 10 times more likely to die by firearm homicide than a fall. If you think of it in terms of years of life lost (i.e. premature death) then firearm homicide remains a massive problem.
We have all been led to believe (falsely) that there is a crisis of firearms deaths in the US, but a look at the statistics proves otherwise.
Well over half of all firearms deaths are suicides, something the anti-gun, pro-suicide left fails to mention when they cite statistics.
Almost 70% of the remaining firearms deaths are committed by minority criminals and drug gang members.
The point is, if you are not suicidal, not a criminal, not a brave police officer, and don't use the illicit drugs that force you to deal with criminals, your chance of being shot to death are near zero.
There is no gun crisis in America. You are in far more danger of dying from a fall.
Very nicely written and a pleasure to read. I wish everyone in this country would take the time to actually consider the benefits and pitfalls of the protections of liberty. The problem with taking things for granted is one does not give due consideration to the value of what they are taking for granted. I think that is the difference between those of us who defend the constitution and those of who just expect to live in the country that it founded. The former understand that without standing guard over the one you cannot have the other. We do not take any of this for granted.
Ha ha, It's sad that we do it to ourselves!
Well, not when we continually elect the people we send there and they appoint their pals. As Stan Laurel used to say, 'Well Ollie, this is quite the mess you've got us into this time.'
Kicking a dead horse. It doesn't seem like the government knows how to address the problems so they just avoid it altogether. All they seem to do is make quick, irrational decisions that don't fix anything but probably contribute more to the problem.
Thank you Cantuhearmescream, and yes, I can, by the way. This country has argued the same issues on many points and that has become a dull drone. Solutions are our only way out of these messes so I choose to focus on those.
Sacman,
I have to applaud you for not just picking a side to fight on but making suggestions that could help the problem before the guns are even involved. Yes, you have to look at who is using guns inappropriately and why, we don't need to necessarily take away guns but instead improve flaws.
Ugh. The usual arguments that lead nowhere. All I will say is that the main difference between alcohol and guns in my opinion is that guns have the capacity to kill far more people per incident than alcohol does unless the drunk is driving a bus of some kind and everyone dies (doesn't usually happen). Both are the responsibility of the person not the machine (gun or bottle). I also think that the solution is far more fundamental than arming everyone. More mental health funding will stop a lot of it, and more employment in our urban areas will curtail even more. If someone is happily employed with a strong social group around them, I don't believe they feel the need to shoot someone else.
We already do that Jack they go and kill more people we need to correct our justice system, a murder should be locked up for life not be able to post bail because he was a good boy we need to look at the people that have mental illness be treated. As far as the teenager thing 98% of them always seek help before hand but people never take it seriously because to them it's a big joke, when someone tells you that they are depressed you take that and run with it to the nearest doctor or psychologist. To get them the help they need our kids need to be taught this.
Yes, that's true, most of the time when we ask criminals to stop breaking the law, they do.? Anyway, it's not just criminals, look how many teenagers with maybe closet depression snap and go on killing rampages. There are people who may be on the verge of snapping but it is not immediately recognizable. They snap before we even have time to hide the guns.
- AUTHOR
We could make it doubly illegal. Or we can just tell the people who break laws to stop doing that.
There are a lot of laws; obviously they're broken. So we need to figure out what we can do aside from "laws" that will keep guns out of dangerous hands.
- AUTHOR
There are already laws against the "wrong hands" having guns, which most gun owners generally ascribe to.
My problem is not with guns; but some of the people that access to them. My thought is if we want to fight for our right to own guns then we should fight as hard to keep them out of the wrong hands. Gun owners often say; "It's my right to own a gun, sorry if a few innocent people die". I say our attitude should be; "It's my right to own a gun, what do I have to do to keep them in the right hands". I don't think that America does enough or takes enough responsibility for the mentally ill or "criminals".
I can speak from experience, America is a mixing pot for different people guns are not dangerous unless put in the wrong hands I was taught at the age of 8 how to use a firearm, I never went rouge and shot my best friend or went on a killing spree, the freedom is there and well needed the freedom is not to go out and start killing people, the whole idea is it's a voice against a rouge government, George Washington said it best himself "The need for the people to have a firearm is to have a voice against the government if need." the Idea of the 2nd was to defend ourselves from a government that is no longer for the people much like we have today. All in all the problems are not the firearms but the people wielding them. Take a murder for example, a man killed his own grandmother with a blunt object, he was found guilty of 2nd degree murder, he posted bail 8 years after the fact, so you let a murder out of jail on a plea deal? Then you have the mentally ill, Holms sought help before going on that mass killing spree in CO, they laughed in this face and let him go about his day. Did you know even if they are considered a danger to society that they may NOT be forced to take medication nor be forced to stay and a psychward? Most people don't know that, so all in all if you we had a better justice system I think in much like other countries around the world the killings will slowly diminish without taking a way a right and a form of protection. Look and England, another great example may not own a firearm, they have a higher death rate then America due to knife violence. But the only thing a firearm is used for is protection and a tool to keep the government at bay and not stripping away every last right we have. Do I think everyone should own a firearm, No I support a back round check that looks at every aspect. But I do not think taking away the firearms from the people who legally own them and know how to use them.
Yes, it is our right Jack to own a gun. But if we think that it is worth the time and energy to fight to keep our rights then I think we should be just as willing to fight the side-effects that may come with our rights. I have nothing against gun ownership and I would be willing to stand in a picket line all day and fight to keep that right but I would like to think that someone else would be standing in the line next to me to fight to find a way to keep guns out of the wrong hands.
How about this? We can have all the guns we want and fight for the right to own, carry and use guns but if we are going to stand up for our rights we should also be responsible for adressing the side-effects that come with our freedoms. We should fight to keep the guns out of the wrong hands as hard as we fight to have the right to own guns. I'll stand in a picket line all day to fight for the right to own guns as long as someone else is willing to stand in another line and fight to keep them out of the wrong hands.
- AUTHOR
Cant... one old lady telling another old lady over the backyard fence about the unicorns that ate her roses over the night is not conclusive proof of unicorn's existence.
Your "statistics" are much like that. Note that the first one compared "gun murders" across countries. What they don't get around to explaining is that plain, old fashioned "murders" has America coming in quite low compared to many other countries.
This is typical of the type of info that you read and believe with all your heart.
However, the very concept of this hub is that freedom is freedom, even when some people choose to mis-use it. You can give dozens of stats all day long, many bogus and some not, that show how a multitude of things are misused by people and that doesn't change one bit that as a nation we have largely decided that social deviants are not the ones who set the standard for the freedoms we practice.
If you want to argue that the actions of the mentally weak amoung us, the social deviants, the mis-fits, the criminals and those like them are the ones we look to to see how much freedom we should have as citizens then go for it. I'm not going to get in your way.
It's funny Jack, if you and I were in an official debate with 5 people on each side we could go all day with legitimate points. I don't have anything necessarily against people owning handguns, though I feel like that's what you and I argue about. However, whenever I research data to support my arguments or points I can find all kinds of statistics that are not very supportive of the gun-enthusiast.
http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/chart-...
- AUTHOR
Cant sez: Do you want me to pretend that people don't walk around with loaded guns? Yeah, everyone I know carries a gun in one pocket an bullets in another; that'll help in an emergency.
Jack replies: Cant, do you even read back your posts to see if they make any sense at all? YOU are the ONLY one posting about "unloaded guns." It has absolutely nothing to do with the thread. Might as well be posting about the price of rice in China.
Cant sez: And anyway, clearly I'm not as intelligent as you
Jack replies: Your fixation on comparative intelligence is hampering your ability to put together a coherent, logical response.
Cant sez: We, as Americans think fast, get angry fast and react even faster.
Jack replies: A meaningless opinion because everyone can look around them and know that the vast majority of people they interact with don't fit your statement.
Cant sez: I think that a gun which is easily accessible is apt to be used in the heat of the moment before someone has time to stop and think about a better way to handle the situation.
Jack replies: Here's the problem... you "think." You lump every single person who carries into one group. You have not made the slightest apparent effort to study and "know" that your description does not meet in the least little bit those who legally carry firearms.
cant sez: Sure, not everyone is that irresponsible with a gun and many people can control their anger.
Jack replies: Far less than 1 percent of CCW holders get into problems with their firearm. Does 99.5 percent fit your definition of "many"?
Cant sez: Yes, I know that many people appreciate the right, simply the right to carry a gun, should they need one for protection. BUT, there are people out there who wouldn't think twice before shooting and bullets fly way more than just in life and death situations.
Jack replies: Yes, we have discussed the concept that criminals are criminals and will do as they choose despite the law.
Do you want me to pretend that people don't walk around with loaded guns? Yeah, everyone I know carries a gun in one pocket an bullets in another; that'll help in an emergency. And anyway, clearly I'm not as intelligent as you but look at the health and mindset of many Americans today. We, as Americans think fast, get angry fast and react even faster. I think that a gun which is easily accessible is apt to be used in the heat of the moment before someone has time to stop and think about a better way to handle the situation. Sure, not everyone is that irresponsible with a gun and many people can control their anger. Yes, I know that many people appreciate the right, simply the right to carry a gun, should they need one for protection. BUT, there are people out there who wouldn't think twice before shooting and bullets fly way more than just in life and death situations.
- AUTHOR
Again, cant confuses "action" with "state of being." He knows that a cigarette pack in someone's pocket is not going to hurt anyone. He acknowledges that it takes "smoke" to harm someone. In other words, the cigarette is not any longer merely in someone's pocket but is out and actively being used.
But... given the same EXACT set up with a gun in someone's pocket and he must revert to talking about "bullets" and how dangerous they are. As if somehow the bullet is going to jump out of the gun in the pocket and hurt someone even though the smoke inherent in the cigarette can, in no way, similarly jump out of the pocket and harm someone.
He created the analogy between cigarettes and guns and he cant even begin to understand how flawed it is.
A bullet is most likely going to kill the person it comes into contact with, and immediately. Secondhand smoke may not kill the person it comes directly into contact with and it certainly wouldn't kill them instantly.
- AUTHOR
Again... as far as I know it is already generally illegal to shoot people with a bullet and people have a right to complain when it happens for no good reason.
But perhaps you can explain in better detail why you consider walking down the street with a pack of cigarettes in your pocket and NOT blowing smoke in people's faces is different from walking down the street with a gun in your pocket and NOT shooting people with your bullet.
Exactly! No person is going to object to Fred walking down the street with pack of cigarettes, but enough people complained about the dangers of Fred smoking around him and now it is illegal. So? Second-hand smoke or bullet?
- AUTHOR
Smoking and guns is a terrible analogy. As far as I know it is already generally disproved of in society to pull out a gun and shoot people, the same as society now disapproves of people blowing smoke in their faces. However, I don't know of a single person who is going to object to Fred walking down the street with a pack of cigarettes tucked into his shirt pocket.
Again, it is the "doing" and not the "state of being" that is important in discerning harm to society.
Jack,
You are clearly an super intelligent man and I'm not being sarcastic. But, you always compare one bad dent in society with yet another bad dent. I'd like to see us stop doing all of the harmful things we do. Quite frankly, I think there should be more responsibility with alcohol. Maybe we ought to evaluate those laws? Hey, I don't want to infringe on any American rights or freedoms but I am for saving lives. It's an American right and freedom to smoke cigarettes, but people complained about the harmful "risks" associated with secondhand smoke and smoking was banned in public. I never thought I'd see the day; I grew up with ashtrays in businesses everywhere, it was a part of life. Yet, tobacco doesn't even cause an immediate death and "poof" gone.
- AUTHOR
cant sez: I don't know if you're implying that I'm suggesting people should be prosecuted for being potentially mentally ill?
Jack replies: I am not quite sure where you got that from my posts. I am saying that in Western civilization there is a considered difference between those who are judged by our justice system and those who are not.
Cant sez: All I'm saying is, great law that the mentally ill can't own guns, but how many people are mentally ill and not diagnosed?
Jack replies: How many people are alcoholics and not diagnosed?
Cant sez: Is it a requirement to purchase a firearm to have a psychological evaluation?
Jack replies: Drunk drivers kill far more people a year than people with firearms, and do much more damage to society. Is it a requirement to purchase a can of beer to have an evaluation to see if you are an alcoholic?
- AUTHOR
cant sez: I'm saying to you, "eh, 10 loose cannons killing a bunch of innocent people, what's the big deal?"
Jack replies: Cant is probably typing this while enjoying a cold beer. Not that there is anything wrong with that, but we just had a family of five killed down the street last week by a drunk driver. Cant is probably wondering what the big deal is, eh. ~His~ beer didn't kill anyone.
I don't know if you're implying that I'm suggesting people should be prosecuted for being potentially mentally ill? All I'm saying is, great law that the mentally ill can't own guns, but how many people are mentally ill and not diagnosed? Is it a requirement to purchase a firearm to have a psychological evaluation?
Jack, I'm saying you keep referring to there being "ONLY" about 10 in 80,000,000. So, I'm saying to you, "eh, 10 loose cannons killing a bunch of innocent people, what's the big deal?"
- AUTHOR
cant sez: Do you have any idea how many people are walking around with undiagnosed mental disorders?
Jack replies: Yeah, we have this odd thing about our country that says people who are not convicted of anything, who have not gone through the legal system, are presumed to be law abiding and good citizens. We don't punish people based upon "no idea" or "lack of evidence" or "maybe."
Cant sez: So, what is it exactly that you have to say for that “10 or so” out of 80,000,000 that do harm; collateral damage?
Jack replies: I'd say you should re-read this hub again. It hasn't been that long since you read it the first time but it appears that you might have forgotten exactly what it says about this very question.
Jack says; “It is already illegal for an adjudicated mentally ill person, or one who has met several different definitions of confinement, to legally buy, own, or even be in the same room with a gun. Or even to hold a bullet whether a gun to put it into is within a mile or not”.
Do you have any idea how many people are walking around with undiagnosed mental disorders? No, because you can’t put a number on something that isn’t being counted can you? Quite frankly, I would imagine that oftentimes, the “crazy” people lurking around are less likely to seek help or even recognize they are in need for help. Just because a 48 year old mother of 3 with a strained marriage and financial hardship may be battling some form of mental disorder and is appropriately diagnosed doesn’t mean that every person who is potentially a threat is being detected. It is the undetected people running around with guns that scare me.
Which do you think will do more damage and faster; a gun full of bullets or a knife? I’d rather take my chances running from a crazy person with a knife than a crazy person with a gun.
So, what is it exactly that you have to say for that “10 or so” out of 80,000,000 that do harm; collateral damage?
I have guns in my home! I also grew up having guns at home. I remember my father sitting myself, and my little sister down and explained how powerful a gun was, and that we should not touch them with him being present. This talk did not happen just once but many times during my childhood years. I find myself having the same talk with my children. I want my children to not fear guns but to respect them. I believe that strict gun laws, or a gun ban will solve our gun violence in this country but make it much worse! By educating my children I believe they willgive guns respect and will know how to properly use them!
- AUTHOR
Cant sez: That's a really nifty story. Honestly, the town took extreme measures and that was a very specific, isolated incident.
Jack replies: Extreme measures are what the government is best at.
Cant sez: Well, we certainly haven't taken guns away because kids are shot,
Jack replies: You might want to reconsider that statement after this:
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2013/02/breaking-m...
Cant sez: Isn't it obvious though that the more guns that are floating around the chances increase of the wrong people getting their hands on them?
Jack replies: Reality doesn’t work that way, though. For the past ten years gun sales have been skyrocketing yet the violent crime rate is going down.
http://www.timesdispatch.com/news/local/central-vi...
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/california-gun-sa...
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/247897/guns-a...
Cant sez: I don't make generalizations about what kind of people are "appropriate", I don't discriminate. I can't say that I agree that there aren't inappropriate people, just people that make poor decisions.
Jack replies: You may not… but others do. There was a remark posted yesterday on another hub that stated that anyone fighting against the so-called assault weapon ban proves that they shouldn’t be allowed to own such a weapon.
Cant sez: Yes, I think that it is fair to say that someone who is mentally unstable would be an "inappropriate" candidate to own a gun.
Jack replies: It is already illegal for an adjudicated mentally ill person, or one who has met several different definitions of confinement, to legally buy, own, or even be in the same room with a gun. Or even to hold a bullet whether a gun to put it into is within a mile or not.
But again, the problem is with those who insist that the proper definition of “mentally unstable” is “those who disagree with us politically.” And they are out there. Many of them in places of power and authority.
Cant sez: That's like running with a knife, you know it's going to end bad.
Jack replies: Speaking of knives… why do you suppose it is perfectly legal for a mentally ill person to buy and own as many knives as he chooses?
Cant sez: I think people should have the right to own guns. But, what do you do about legal gun owners whose raging hormonal adolescent, gets their hands on their parent's gun?
Jack replies: My two teenage girls had full access to the family self defense firearm. They were often left home by themselves until the wee hours of the morning as their mother and I were called to various duties. There is no way that I would have left them undefended.
Again, the number of “raging hormonal adolescents” who do harm with their parents gun is about ten or so out of 80,000,000 gun owners. What kind of law do you believe is going to change that number
Cant sez: How do we stop legal guns from being used illegally?
Jack replies: ? A responsible gun owner is going to do what is right. An irresponsible gun owner is not going to obey any law that you want passed.
That six-year old girl in Detroit who took a handgun to school when Clinton was president was the child of a crack whore and a crack dealer. Yet she was the poster child back then for “safe gun storage.”
Yeah… sure. Like her parents were model citizens who were going to obey the law.
I think you place some control measures on it but by no means do we lose our second amendment rights. Murder by proxy is a poor argument but a number one show currently in the media. You will never stop someone who is going to kill there self. The inability to negotiate or find a solution in a conflict has created monsters of perfectly normal people unwilling or unable to find a peaceful answer to an issue. After the fact we always think mental illness was the cause but this is another problem with no real answers. Locks on all weapons and back ground checks are not a lot to ask and are perfectly reasonable. The number one reason for owning a weapon is because your government is not reasonable and can not be depended on. For example name one national disaster where the Government got a gold star. During Katrina a few helicopters rescued thousands while the largest helicopter fleet in the World prepared to respond to anything in the World in 48 hours. Took a 3 day week end off so that they could watch the news and wonder why the hell we are doing nothing to help ordinary Americans. Name any other country in the World and we have done more the second they said go help them. The police with weapons could not stop anyone from committing crimes during Katrina, but shot a few innocent people fleeing the disaster at the time. I could write a million examples but gun owners need to become responsible and criminals will always be criminals no matter what we do.
Bo, there were 7 theaters showing the same movie in Co when the shooter went on his rampage, other theaters were larger and had more poeple..........the shooter chose the only theater in town that had posted signs that read "No Firearms Allowed"..........tells me that the fear of other armed individuals is a deterrent for crime!
Excellent write Jack! voted up and awesome!
Jack,
That's a really nifty story. Honestly, the town took extreme measures and that was a very specific, isolated incident. Well, we certainly haven't taken guns away because kids are shot, so I'm not sure we can compare stories. Isn't it obvious though that the more guns that are floating around the chances increase of the wrong people getting their hands on them? I don't make generalizations about what kind of people are "appropriate", I don't discriminate. I can't say that I agree that there aren't inappropriate people, just people that make poor decisions. Yes, I think that it is fair to say that someone who is mentally unstable would be an "inappropriate" candidate to own a gun. That's like running with a knife, you know it's going to end bad. I think people should have the right to own guns. But, what do you do about legal gun owners whose raging hormonal adolescent, gets their hands on their parent's gun? How do we stop legal guns from being used illegally?
- AUTHOR
Cant sez: You can make claims about my intelligence, education or knowledge on the issue,
Jack replies: Remember when I just posted, “Never post something that you cannot back up with specifics. This is exactly why I give the exact quote of the person I am responding to… so that the Dear Readers can see the word, the phrasing and the point the other poster was trying to make, along with my answer to it.”
I have never made a “claim” about your intelligence or education. I have no idea why you would post that I did and it really puzzles me that you did. As far as your “knowledge” you are the one who posted, “I don’t see the need…” I was just following your lead.
Cant sez: but I can back up any of those.
Jack replies: Perhaps you can. But can you back up what you posted about what I supposedly posted? This is the real question.
Cant sez: Also, anyone can spin any argument, any direction they want. You choose the statistics that support your point but there are just as many statistics against your opinion.
Jack replies: I am always open to posters who give cites and information that are supportive of their claims. But not all statistics are equal. Actually, 73 percent of all statistics posted on hubpages are just made up on the spot.
Cant sez: You tell people that they are wrong but many times they are just different, different than your opinion.
Jack replies: I am a strong believer in objective realism. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion but not their own reality. If someone wants to claim, which happens quite often, that fully automatic rifles are sold over the counter at Walmart then their opinion, statement or post (whatever you want to call it) is factually wrong. If someone wants to claim, which happens quite often, that the so-called assault weapon ban of 1994 banned 30 round magazines from being bought or sold they are also factually wrong.
Opinions based on lack of facts and reality often have a good chance of being wrong -- no matter who states them or what they state.
Cant sez: All I'm saying is I'm all for Americans' rights and freedoms but I think that there should be an attempt to prevent innocent people from dying, regardless of what area we are referring to.
Jack replies: I am all for preventing people from dying… but going about it in a way that is actually going to do something other than make people feel good about “doing something” is pretty important to me. Especially when their “doing something” then denies innocent, law abiding people their rights.
Let me relate a story that happened out in California about 20 years ago or so. There was a large open meadow near a regional airport where kids and their parents flew kites for several decades. Kids grew up and then brought their kids to fly kites there.
One day a father with his six year old daughter was flying a kite. He thought it would be neat to use fishing line to ensure the kite string wouldn’t break. As it happened, in a freak incident, one of the planes came in too low and snagged the kite. If it was using regular line there would have been no problem. However, the test line didn’t break and the girl was too terrified to let go. The plane dragged her about 100 yards before she finally was freed and tumbled to the ground.
Nothing like that had ever happened before.
The town’s response? They didn’t tell parents to use more care. They didn’t ban “fishing string” on kites. No… they had to ban kite flying completely. Decades of use without a single incident… and boom… no more kite flying ever again for anyone at that park because of a single, freakish accident.
These are not the people I want to “’do something” when it comes to fundamental rights of American.
Jack,
You can make claims about my intelligence, education or knowledge on the issue, but I can back up any of those. Also, anyone can spin any argument, any direction they want. You choose the statistics that support your point but there are just as many statistics against your opinion. You tell people that they are wrong but many times they are just different, different than your opinion.
All I'm saying is I'm all for Americans' rights and freedoms but I think that there should be an attempt to prevent innocent people from dying, regardless of what area we are referring to.
- AUTHOR
Cant sez: Honestly, I’m up for a debate any time, but I’m not trying to fight with you.
Jack replies: Never said you were. I just don’t beat around the bush with sugar coating things. Plain speaking is always best.
Can sez: I am not “anti-gun”.
Jack replies: When I used the phrase “anti gun” I was speaking generally… not necessarily of you. I should have been more clear.
Cant sez: I just wish we could find a way to reduce how many inappropriate people end up with them.
Jack replies: It’s not the inappropriate people who have them that is the problem. It is the way some people use them inappropriately. This is an important distinction that eludes a lot of people.
Far too many people use the definition “inappropriate” merely to mean “people I don’t like or disagree with.” You may not use it that way, but the number of people who do are astonishing. I’ve been having these debates for decades and it’s common to have those who are anti-gun believe in their heart that conservatives, Republicans, Christians and Southerners should be banned from owning guns.
If a bigot who hates conservative white people want to keep guns from “inappropriate hands” agrees with you, who is to say that you know or don’t know just what you and her are agreeing about?
It is the mis-use of guns that is so harmful to society. Not the ownership. You may state that some owners are more likely to mis-use a firearm, but we don’t count justice based upon what one “might” do. We punish them for what they have done.
Cant sez: My biggest gripe is really that I don’t see the need for assault rifles for the normal layperson. I hope you can at least appreciate my stance and not be offended by my views.
Jack replies: Your views are your own to have. My job it to determine if you are educable and then go forward from there. I think you post more from lack of knowledge than from a desire to have “people control” so I am willing to point you in the right direction.
A good place to start is my hub on Evil Black Rifles. I think you will find virtually all of your questions and concerns about so-called “assault rifles” answered there.
Cant sez: I have to admit that you seem to have some seriously pent up anger, hurt, resentment or a chip on your shoulder and I’m not sure where it came from and I can sympathize with you.
Jack replies: You mentioned about being a newbie and willing to learn. Here’s a critical aspect of being a good poster. Never post something that you cannot back up with specifics. This is exactly why I give the exact quote of the person I am responding to… so that the Dear Readers can see the word, the phrasing and the point the other poster was trying to make, along with my answer to it.
On the other hand, you cannot really point to a specific “anger, hurt or resentment” in my posts. You can state that you don’t like aspects of them, but that is really a weak sauce defense of your charge.
If you are going to make a charge against any poster you need something better than “you seem.” Otherwise it can easily get turned back on you when you can’t back it up.
If you quote me as posting, “Cant, you are a jackass and a fool to boot” then you can make something stick. But if you can’t… you might want to leave things such as that off your post.
If you want to charge me with being snarky, sarcastic, mocking others and not suffering fools gladly I will happily own up to those. You can easily find lots of examples of from my posts around the net.
Cant sez: You have a lot of really good things to say but you seem to get upset with people and discard their opinions
Jack replies: As noted, I don’t suffer fools gladly (or well.) I am not “upset” with them, I just don’t hold their hand and sweet talk them. And yes, someone with a worthless opinion has a worthless opinion. I have never bought into the idea that my job is to uphold other poster’s self esteem or that all opinions have value.
I will admit that it is exceedingly rare for the anti-gun posters to actually post a new idea that I have not run into and answered a thousand times before.
Cant sez: as I noticed with the banter you and Bo had back and forth.
Jack replies: Bo came onto the topic with sarcasm and no desire to learn anything. That’s exactly why I pointed this out after he whined about the way he was treated.
Cant sez: I appreciate you and your opinion, period.
Jack replies: My opinions are based on years of study and back and forth with others. I try to base them on fact instead of conjecture and emotion.
Jack,
Honestly, I’m up for a debate any time, but I’m not trying to fight with you. I respect your opinion 100% and you are clearly intelligent and make several great points. I am not “anti-gun”. I just wish we could find a way to reduce how many inappropriate people end up with them. My biggest gripe is really that I don’t see the need for assault rifles for the normal layperson. I hope you can at least appreciate my stance and not be offended by my views. I have to admit that you seem to have some seriously pent up anger, hurt, resentment or a chip on your shoulder and I’m not sure where it came from and I can sympathize with you. You have a lot of really good things to say but you seem to get upset with people and discard their opinions as I noticed with the banter you and Bo had back and forth. I appreciate you and your opinion, period.
- AUTHOR
Cant sez: Cant wasn’t referring to gun related deaths inclusively. Cant was referring to Jacks’ argument that Americans die from guns, alcohol and running with spoons I believe it was.
Jack replies: For whatever irresponsible behavior you choose to highlight it is still a very small percentage of the population of those who participate in it legally, morally and ethically.
Cant sez: I don’t know…Maybe it’s me, but if innocent people die from senseless things all over America, we should attempt to “improve” where we can.
Jack replies: We are:
U.S. violent crime down for fifth straight year
http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/29/justice/us-violent-c...
Cant sez: “…More than 85 deaths each day”… in America. So what was that about less than 1%?
Jack replies: That’s about 30,000 deaths a year, which is the figure that most everyone agrees upon. However, you need to know a number of things…
1) That number includes about 17,000 suicides. They are going to be just as dead if they stepped in front of a train or hung themselves from a rope.
2) I purposefully didn’t use 30,000 but I used 100,000. Note that I posted “people hurt” and not “people dead” to give you the largest number possible for the misuse of firearms. Eighty million gunowners divided by 100,000 bad guys is 8,000. One out of 8,000 is far less than one percent.
3) Math is your friend but only if you use it correctly. :-)
Cant sez: Irresponsible nation… Economy, Social Issues, Rapes, Murders, Abuse, Healthcare, Poverty, Education… and oh, yeah guns.
Jack replies: When you find a perfect society either in history or contemporaneously then please let us know.
Cant sez: Thanks to guns females, elderly and weak people don’t have to fear their neighbors? Oh, are more women, elderly and weak people the ones using guns?
Jack replies: Yep… The NY Times generally runs about five years behind the curve on spotting some trends… here is a good example from an article from just yesterday
Rising Voice of Gun Ownership Is Female
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/11/us/rising-voice-...
Cant sez: I hadn’t noticed the holsters at Bingo. How many of that group has their life saved thanks to owning a gun? I’m not sure I’m aware of that statistic.
Jack replies: You can read thousands of their stories documented directly from the news media across the country at http://www.keepandbeararms.com/opsd/default.asp
Cant sez: You feel safe around good guys with guns. How do you feel around Psychopaths and “bad” guys with guns?
Jack replies:
1) Probably much better than you do since I have a gun also. :-)
2) How do I feel around Psychopaths and “bad” guys that can walk into any store and buy a dozen butcher knives?
3) When you come up with a law that will guarantee that Psychopaths and “bad” guys will never have a weapon to hurt innocents then get back to us.
Cant sez: More statistics…Do more people survive gunshot wounds or succumb to them? I’m not sure I’m aware of that statistic either.
Jack replies: Not my area of expertise… but the quote I gave from the good doctor speaks for itself.
Colorado Survivors: How Do People Survive Gunshot Wounds?
http://www.myhealthnewsdaily.com/2869-bullet-gunsh...
Officials: More surviving shootings because of medical advances, Lee trauma center
http://www.naplesnews.com/news/2013/jan/02/officia...
Cant sez: So you do agree that there is room for improvement? When the nation gets serious about actually dealing with crime? Good, that’s what I was hoping for.
Jack replies: Most of those in the anti-gun side refuse to acknowledge that those of us who own guns also live in the same society as everyone does. No, I don’t want people to hurt other people using anything, let alone a gun. No, I don’t want my family to have to walk in fear. No, I don’t want to see criminals walking the streets with impunity.
When someone does someone else harm multiple times they have proven they cannot live in society… put them away where they cannot harm others anymore instead of turning them back onto the streets in a few years.
Jack sez: Statistics of gun deaths in comparison to gun owners…as a response to me saying “a lot of senseless deaths and innocent lives...in America….America is sloppy”.
Cant wasn’t referring to gun related deaths inclusively. Cant was referring to Jacks’ argument that Americans die from guns, alcohol and running with spoons I believe it was.
I don’t know…Maybe it’s me, but if innocent people die from senseless things all over America, we should attempt to “improve” where we can.
Since you seem to like the number “8” in your gun statistics, how about this one;
“…More than 85 deaths each day”… in America. So what was that about less than 1%?
Irresponsible nation… Economy, Social Issues, Rapes, Murders, Abuse, Healthcare, Poverty, Education… and oh, yeah guns.
Thanks to guns females, elderly and weak people don’t have to fear their neighbors? Oh, are more women, elderly and weak people the ones using guns? I hadn’t noticed the holsters at Bingo. How many of that group has their life saved thanks to owning a gun? I’m not sure I’m aware of that statistic.
You feel safe around good guys with guns. How do you feel around Psychopaths and “bad” guys with guns?
More statistics…Do more people survive gunshot wounds or succumb to them? I’m not sure I’m aware of that statistic either.
So you do agree that there is room for improvement? When the nation gets serious about actually dealing with crime? Good, that’s what I was hoping for.
- AUTHOR
Cant sez: I have to say that when you look at all of the senseless deaths and innocent lives lost, it actually makes me realize how sloppy our America is.
Jack replies: In perspective, this is not true. There are 80,000,000 gun owners in America. By any measure, less than 1 out of 8,000 ever misuse a gun to hurt another person. This is less than .001 percent. The other 99.999 percent live a productive, normal life.
Again… in what other measure of activity do you expect perfection. Yes, I know that each one of those incidents with a gun hurts people, families, and even society as a whole. But you simply cannot rationalize that the actions of .001 percent of the people prove anything about “America” other than we give people the freedom to screw up their and others livies and some very few will take advantage of that.
Cant sez Part of the defense of the rights to handguns is pointing out how many other places we lose life in America. It kind of makes me think of asking a kid why he broke a window in a neighbor’s house and his response is, “well other people burn down houses”.
Jack replies: Breaking widows is against the law. Burning down houses is against the law. Do you really want to compare two obviously lawless activities with the lawful, peaceful ownership by 80,000,000 gunowers.
Cant sez: I don’t know that the answer is more laws but how about some more responsibility. Don’t you think that we are a relatively irresponsible nation?
Jack replies: Depends upon what you are speaking of. If you want to make the claim that if .001 percent of people misuse a legal product that means the whole of the ownership is “relatively irresponsible” then I would disagree with you. If you want to make a case that we as a society are relatively irresponsible in teaching our young kids over the past 50 years that self esteem is the greatest goal they can achieve in life then I would agree with you.
Cant sez: If you think about it it’s pretty sad that we need guns anyway (with the exception of hunting and battle). We need guns to protect ourselves, protect ourselves from what? It’s pretty bad that we live in a time when we have to fear our neighbor and own a gun to feel safe.
Jack replies: As far as I am aware the human condition has always included times and places where one has to “fear” their neighbor. The difference is that with the advent of firearms the weaker, the older, the females in society don’t have to put up with that fear. They have the means to respond. I would rather not live in a past time when “might meant right” and the strongest, the one with the most gang around them and the lord of the area kept the rest of society as serfs.
Cant sez: I feel less safe when guns are around.
Jack replies: I feel very safe when surrounded by good guys with guns.
Cant sez: It’s a lot harder to survive a gunshot wound than a lot of other acts of violent. I have been an EMT for 10 years and I have yet to see someone survive a gunshot wound, yet the majority of the other calls I respond to the patients survive,
Jack replies: I won’t debate your credentials or experience but I will point to an article by Dr. Michael Obrowski, MD, a trauma and plastic surgeon:
“Remember sisters and brothers, nearly every gunshot wound is survivable, even some of the high-power rifle rounds. Since 2009 when I arrived in Europe, I have seen a few AK-47 hits. Every victim survived. The cases were difficult for the surgeons, but no one died. I have even seen victims survive with gunshot wounds to the head.”
http://lawenforcementtoday.com/tag/gunshot-wound/
Cant sez: No, I don’t think that bad apples should ruin it for everyone else, but how do we stop the bad apples?
Jack replies: I don’t have a cite for this statistic so you’re just going to have to trust me on it… but it is true. About 70 percent of all those involved in shootings… both the shooter and the shootee… have prior police records. When we get serious as a nation about actually dealing with crime, and the few dozen zip codes where the bulk of it takes place, we will begin to get a handle on the bad apples.
Cant sez: How do we prevent bad choices?
Jack replies: Take away free will?
Jack,
First I have to say that you have experienced a lot of hardship and tragedy and I can feel for you as a person. I am sure that your personal experiences have made you passionate about what you preach.
I have to say that when you look at all of the senseless deaths and innocent lives lost, it actually makes me realize how sloppy our America is. Part of the defense of the rights to handguns is pointing out how many other places we lose life in America. It kind of makes me think of asking a kid why he broke a window in a neighbor’s house and his response is, “well other people burn down houses”. I don’t know that the answer is more laws but how about some more responsibility. Don’t you think that we are a relatively irresponsible nation?
As far as prohibition goes, I agree. If we make guns illegal than law abiding citizens stop owning them and criminals and mentally impaired people will continue to own guns. I don’t think we need to necessarily get rid of guns, I think we need to be responsible for the guns that we have. If you think about it it’s pretty sad that we need guns anyway (with the exception of hunting and battle). We need guns to protect ourselves, protect ourselves from what? It’s pretty bad that we live in a time when we have to fear our neighbor and own a gun to feel safe. I feel less safe when guns are around. It’s a lot harder to survive a gunshot wound than a lot of other acts of violent. I have been an EMT for 10 years and I have yet to see someone survive a gunshot wound, yet the majority of the other calls I respond to the patients survive, other than maybe general old age. Prohibition didn’t work because Americans turned into beasts, went crazy, broke the law and hurt people. Well, please let’s not make people mad. That’s kind of like giving into a spoiled brat to avoid the confrontation.
No, I don’t think that bad apples should ruin it for everyone else, but how do we stop the bad apples? Do you think they need help before they become bad apples? We are doing society an injustice to begin with because the problem comes way before someone picks up a gun and takes an innocent life. How do we prevent bad choices?
- AUTHOR
Yeah, sure bo. We can all read your initial comment and understand that you were looking for a "dialogue."
Well I guess you told me. Has it ever occurred to you that you don't use question marks in your writing? Particularly in your responses to me. Do you really think you know all you need to know as you make completely false assertions about me without even a single attempt to understand any of my comments?
Enjoy your self created bogeyman filled life. I ended up here after following a link from a newspaper comments section and thought perhaps a dialogue could be had. Silly me. I was called names and repeatedly told I wanted to keep drinking?? When... actually that's not the case at all. I also don't understand how asking a question about the people who were killed and their 'freedoms' somehow resulted in me maligning everyone elses freedoms and not to mention that comment also meant I was dancing in their blood?? Puzzling to say the least.
I don't suspect you will let that bother you. Call me a bunch more names and keep convincing yourself that you're the smartest guy around. Unfortunately there appear to be enough people to help you believe that. Best of luck.
- AUTHOR
Bo sez: Wow, talk about making some broad assumptions? Just so I understand, if I don't agree with you I don't have 'intellectual capacity'?
Jack replies: No… you’re lack of intellectual capacity was well demonstrated with comments such as, “Their freedom isn't important?”
Trying to suggest in any way at all that we don’t care for those children is no different than you dancing in their blood to make accusations against gun owners.
Bo sez: I made no mention of alcohol consumption ( nor grass cutting ) yet Jack has me all profiled and neatly placed in a demographic of his choosing. Hypocrite ? Own a mirror by any chance.
Jack replies; Yes, you’re a hypocrite. You want the freedom to drink alcohol for people even though it does much more damage to society than firearms, yet you seem to think that the freedom of have firearms is of lesser concern.
Bo sez: . I'm not one of the people claiming an even greater amount of guns will stop gun crime.(to be fair you didn't make this point either but many, including one of your respondents do).
Jack replies: Then lets read your forthcoming statement that you’ll ask the 911 operator to instruct the police to leave their guns at the station house when you hear your downstairs window being broken into at 3 in the morning if you don’t believe that a “greater amount of guns will stop gun crimes.”
Bo sez: So is the position here that as long as it's legal to sell alcohol there should be NO restrictions on certain categories of guns?
Jack replies: There was no mention in this hub about “certain categories of guns.” It was not the intent of the hub to discuss that aspect of the issue. You are welcome to read my others hubs that address that concern.
Bo sez: I'll repeat, certain categories of guns. The position isn't " ban ALL guns, it's guns of specific categories.
Jack replies: Yeah… like banning white wine because it makes people drunk and letting red wine stay on the shelves because it is okay.
Bo sez: Not that it matters, particularly to such an erudite person as yourself, who knows all about me, but I work with people who have substance abuse problems.
Jack replies: Big deal. Doesn’t mean that you understand the concepts of freedom.
Bo sez: I also work with a group lobbying gov't regulators to reduce the pervasiveness of alcohol advertising.
Jack replies: Doesn’t surprise me at all. Those who are generally against the 2nd Amendment freedoms are quite often against the 1st Amendment freedoms also.
Bo sez: Yeah, I don't give a damn about anyone else, but I appreciate your thoughtful insights designed to improve my maturity and intellect.
Jack replies: When you give up your dinner wine that kills tens of thousands of people each year and destroys hundreds of thousands of families then get back to us with who you care about.
Wow, talk about making some broad assumptions? Just so I understand, if I don't agree with you I don't have 'intellectual capacity'? I made no mention of alcohol consumption ( nor grass cutting ) yet Jack has me all profiled and neatly placed in a demographic of his choosing. Hypocrite ? Own a mirror by any chance. I'm not one of the people claiming an even greater amount of guns will stop gun crime.(to be fair you didn't make this point either but many, including one of your respondents do).
So is the position here that as long as it's legal to sell alcohol there should be NO restrictions on certain categories of guns? ( I need to clarify, you know because of my immaturity and low intellectual capacity) I'll repeat, certain categories of guns. The position isn't " ban ALL guns, it's guns of specific categories.
Not that it matters, particularly to such an erudite person as yourself, who knows all about me, but I work with people who have substance abuse problems. I also work with a group lobbying gov't regulators to reduce the pervasiveness of alcohol advertising. Yeah, I don't give a damn about anyone else, but I appreciate your thoughtful insights designed to improve my maturity and intellect.
- AUTHOR
Bo doesn't want to consider the "freedom" of the family driving to the movie theater who were killed by a drunk driver... or the freedom of the elementary school child not to have an alcoholic father who spends his money on liquor instead of supporting her.
Bo wants to have his beer after he cuts his grass, or his wine with his dinner, and he just doesn't care how many families must be destroyed and his life ruined just so he can have that "freedom."
Bo, in simpler terms, is a hypocrite. As long as he can enjoy the "freedoms" he wants he just doesn't give a damn about anyone else.
Insults are all he can offer the discussion because he just doesn't have the intellectual capacity to join in as an adult. Lest anyone think that is harsh... just re-read Bo's post and find something of reasoning ability in there... something logical... or mature.
Hmm, has anyone considered the 'freedom' of the people who just wanted to see a movie, or go to university, or go to elementary school and not be killed? Their freedom isn't important? Oh wait if only one of you well armed folks were around you would have stopped it. Yeah right, go back to your TV's and think you wouldn't actually crap your pants when faced with someone shooting at you.
Well stated. It would be nice if everyone's reaction was this thoughtful.
As a Jewess in the US, I can only state that NOW is the time for all REAL Americans to put our 2nd Amendment FIRST! Criminals like the slasher of Smith's Market in Salt Lake City are stopped by FIRARMS, not kind words. And remember that America wasn't won with a registered gun!
If we don't keep our freedom we end up with nothing. As we have all heard before - if we outlaw guns only the outlaws will have guns - then we are all in a heap of trouble. Great Hub Jack and a P.S. thank you so much for your years of service protecting our freedoms.
Sorry I wanted to add this as well but my phone wouldn't let me. I look at Germany, they do not have very strict laws on alcohol but there is not a lot of people who abuse it. They were taught at an early age to respect what is given to you. If you gave that country a mass amount of firearms I feel that their crime rates will not go up any more than it is now. America is full of people who just don't care anymore. We do not try to teach our children right from wrong. In bad areas they are taught you need to fight for what you want, and that drives crime through the roof. That is for all of the country. Even after everything is said and done and lets say they do trash gun completely those people that want to kill will do so with other weapons of their choice. The truth of it all is that America is full of ignorant people who do not want to fix themselves because they think they are perfect which rubs off on the kids and so on. Great hub friend!
The problem lies within what we cannot control our country has a history of violence what needs to be done is teach our kids the right and wrong the US has a problem with the youth because its all abou w hats cool instead of whats right out will take generations to fix but is something we as people need to consider
66