The Movie Theater Massacre and Gun Control
I know that many, if not all, of you are aware of the tragedy that took place at the midnight premiere of The Dark Knight Rises in Aurora, Colorado. The "suspect," James Holmes, "allegedly" shot 70 people, killing 12 of them, including a 6 year old girl. He had four weapons with him, including an assault rifle and was spraying into the crowd "like a sprinkler," according to one witness.
This tragedy has brought up the gun control law issues that have been evaded by politicians for some time, now. What are your thoughts on the matter? Will changing the laws help? If so, to what degree should they be changed? What else can we do to avoid anymore mass shootings like this?
What do you believe are some of the causes? How can we address them?The right to bare arms. This needs to change, it's old and no longer fits in todays world. Canada has far stricter gun laws than the U.S., but hand guns make there was across the boarder into the hands of criminals and gang members.
There is no reason this guy should have been able to buy all the guns and ammunition in such a short time frame. Why does anyone need more than a hunting riffle?
This needs to change.Why he needed all the guns for self-defense of course. Don't be silly! Guns don't kill people at all... he could have just as easily thrown rocks and killed and injured all those people. Anyway... if you take those perfectly innocent ASSAULT riffles out of the hands of law abiding citizens that need them for hunting and self-defense at a quarter of a mile then only criminals will have guns. Everyone needs a gun that fires 21+ rounds in a clip... just in case they miss that deer or that rapist the first 20 or so times.
Anyway... gun control lobbyists shouldn't be able to use this as a sounding board. It is completely fair to list the times that a gun might have possibly prevented a crime by someone else carrying a gun that may or may not be illegal... but dead children and mass murders make gun rights look bad so we shouldn't talk about those. After all those few prevented crimes more than make up for all the dead toddlers and high school cafeterias that have been turned into Cambodia.
Just remember that guns make the world a safer place... just like nuclear bombs. When everyone has them then no one will use them right? Just ask North Korea... they just want theirs for self-defense.
And if you disagree with any of this you are obviously a constitution hating stupid liberal who can't face facts. Plus you hate America and baby Jesus.But don't you know, it was all a plot by the FBI to make gun owners look bad?
Yep... because they need the FBI to make them look bad.
Ha ha! Gun owners are looking bad enough on their own. Shut down the NRA and we will be able to get better.
No, a psycho who killed 12 people and wounded 58 is the one that looks bad.
When 24 people die in one weekend in Chicago, the criminals, the city, and their godfather mayor look bad.
Funny thing is when you hear a story about a person who LEGALLY carries a gun killing someone, it's usually due to some thug looking for easy money and the permit holder's unwillingness to just hand it over. Of course, then it's the thug that looks bad if the funeral director's make-up artist can't hide the hole.
I've never understood the lefts overwhelming desire to lump people into groups. Maybe it's a divide and conquer thing.
As a gun owner and permit holder, I don't think the FBI had anything to do with this other than helping with the investigation, forensics, and clean up.
IMHO, this horrible thing was committed by a young man who'd been through a lot of self-imposed stress, getting his education, and he snapped. One man snapped and it unfortunately manifested itself in the death of a dozen people. To blame that on all gun owners is like blaming inner-city crime on all the people who live in the inner-city. Neither make sense.
Sarcasm is best left to people who actually know how to use it.
@ Rad amn's first comment. Keep in mind, when the 2nd amendment was written, the single shot, 30 second to load, muzzleloading, flintlock, Kentucky rifle was state-of-the-art at the time. Up till 1931 (?) it was perfectly legal to own a machine gun. You can buy them through the mail or at yohur local variety store without a fuss. They were usually located at the isle next to the cases of dynamite.
If this guy didn’t acquire guns he would have turned to explosives not rocks.
I guess you would like for the military and police to be the only ones with assault riffles, oh and the drug cartels, gangs, and people who could care less about laws. You keep your sticks and stones, and I’ll stick with the weapons of the day to protect my family.
Guns aren’t going anywhere, at least until we figure out a more effective tool. Yes people KILL people, and what they use to do it doesn’t matter. Would a few pipe bombs have the same “gun control” conversation attached to it?LOL, Melissa. You stand irony and satire on its head! I think Bill Maher is about to be retired!
Gasoline and a blocked exit is so much deadlier than firearms I wonder why we sell gasoline at all. In fact, so many more people die as a consequence of gasoline usage than by firearms usage that is is irrational that gasoline is refined at all. we don't need gun control we need to ban gasoline.
87 people killed in Happy Land arson
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Land_fire
How about amonium nitrate fertilizer - not only dioes it destroy the lives of tweekers but it was used in the Oklahoma City Bombing - it is time to ban it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_c … g_the_bomb
The 9/11 attack killed people using jet fuel. Aircraft drop bombs, carry soldiers, guns and all kinds of toxic chemicals. How many millions have been dilled by aircraft fuel?
Time to ban all petroleum products, that should save so many lives.Cool story bro...
Honestly though as I never said to ban guns I kinda look at your post as proselytizing.
Realistically you just presented an argument about the evils of an unrelated product in an attempt to say that one thing isn't bad because another thing is too. Which really doesn't work anyway. Then you said we should ban it... which has nothing to do with any of my suggestions to make guns safer.
So honestly... I really have to wonder what your point is.My point is that when ever presented with a danger we should ban it. Life should be free of risk. Things are just plain deadly and they shouldn't be allowed if they are dangerous. If the government can make my life safe than that is what I want most of all. There is nothing more important than keeping children as safe as can be accomplished by government - nothing else matters.
Nice sarcasm... However it is wasted on me since I didn't say we should ban guns.
You know that though. So once again... what is your point?That is my point. Life is too dangerous to live without the govrnemnt making it perfectly safe - it is long past time to hand ourselves over to people who are better and wiser. We should let the smart people in government tell us how to live. i am tired of taking care of myself. Government is here to take care of us. By us I mean the 99%
Okay... let's try this...
Go back through every post I've ever made and find my "we should ban guns" statement.
Now... if you are arguing that government should have no laws at all that regulate public safety then that's another conversation. Would you like to have that debate?No you aren't taking my meaning. I am saying what I mean. Life is hard - give me money. life is dangerous - make me saef. Living out side shortens life - buy me a house. I am hungry - buy me food. My feet are bare - buy me shoes. I am sick - buy me medicine.
it is the responsibility of government to live my life if I want them to - how is that not right and clear. I am part of the 99% - dopn't I have the right to expect government to run things so I am safe, warm, fed, housed, clothed and care for? that is all I am saying.
If it is dangerous ban it. I am not saying that is what you said. I am saying that the lock on my front door sin't working and I want the governemtn to fix it for me.
I don't think that is funny. They are ideas we should all want governemtn to adopt because it is for our own good.
Oh cool! I love hyperbole...
How about this one:
ANARCHY: Because survival of the fittest is the only law we should haveI thought the Anarchists were part of the 99% Aren't they the ones usually throwing bricks through shop windows in G-8 Summit cities??
*Shrugs*
I don't know... I've never thrown a brick through a window. I don't think I know anyone who has.
Were they protesting gun safety courses?There are a lot of different types of anarchists both left and right, the type of anarchist Melissa is referring to is like the extremist libertarian who believes in social Darwinism (sort of like Ayn Rand).
So the ones throwing rocks through shop windows are the other kind? What do they believe - I just want someone to take care of me so I don't have to work anymore. If the rock throwers are goign to do that I will throw rocks. 99%
Just asking... cause I'm vaguely confused...
What the hell does this have to do with gun control?Open forum - I thought the topic always drifted around. Guns are dangersous, governemtn owes it to us to make us safe. Life is hard, Government owes it to us to keep us safe from the vissisitudes of life - like gun crime, hunger, bad weather, the cold, etc... Governemtn needs to make us safe - if the best way is to control everything than governemtn should control everything - how does that not have something to do with gun control. 99%
Yes... it is the place of the government to insure public safety. It has nothing to do with welfare or OWS.
That's why there are police and military. That's why there are fire code regulations and traffic laws.
A police system does not equal socialism.
Now... when you are done trying to divert would you mind telling me exactly why you feel that my suggestions for regulations are excessively onerous or would you like to continue ranting on an unrelated topic in what is the weakest straw-man argument I've ever seen?I am not talking about anything but the absolute responsibility of governmetn toprotect us from hardship, hunger, danger, etc.... Isn't that it's job? I want the governemtn to do everything it can to protect me and my children from everything that is dangerous - including hunger, homelessness, sickness, violence, what ever. It is their job to do that . Maybe we all would be happier if governemtn just told us all what to do all the time.
i am puzzled why you aren't getting that social justice is the answer. I am certain President Obama gets it.LOL... you really really don't want to answer the question do you?
I'm not a member of the ows movement nor am I an Obama supporter.
So you really aren't scoring any hits. Keep trying though and maybe you might be able to accidentally hit something that does apply to me.
I get ya... Government is bad. Bad bad bad.
Could you tell me how gun safety classes are particularly horrible?It's weird he says governemnt is bad but when I describe anarchism that want's to get rid of government he does not seem too comfortable with that
I am not really understanding anything he is saying...
He seems to really mean it though. I think his point has something to do with me wanting to throw a brick through a window and get the government to feed me for free when I do it. Funny thing is it would likely work if you think about it. They have to feed prisoners and I would most certainly go to jail for it.
However I am missing the connection with Obama and Socialism and what it has to do with a gun safety course.I am pretty sure I never used the word "you." I am not sure but if y ou want to make governemtn take care of me - I think you are right.
So... if I am to try and disassemble your meaning you feel that added gun-control regulations would be an example of the government over-extending it's authority and infringing on an individuals rights in the guise of protecting society as a whole?
And you feel that those supporting such measures would be encouraging a "big-brother" state that is sometimes associated with the stereotypical definitions of socialist countries?No, I think you may be reading into what I am saying. I am saying that it is government's responsibiility to take care of its citizens. That means protecting them from everything dangerous -s if that means banning guns, gasoline, two story homes, surgery - what ever - I don't care ban it. make me safe.
You do realize that all your rants could have been composed into those two paragraphs and a productive debate could have then happened?
You have taught me a valuable lesson though... If I look like you do right now when I launch into a debate then I really need to regulate myself. Mindless rants do nothing for my cause except make everyone who believes the same as me look like madmen by association.So you don't think governemtn should keep us safe? Take care oif us? Make sure we have medical care, housing and food? How is it right to not want governemtn to take care of us?
- he is desperately trying to pretend to be a dumb OWS stereotype but not doing very well at it
(mostly I think because he has no idea what he is talking about.)You don't get it - with out governemnt who will feed the old?
Which is actually (though you don't realize it) a very good point in the past before government intervention in that issue many of the elderly simply starved to death no longer able to support themselves, in the industrial revolution without governemnt protection the working class lived more than a third less than the owner class because they literally worked themselves to death, unable to retire or they would simply starve.
Of course you have no idea about that, you were born into an age of prosperity with no knowledge of the role governemnt played in that and have no idea what life was like when the companies and factories decided on the peoples well-being.Well than it is obvious, government should own everything and take care of everyone - how could that be wrong?
That is as dumb as saying you believe all governemnt should be destroyed (or maybe you do) I don't believe in what you said anyhow.
So the anarchists are wrong? So the socialist is wrong - no nationalization of private property? If we are going to have justice and governemtn is a better provider of justice than private interests than it only seems reasonable for governemtn to own everything and use all that wealth - stolen by the rich from the people - to care for the people. 99%
You said all property becoming governemnt owned, i don't agree with that (that is Stalinist) I am in favor of the nationalization of the natural wealth of the country, like industry and mineral extraction processes not people's homes etc. it's an important distinction, between mandatory buy outs of large industry and seizing peoples homes.
That is sweet. Here own your home but don't start a business or we will take it. That has got to produce enormous prosperity. If the governemnt owns the wealth it owns the people. A house becomes permitted property, again tahnk you, I am glad I am permitted to have a home - for now. It is no distinction at all. Ownership is ownership whether that is a house - you will of course decide how big a house someone is permitted to own since too large a house is infringing on the "national wealth" - or a factory. Property is property whether it is a minimum wage check or a $million check - unless you will decide who can make what because too much infringes on the "national wealth." What ever "national wealth" means.
Ultimately it means increased poverty, decreased liberty. As it has throughout history.No you still don't understand not small business either, just the means of production, things like factory, minerals etc, I don't think anyone has the right to own those as they are the bounty of the nation as a whole, the means of production are bought trough compulsory buy outs and become public property which means they belong to everyone. Very simple. Nothing to do with your home and I am quite happy to compare economic growth in socialist countries with economic growth in capitalist ones or poverty reduction if you wish to start talking economics (I wouldn't recommend it).
So when the government owns the diamonds what will the diamond cutter do for a living unless it is working for the government. I am pretty certain that I get it.
A gem cutter would simply purchase the stones from the mine just like he does now (or an agent) and cut them and sell them, too complicated for you?
So when the governemnt needs more money to protect more people from the scourge of hard work the diamond cutter will be compelled to pay more? So everything becomes a tax and it is all controlled by the mechanism of the state in its holy and flawless glory? so there will be no opposition party seeking to return property to individuals? There could be no Steve Jobs, no Henry Ford? Brilliant, that has all the earmarks of a fantasy. thanks for amusing me.
The government may own the means of production but control of them is left to each individual business to encourage competition between them, the government would have no right to change any prices. In a healthy democracy there will be an opposition party, the idea is the system would work so people will want to keep it. There absolutely would be people like Steve jobs and the Nazi Henry Ford they both started small businesses did they not?
That's nice. I'm not really sure that applies to me. I like big business... particularly pharmacueticals.
After all...without the pharma companies who would make haladol?You mean governmetn couldn't dothat better and cheaper. I am sure that they could. After all, government has the smartest people.
I am not saying government is bad - governemtn isn't doing anywhere near enough for all of us. They only care about rich, white christians. It needs to do more to make sure we have everything we need and it isn't. governemtn needs to be bigger to make sure nothing bad ever happens and that everyone has what they need. If anarchists want to destroy governemnt who will feed the poor? House the homeless? Care for old people? Will rich, white christians be allowed in the communes because that would just mess things up?
It sounds to me like anarchists are Republicans - they must hate old people.
i am not saying government is bad - I think government isn't doing enough to make sure we are all safe.
Well anarchists don't believe in a government at all (as you should know by now) so I don't think they are looking for anyone to look after them but rather they want to live in a world with no government or corporations.
Seriously though? how do you get to whatever age you are without knowing what an anarchist is?So the anarchists who are with OWS and throwing rocks through shop windows don't want government to strip corporations and rich people of all their property adn redistribute it? what do they want? So once governemtn makes rich people and corporations go away governemtn is supposed to go away/ I am pretty sure I know what a leftist anarchist is - I just wonder if they know.
Obviously you don't know.
They want to destroy the governemnt and the corporations then most want to establish independent communes or communities.
As far as anarchists are concerned government is the greatest evil and should go first.For everyone? So anarchists want everyone to live the way they want them to live? Isn't that govenrment? I am pretty sure that there is no one stopping them from not participating - angain do they know what they want? 99%
Yes they want to destroy government because they feel it oppresses people then from there people can choose how they live but most of the left wing anarchist want to live in communes (not to force others to do so) you really struggle with this concept don't you? Yes they know what they want and anarchism is way way older than OWS thousands of years old in fact.
Is this too complicated for you?So they want to destroy everyone's government? So if there are people who need government the anarchists want to hurt them? what about old people and Social Security? So anarchists want to throw old people out into the street? Are you sure because that just doesn't sound right. 99%
Yes you obviously struggle with this. They want to destroy government, can I make it any clearer? They don't believe in taxation, they don't believe in police force or military, they don't believe in representative democracy and (often they do believe in direct democracy).
So what do they want to do to all those people who depend on government for their living - the poor, old people , etc... Do they want to kill them? What if there are more people who want government - will they support them or kill them? Is that why they throw rocks , because they want to terrorize people into joinging them? I just want to know who is going to give me money, food, medicine, housing, clothing, water, etc.. if there is no government who will take care of us 99%?
They want to stop giving them government aid. Your understanding of OWS and even worse understanding of socialism is terrible I don't really think you understand what you are talking about at all.
I believe they throw rocks because they want to damage the places that support the government be it through taxes or actual support.
I believe leftist anarchists believe people are poor because of corporations and the wealthy and how they have purchased and owned land, most of them believe that land is a gift from god or the birthright of all mankind and that all ownership of it is theft, they believe if ownership is abolished there would be plenty to go round as everyone would farm and build etc on what belonged to everyone for the benefit of everyone.
“The first person who, having enclosed a plot of land, took it into his head to say this is mine and found people simple enough to believe him was the true founder of civil society. What crimes, wars, murders, what miseries and horrors would the human race have been spared, had some one pulled up the stakes or filled in the ditch and cried out to his fellow men: "Do not listen to this imposter. You are lost if you forget that the fruits of the earth belong to all and the earth to no one!”
Jaques RosseauSo would it be okay if government owned everything because there are jsut so many people who need the governemtn to take care of them that if there is no governemtn they would starve. I think the anarchists must hate old people.
There are things like anarcho-syndicalism that is sort of a web of unions that rely on voluntarism rather than force to govern that would provide for the elderly etc. again in that system there is no tax etc.
So obviously socialism is the only system that passes mandatory laws right? right? what every system except anarchism does that? Huh well color me purple. I guess JSC is an anarchist.
all i can say is why is the country with the least strict gun laws, the one with the most murders. i think everyone should have a gun in their homes but an AR15, ya right.
I agree. The right to speak freely is old and outdated also. Who knew about the terrorists who would use free speech to recruit more people? That's why freedom of religion is outdated also. And that 4th Amendment? How can we possible afford that in an age of terrorism? And the 8th? -- we should be able to torture anyone we want for the info we need. I personally would get rid of the 5th Amendment also. Let's force people to tell the truth and incriminate themselves.
If the founding fathers knew all the problems we would be facing in 2012 they never would have writting the Bill of Rights. Toss it all out.I love sarcasm, especially when its used to destroy what the left considers "critical thinking"!
Just don't be afraid to change it. Can you imagine trying to keep it as it is for another 500 years?
Yes, I can well imagine keeping it another 500 years.
That sure would make a lot of politicians happy.
Really critical thinking got brought into this? So the left considers throwing out the Bill of Rights as “critical thinking”? Freedoms and rights are what we should question?
"bare arms?"
I don't mind baring my elbows or my arms, I like to show off a little cleavage too, oh you meant "bear arms?" :lol; sorry
You can bare anything you want, it's okay with most of us!
I believe that if you take guns away from innocent people, more innocent people will get killed by guns. Criminals don't follow law, which means that they are still going to have guns no matter what the government does. As long as there are guns in the world there will be unnecessary death. Our military causes more unnecessary death daily than people realize. This shooting really shouldn't be taken so seriously. If you think about it, the shooter won, he is now famous. Everyone is talking about it, and he is now a household name just for shooting people in a theater. Do people talk about the guy that dropped one of thousands of bombs on a small town in the middle east killing not only terrorists but innocent women and children? NOPE! He comes home a hero for killing those terrorists and the innocent women and children are never talked about.
As long as there are weapons, there will be death. I think that people should stop making a big fuss bout it.Actually, the people of Aurora and the media even seem to have been making a point to make the victims more important than the man who did this.
But we SHOULD make a big deal out of it until something changes. Saying it's not a big deal or that it shouldn't be seems to insult the very lives that are unnecessarily taken, whether by our military, or in crazy mass shootings. It's not enough to say "that's just how it is."
Laws will never stop bad people from getting guns. If more law abiding citizens exercised their rights to have firearms, then maybe there would’ve been someone there to stop him sooner. I bet there wasn’t one person in #9 with a CC permit, possibly not one in the entire theater. I’d be interested in finding out.
Regulating or reforming gun laws has never, and will never impact violent crime. Encouraging more citizens to be educated on the proper use of firearms is the only way to make progress in deterring violent crimes like this.
When people are scared and angry, they make bad decisions.
This massacre has made people scared and angry.
You do the math.And sometimes tragedies bring about useful change. Not likely in this case because of the grip the gun culture has on this country and the misinterpretation given us by a conservative Supreme Court.
In this case it strikes me as obvious that when one individual buys an arsenal including several weapons including an assault rifle, large magazines and 6,ooo rounds of ammunition, bells should have been going off, and law enforcement reps should have paid him a visit. Militias have created similar and even bigger arsenals all over the country, unmolested and apparently perfectly legal under current interpretations of the Constitution and state laws. We can do better!jRalph, what change would you like to see? Banning guns? Different requirements to obtain guns?
What evidence do you have that these changes would be beneficial?the evidence is simple to find. look at EVERY other country in the world with more strict gun laws, then look at the murder rate by guns. simple.
Norway, Switzerland, Israel
Chicago and Illinois among the most restrictive gun laws in the country - Chicago is the murder capital of the developed world.
Ralph refuses to admit to the reality that nine of the Justices signed off on the ruling that stated the 2nd Amendment was an individual right. Kinda like a flat earther in that regard.
I'm afraid I didn't do well in math, Jeff. Could you please help me out with the computation of this particular problem?
In a country with the highest rate of people attending pyschiatric treatment, highest rate on tranqs and other medication, highest rate of addicted to crazy drugs, most fundamental dimwits and 36th in the world in educational standards - what else would you think might happen if you fill the country to the brim with every kind of weapon ?
Well, with 80,000,000 people owning weapons then you should be able to find about 30 percent of them misusing them. But you can't. You can't find ten percent. Or five. Or even one percent.
As much as the media and many self-interest groups will try to make it such, guns are not the culprit here...people and their insane behavior are. One man in that dark theater armed with two containers of tear gas, a gas mask, and a baseball bat could easily have killed 12 people in the chaos of just launching the gas and the aftermath. Insanity finds a way to surface. Where do we stop with treating a situation and never addressing the cause. Guns did not cause this situation...they were only a factor of it. We can regulate guns, chainsaws, axes, knives, silverware, hammers, and on and on and still we will not address the real problem of individual mental health. One might be far more effective in finding a solution simply by adding a requirement to submit to a mental fitness exam prior to purchasing weapons. That would have far more potential than crushing all the guns. A person in this mindset will acquire what is needed regardless of whether it is legal or not. At the same time, had there been one person in that audience who was licenses to conceal carry or an off-duty police officer, either one, who fired a shot that stopped this person...the same media would be calling for his/her head for making such a brutal response and victimizing a potential killer...the same argument then arises..."we need to get rid of the guns". Sorry, I don't buy it. WB
Wayne, if a concealed carry holder had stopped him, it would barely be picked up by the media.
If you go searching for stories of CC people stopping crimes, you will find that they get reported on the local news, and almost never reported beyond that. That's why people don't hear about those stories.
If one person kills a dozen people, the whole world hears about it. If one person kills a couple armed gunmen, only a few people hear about it.@JaxsonRaine...I suspect that you are right though my impression of CC folks is that they are quite responsible and do not take on the act of "cowboying" with ease. Like most police officers, few are ever faced with a reason to pull their weapons to stop a potential deadly situation. Our national media seems to do a good job of sweeping anything under the carpet that works. Thanks much. WB
JAX~ Very true. The lack of education that has even allowed this conversation to exist is sad. Its disgusting how the shredders of the founding documents always manage twist these tragedies to fit their narrative.
Not only ignored. If during a robbery, which was video taped by security cameras, one 70 year old man shoots the armed gunmen in the legs, he gets arrested.
I guess you can't see either that the kind of mentality that thinks everyone should have a gun is also responsible for the way loonies behave.
And the idea that some heroic concealed gun holder would ride in to save the day is total baloney - if anyone else had started shooting only more people would have died.Really?
Maybe, that would depend on who decides to shoot back and what kind of shot they are, such as background with their weapon. So please, save the BS.I don't think everyone should have a gun. I also think that it's fine for responsible citizens to carry guns.
I'm not opposed to mandatory safety training or registration.
As far as more people dying, that's simply not based in fact. Citizens use guns to stop crimes, a lot. If you are willing to dig, you can even find the local news stories of it happening. It just never gets picked up on a national level.And isn't it amazing, folks, that people like this who never shot a gun, who are dreadfully afraid of guns, who believe that guns CAUSE good people to go bad, who only barely know which end the bullet comes out of, are somehow the people to whom we should take advice from on how well guns work for self defense?
While we simple-minded, misguided, befuddled people with years and decades of military and other experience with guns in all circumstances really apparently have no clue about how to effectively make guns work, and without the anointed ones guidance we will merrily continue to shoot ourselves in our feet, kill our children, and generally screw up society?
Like they say: When you're sick you go to a car mechanic; when you're in court you need a good butcher; and when you want to know something about how to defend yourself, you go to this poster.
Wayne I agree with you about looking at the underlying causes, not just the immediate causes. Socio-economic and cultural factors could have contributed to the mental state of the person who committed this crime, and are part of wider societal issues that need to be addressed. Perhaps this tragic event will be a catalyst for that.
On the other hand, it's bitterly ironic (and slightly disturbing to be honest) that you and some others seem to see the lack of guns in the cinema audience as the problem here. Surely the problem was too many guns in that cinema, not too few.If too many guns were the problem, then why did the police bring more guns into the situation? Should not they have left their guns at the station house before responding?
That's escalation, and it's exactly the problem. The more guns there are, the more guns are needed as protection. Should a family need to arm themselves before going out to the cinema in case an idiot with a legally purchased assault rifle attacks them? Is that acceptable in civilised society?
And why is a civilian allowed to buy an assault rifle? What possible, legitimate non-military purpose could such a weapon serve?Sport, hunting, defense, or simply for collection.
The bad guys have guns. They have access to guns. No law the US passes will change that.
You can't de-escalate. The bad guys won't stop carrying guns if the civilians stop owning them.Sport? Use guns made for sport (preferably air rifles).
Hunting? Use a hunting rifle (preferably manual).
Collection? Use plastic replicas (preferably recycled).
Sorry, but I have no sympathy for gun enthusiasts. Guns are machines designed specifically to injure and kill. They have no other purpose, and there is no place for them in civil society. And it's not good enough to say "the bad guys have them, so we need them".
Gun enthusiasts peddle fear to justify their unhealthy fixation on guns. Fear of being attacked in the home, fear of being attacked on the street, fear of terrorists, fear of tyrannical government. In fact (and it is fact) the majority of people are (thankfully) not attacked by the "bad men" either in their homes, or the street. The majority of people are not victims of terrorism and, despite what the tin foil hat brigade say, most people are not in danger of being forcibly oppressed by the government. Most people go about their daily lives without being attacked, terrorised or oppressed in any way. Gun junkies simply paint that doomsday picture to help them justify their habit.
Why should people who don't need or want to own a gun suffer the consequences of relaxed gun controls, just so a bunch of people with an unhealthy fixation on guns can legally get their fix? This idiotic, juvenile (and mostly male) gun culture needs to stop. It's not the 18th century, the US is not the new frontier, and the west is no longer wild. There are well trained, professional law enforcement officers, and a mature political and judicial system. Improvements undoubtedly can, and must, be made to those systems, but they won't be made through the barrel of a gun. The US is moving out of its infancy, so time to put away the childish boys toys. In my opinion, instead of evangelising about the sacred gun that can protect us all from the "bad men", gun junkies need to grow up, stop the hysterics, and find some other way to sooth their paranoid, doomsday complexes.FYI Don, AR-based rifles are used for sport.
FYI Don, AR-based rifles are used for hunting.
FYI Don, collectors don't like replicas... it's kind of the whole point of collecting.
Ok, what is it enough to say? The bad guys have them, so we don't need them?
Let me get this straight. You want to use an event that only happens to a minority of people to justify why the majority of people shouldn't be able to defend themselves against that kind of event?
Don, get over it. I have the right, as an American, based upon the Constitution, to defend my life and property, and that of my family. I also have the right to defend others if I am able to.
Either the bad guys aren't killing people often enough for us to need to try to ban guns, or they are killing people enough that people have reason to be prepared. It's ridiculous to think you shouldn't be prepared for an event that could take away the only life you will ever have.
First of all, the majority of guns used by criminals are obtained illegally. I could go online and buy an illegal gun today if I wanted. Anybody can. No gun control laws will keep guns out of the hands of criminals in the US.
Secondly, law-enforcement has no obligation to protect an individual person.
Third, law-enforcement will almost never be able to show up in time to save your life if someone tries to kill you. It took police 7 minutes to apprehend the shooter in Aurora. A lot can happen in 7 minutes. People use guns millions of times a year to protect themselves and others, because the police aren't always there when they are needed.
You have no right to advocate that people not be able to defend themselves. You can't do anything, or propose anything, that will keep guns out of the hands of criminals. So all your suggestions will only serve to disarm people who want to be able to protect themselves.FYI Don, AR-based rifles are used for sport.
FYI Don, AR-based rifles are used for hunting.
FYI Don, collectors don't like replicas... it's kind of the whole point of collecting.
FYI Jaxson, I really don't care about yours or anyone else's desire to play shooting. That's not good enough reason to keep machines designed to kill people in circulation.
Let me get this straight. You want to use an event that only happens to a minority of people to justify why the majority of people shouldn't be able to defend themselves against that kind of event?
No, I want gun junkies to stop being hysterical and peddling fear, and I want some men to stop feeling they can only demonstrate their masculinity through powerful (usually destructive) machines. There are plenty of phallic substitutes for us men to fixate on. We don't need guns. Cars and bikes serve the same purpose, but at least they are designed with a useful function in mind.
Don, get over it. I have the right, as an American, based upon the Constitution, to defend my life and property, and that of my family. I also have the right to defend others if I am able to.
Yes, yes, you need a gun to protect yourself and your family from the boogeyman. But the reality is that the majority of people are not victims of serious crime. Unfortunately not being a victim of violent crime isn't deemed newsworthy and doesn't get reported on much. Violent crime is and does. But let's not allow that to distort our perception reality. There is no one waiting to break down your door, no one waiting to attack you or your family as soon as you leave your house. You are statistically more likely to be involved in a car accident than killed by a criminal. My advice is to stop drinking the mainstream news media's kool-aid.
Either the bad guys aren't killing people often enough for us to need to try to ban guns, or they are killing people enough that people have reason to be prepared. It's ridiculous to think you shouldn't be prepared for an event that could take away the only life you will ever have.
Surely every gun death is one too many. That's my point. If you fight fire with fire, you just get more fire. Trying to reduce gun crime by glorifying guns and arming everyone will just lead to more gun deaths. It sends out the opposite message that you want to send out. In my opinion society should be making guns abhorrent and objects of disgust, to the point where no one would own up to owning one in public. That should be the message. That things designed for the sole purpose of killing are not welcome in modern society and they certainly aren't glorified or honoured.
First of all, the majority of guns used by criminals are obtained illegally. I could go online and buy an illegal gun today if I wanted. Anybody can. No gun control laws will keep guns out of the hands of criminals in the US
Sorry but the "there's nothing we can do, gun controls don't work" argument doesn't stand up. Child pornography is really hard to control too. Does that mean we should legalise it?
Secondly, law-enforcement has no obligation to protect an individual person.
Then work to change that.
Third, law-enforcement will almost never be able to show up in time to save your life if someone tries to kill you. It took police 7 minutes to apprehend the shooter in Aurora. A lot can happen in 7 minutes. People use guns millions of times a year to protect themselves and others, because the police aren't always there when they are needed.
Crime is an issue every society needs to deal with, but the logical conclusion to your argument is literally that everyone carry a gun. That solves nothing and only looks at it superficially. Society needs to deal with the underlying issues that cause crime in the first place. That's not easy, but since when did something being difficult become a reason not to do it?
You have no right to advocate that people not be able to defend themselves. You can't do anything, or propose anything, that will keep guns out of the hands of criminals. So all your suggestions will only serve to disarm people who want to be able to protect themselves.
Guns are not the only form of defence against crime. Education is another. Just socio-economic policies are another. Intervention in the lives of young people from dysfunctional families is another (majority of death row inmates are from dysfunctional families). Better male role models is another (majority of violent crime committed by young men). Gaining better understanding of mental health disorders is another. Neuroscience and the study of how our brains work is another. Understanding the biological reasons we do the things we do is another. The only difference is that those things will have a much greater impact on the problem, and a longer lasting one, than the shiny, metal, noisy, phallic-substitute objects you and others seem to worship.Just to answer one part 5 out of every 6 people in the US will be a victim of violent crime according to the FBI.
Just pointing out that "violent" crime also includes such things as fisticuffs in bar parking lots between 19 year-olds. In which case both parties are charged and both parties are considered victims.
The next question would be "How would the introduction of a firearm into the above situation make it better?"Sure... The department of justice study found about 20% of American women will be raped in their lives. Better as a stat?
Yes that is a more specific stat... and I'm cool with it. Actually truth be known that is actually a low figure considering the amount of rapes that go unreported.
But... and this is a major but... a vast majority of those rapes are committed against women who are too young to legally own a gun anyway. (The largest group is 13-18). Very very few of those rapes (I'll have to find the link somewhere but I believe under 10 percent) are committed by strangers in a surprise attack sort of way. Most rapes are committed in situations where there is already some degree of sexual activity (kissing petting etc) and the woman says no to actual sex and the man continues on. In these cases it is very very unlikely that the woman would have her handgun accessible for use anyway.
In addition the rapes that are ambush attacks are generally well-planned and the victim is also subdued before she could possibly reach her weapon. In cases where she can pull free she is just as likely to survive by running as by shooting.Then you should not object to women having the choice of either shooting or running... which a person with a gun can do. The woman without a gun has a much more limited option base.
I've never understood women who would rather see their own kind raped and strangled with their own pantyhose than to see those women standing over their dead wannabe attacker with a smoking gun in their hands.
Did the intro of a firearm make this situation better or worse for young widow Sarah Dawn McKinley?
http://articles.cnn.com/2012-01-04/just … PM:JUSTICE
The National Crime Victimization Survey (more accurate than the FBI who only use crimes actually reported) says the violent crime rate is 19.3 incidents per 1000 people or households.
Also research has shown that carrying a gun increases the risk of getting shot. Those who carry guns are "4.5 times as likely to be shot and 4.2 times as likely to get killed compared with unarmed citizens".Of course they are, primarily because a lot of gun crime is centered around gangs and most gang members are armed at all times, but the decreased chance of dying in comparison to being shot actually shows something, that carrying a gun reduces your chance of dying if you are attacked because you can defend yourself.
It's true most people will never have need for a gun but when and if you do (I have on several occasions) it will be very important and those are not odds one should play with, usually I am on the other side of this debate, arguing that we do need more training, certification etc. for gun owners but rejecting the notion of guns as a defensive tool is the product of a fortunately sheltered life, for many being able to defend themselves is regularly imperative, which is not to mention, what right do we have to tell others what they can and can't own?And research has also shown that people who take insulin die much more from diabetes than don't take insulin. People who go into a hospital are much more likely to die than those who don't go to a hospital. The lesson that Don would have you to learn is that you should neither take insulin or go to a hospital.
BTW, those supposed studies that don presented are pretty well discredited.
You can find the info here at Gunfacts.info.Don...
GIVE ME YOUR PHONE NUMBER.
I want to get my money back for my defective guns.
Don... could you leave me your phone number?
You see, when you said that, "Guns are machines designed specifically to injure and kill. They have no other purpose," you opened my eyes to the new concept that all my guns that I bought over the years are defective. I have put thousands of rounds through each one and they have never, not once, even come close to killing anyone (not even a rabbit).
With such obviously defective guns sold to me I am thinking that I can take them back to the stores and get my money back. I still have all the receipts going back decades.
But just in case the gun shop owners don't quite see the point I would like to be able to refer them to you for your expertise on the subject. Surely you'll be able to help them see the light that selling defective guns to an unsuspecting person is unethical.
I promise only about 20 gun shops will be calling on you. By the third or fourth one you should have your arguments down well.Don is a rational person. He,s completely right.
Assault weapons may be used for sport and hunting, but they are not necessary for either. They are bought mostly by mouth breathing paranoid gun nuts and Mexican drug lords, not knowledgeable hunters or competitive target shooters.This is the best that Ralph can do, eh...
:-)You, my friend are a perfect example that makes my point.
As always, I am content to let the Dear Readers judge for themselves.
I think it's a pretty good argument... anyone who has to go hunting with an assault weapon certainly isn't doing it for sport. As a matter of fact if you NEED an assault weapon to hunt then chances are you can't hit the broad side of a barn at 5 meters and certainly shouldn't be walking around with a loaded firearm... or hell even walking around without a guide dog and white cane.
Hmmmm..... let's see... whom are we going to trust about better hunting gun knowledge... melissa or Outdoor Life?
Tough choice, I know.Melissa has quite a few competitive marksmanship trophies. She got her first buck (a eight point) at age 9 and could field dress a doe in under 10 minutes by the time she was 12. She also knows that if you miss a deer on the first shot you are likely screwed... if you miss it on the second shot you are definitively screwed. If you miss it with an entire clip then you should be on disability. The only time ONLY time you shoot more than twice at a deer is if you have injured it but it's still moving. And if it takes 21 shots for you to track an injured deer down and kill it then you should give up your guns and take up knitting.
I'm sure Melissa can shoot sub-moa groups at 200 yards all day long with Wolfe ammo... everyone on the internet shoots at a professional level(especially in 3-shot groupings! The 4th was a 'flyer')
Not all day... after a few reloads the brass starts to go soft and I tend to go wide.
Maybe I should drink a beer or two after every forth or so reload.Ah, certainly Melissa... I'm absolutely certain that you are more accurate than a machine mount, and you can make even the most inaccurate of ammo achieve sub-moa.
ROFLMAO!
1. If we are talking about competitive shooting then your argument is invalid. You take a mechanical mount and sub-moa capability firearm and any nerd with math skills can be an expert marksman.
2. If we are talking about hunting then you only need to go submoa if you are hunting inch-worms.And you can get sub-moa with Wolf? Last time I checked, you are lucky to get a 4" spread at 100 yards.
I'm asking how you can do something that can't be achieved with a mech. mount?No I probably couldn't go submoa with cheap ammo... nor could I do it with a crappy gun... In all honesty right now I wouldn't be likely to come close to moa with a Panther as I don't shoot guns anymore and haven't for years. However 4 inches is a really crappy spread even under the worst conditions.
Yeah, that's why I said Wolf. Internet commandos usually claim they can go sub-moa with just about anything, and you can, as long as you use small groups and shoot enough of them.
Suuuure... and every bigot has at least "one black friend" eh.
And Melissa the great white hunter doesn't understand that virutally all states limit a rifle to three shots when hunting. So her post about using 17 or 18 or whatever shots is totally bogus.Here I completely agree, no one needs a civilian version of the US combat rifle for hunting or target shooting, if you own one it's for killing people (which in the case of self defense is fine) but suggesting it's a hunting tool is ridiculous as Melissa pointed out the first two rounds when hunting are crucial which means you should want to pack a bigger punch than an AR15 round provides, you get more wallop out of either .303s for example.
You do know that 'assault rifles' can be chambered for a variety of calibers, right?
We were talking about the AR15 right? which generally uses the 223 Rem which has about a third of the energy displaced as a Brit 303.
You know this is a new experience for me, I am not generally the moderate in anything, I don't think I like it, just means both sides disagree with you.I don't really disagree with you all that much hon. If you notice I never said ban all guns... that is a knee-jerk reaction by the extremists to any suggestion that puts any limitations on their precious firearms.
Don seems to feel that way... there are extremists all over the place I guess, out of curiosity if it were up to you what would the gun laws be (just generally, it's a big question I know).
I said the same thing before the shooting if anyone wants to go back and look...
1. Psych profiles as part of licensing.
2. Mandatory gun safety classes with mandatory perfects on tests.... (mainly so that)
3. Stiffer penalties for gun owners whose firearms are involved in fatalities/injuries/crimes.Guilty as charged. I don't like objects designed to kill and injure and I'd love to see not only the possession of guns outlawed, but also the manufacturing of them outlawed around the world. That definitely is pie in the sky, but lots of things have been done in the name of naive optimism. I think guns are treated now like cigarettes were in the 50s. They are portrayed, by some, as cool, objects of desire, harmless, even good for you. When really they are a public health hazard. I just think it's time to start treating them as such. Rather than encouraging their use, and venerating them, discouraging their use and denouncing them. That's got to be tough on those people for whom guns form part of their life and personal history, but on the other hand I don't think every aspect of history is worth holding on to. A world without guns is not something I'd be sad about.
A world without guns, eh. Here is the world that Don would condemn us to. This is taken from a longer essay that is well worth reading in its entirety...
To say that life in the pre-gunpowder world was violent would be an understatement. Land travel, especially over long distances, was fraught with danger from murderers, robbers, and other criminals. Most women couldn't protect themselves from rape, except by granting unlimited sexual access to one male in exchange for protection from other males.
Back then, weapons depended on muscle power. Advances in weaponry primarily magnified the effect of muscle power. The stronger one is, the better one's prospects for fighting up close with an edged weapon like a sword or a knife, or at a distance with a bow or a javelin (both of which require strong arms). The superb ability of such "old-fashioned" edged weapons to inflict carnage on innocents was graphically demonstrated by the stabbing deaths of eight second graders on June 8, 2001, by former school clerk Mamoru Takuma in gun-free Osaka, Japan.
When it comes to muscle power, young men usually win over women, children, and the elderly. It was warriors who dominated society in gun-free feudal Europe, and a weak man usually had to resign himself to settle on a life of toil and obedience in exchange for a place within the castle walls when evil was afoot.
http://old.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel120501.shtml
I don't know about you, but that is not the world I want to leave to my grandchildren.
Here is one of the reasons why Don is living in a fantasy world about guns eventually going away. Real people understand that they are the ones responsible for their own defense. They know full well Don is not going to be there in their time of desperate need. They've heard far too many stories and know far too many people where the cops got there much too late to do any good.
Don talks about taking away their protection and they nod their heads while thinking, "up yours, buddy."That passage clearly describes a pre-gunpowder world. I'm talking about a post-gunpowder world. It's the 21st century, not the middle ages. People don't need to rely solely on weapons to survive any more, and they don't have to rely on fighting to resolve every dispute. It's called civilisation.
So the absence of guns would not plunge the world back to medieval times. It would just upset those people (mostly men) who want to play at being Davy Crockett. I think those people should find some other outlet for their urges. I hear paint ball can be quite thrilling.I don't think anyone is suggesting that all disputes are or should be solved with violence. But getting rid of guns won't make the world better, it wasn't better before they existed either. I agree there are some macho morons who just want to feel big because they have a gun but there are plenty of other reasons, some enjoy hunting and own a firearm for that, some have jobs that take them into dangerous areas where they want to be able to defend themselves, some want to be able to defend their home if someone breaks in (this happens to tens of thousands of people every year), some like myself have experienced oppression and know that at the end of the day only force will allow you to resist it etc. etc. generalizing gun owners like that is just an act of ignorance.
Of course you do and it's fine it is merely the product of a sheltered lifestyle. I grew up in Argentina, when I was young we went from having a healthy democracy to the military declaring itself ruler of the country in a week, after that period the military dictatorship decided to exterminate anyone who supported democracy or was a leftist, since my family were both hardly any survived, my step fathers partner was taken for handing out leaflets, she was tortured for months, gang raped for months and then drowned in a barrel of human waste. I joined the guerrilla not long after.
Growing up in a safe comfortable society it's easy to forget that it's all quite fragile, I am not the paranoid type, I have no problem with governemnt nor do I spend all my time ranting about tyranny but I have never forgotten how important the ability to self defend is and the same goes for citizens of so many countries that have suffered similarly, the takeaway lesson with guns is they equalize, in the middle ages the professional armies were unstoppable the did what they wanted to the common man, in the modern age we have seen countless times that guerrillas can topple whole governments with relative ease and defeat massive armies, the impact of firearms is more positive than you might realize.
When you take away guns you don't make it impossible for the bad guys to do as they wish (most have illegal weapons anyway) but you make it much easier for them.Sorry to hear that Josak, must be a painful memory for you and your family. When I hear of a situation like that, I can't help think the reason it could happen is not because of a lack of guns, but because of too many. Guns = coercive power. If I have one, you feel the need to have one to protect yourself from coercion. That's natural. But take that to its logical conclusion and it means everyone on the planet needs a gun. That's nice for gun manufacturers. Not so good for humanity. Trying to balance the coercive power of guns by giving everyone a gun is not the best solution. Taking guns away, so no one has one makes a lot more sense.
Of course realistically it's not possible to make every gun on the planet disappear simultaneously, but we can at least make the eradication of such objects a goal for humanity and collectively denounce them. Even if someone feels the need to own a gun for safety, they can still deplore it. These things are antithetical to life. They have been designed to cause harm. We can't venerate things designed to cause harm. As a species we can't afford it.You can't take guns from the military because as soon as you do that country would become vulnerable and if the military are the only people with guns you are one power hungry general away from a dictatorship, it happens all the time. Julius Caesar crossed the Rubicon and took Rome where no one was allowed to own weapons with his army and in 2010 the Nigerian military ousted the democratically elected government. In between those two there have been hundreds of thousands more and frankly there have probably been some since 2010, fundamentally all power relies on force if one person has power by arms eventually he will use it against those who don't if it will be advantageous. The power of the people lies in their numbers and their ability to defend themselves, firearms have increased that power dramatically.
So far yourself and others have offered four main arguments against gun control:
1. Pleasure (people enjoy collecting/shooting guns)
2. Too hard to control (controls can be overcome, so not worth it)
3. Fear (people are scared of other people with guns - including the government)
4. Rights (it's in the constitution)
If there's an argument I've missed, let me know.
In my opinion the first two arguments are the most feeble. Making harmful things legal because they are pleasurable and hard to control is a non argument. Heroin is pleasurable and hard to control. Doesn't mean it should be legal though. Moving on . . .
The third argument is easier to sympathise with: People should be free to protect themselves and their families from those that would do them harm. This has a ring of truth about it. It seems instinctively right, just common sense. But (you knew there was one coming) there are problems with it.
The fact that some people are not sensible, well-balanced, mentally healthy individuals, is not an argument for less control over guns. Sure it may not be an argument for banning guns completely either, but it's certainly an argument for controlling who guns are sold to. Surely the happy medium is to make it impossible for people with mental health issues etc. to legally buy or own a gun, while still allowing sensible people to do so for their own protection (if they really feel the need).
"Yeah but...", I hear you cry "a maniac can still buy a gun somewhere illegally". True, but that's easier to spot. If the trade of child pornography on-line can be flagged and the perpetrators traced, then so can those who illegally purchase weapons on-line. "But...", I hear you sneer, "...you can go to a gun show and buy a gun, no questions asked". True, you can. Solution? Make it so you can't. "Well...", you growl, "...if it wasn't a gun it would have been a bomb". Possibly, but that's not an argument against gun control. That's like refusing to clamp down on heroin, on the grounds that people will just switch to crack.
Better to close off every avenue for buying a gun, from those not suited to owning one. Make it so the only way he can get one is by handing over a manilla envelope stuffed with cash, to a guy called 'Bob', who he meets in a dark alley behind a bar. Hopefully he'll get robbed and beaten in the process. Yes some people not suited to owning a gun will still manage to get one, but if forced down that route some may be deterred. If they can just go down to the local outdoors shop, none will be deterred.
The fourth argument is a straw man. Supporters of more stringent gun controls are not saying ban all guns. I'm saying that, but I don't represent the majority of those in favour of gun control (just an idealistic, overly-optimistic sub-set). So the fourth argument doesn't even apply because the right of the 2nd amendment is not actually being challenged.
Even if you manage to convince yourself that trying to control the sale of guns challenges your right under the 2nd amendment, are you really comfortable making this argument: deaths that result from people with mental health issues etc being able to easily buy guns, are a price worth paying for maintaining the right to bear arms under the 2nd amendment. Not the best moral argument I've heard.
I think my final point is that this is not only about gun control vs. gun ownership. It's also about mental health and how we identify it, treat it and our attitudes towards it. Why doesn't the NRA plough some of its resources into research and treatment of mental illness in young men (most likely to go on a killing spree with a gun) and into reducing deaths from domestic gun violence. That would be the actions of a responsible gun advocate. Simply shouting "give us guns and ammo baby, and god bless the US of friggin A" is probably not the most helpful thing it can be doing right now.I have a lot of issues with this post but i will address just a few #1 pertains to your third argument, fear, there you never addressed the military and police issue, you can't take guns from them therefore if you take guns from the populace you leave them at the mercy of those two.
The second one is slightly more complex. We have to understand what makes a ban work or not, the ban on heroin sort of works while the ban on alcohol did not and was a massive disaster, why is that? Simple, the vast majority of people are OK with heroin being banned, most people were not OK with alcohol being banned so more people flaunted the law, the latest Gallup poll shows support for gun legislation is at an all time low in the US and the numbers simply aren't there which leads to the conclusion that a ban on weapons or certain weapons would be an unsuccessful ban rather than a successful one.
Also please realize I am a leftist but as soon as the government made any motions towards banning guns many of the right wingers will panic and buy massive stocks of weapons legally or otherwise to prepare for the government takeover they are sure that portends so any ban or even anti gun legislation will only increase the number of guns in the country.
Also if you turn people to buying illegal weapons you make it much worse, I own an automatic rifle, getting it means being registered, background checked etc etc. I could never get away with a crime committed with that weapon and it took months to get it it was also very expensive because off the legislation involved. Make people go to illegal gun stores and they will find automatic weapons are common and cheap and you will have more of them on the street with no background checks or proficiency training and you ill make things much worse.For me, the military and police are two arms of the government, so I was including them when I said people are afraid of other people with guns - including the government.
It's true that support for stricter gun legislation is at an all time low, but that's not all that poll shows. I assume this is the one. If not, please provide a link.
The poll I've linked to indicates that 63% of people think current laws should be enforced more strictly compared to 35% that don't. 49% favour/strongly favour more gun control laws, compared to 50% who oppose or strongly oppose. Not a massive gap. And when asked what are the most important things that can be done to stop mass shootings in the USA, most people (24%) said stricter gun control laws. So people recognise gun control is an important measure for safeguarding the public.
As I said, I'm in the minority (even among gun control supporters) when it comes to wanting a complete ban on all guns. Most want to respect the 2nd amendment, but also their common sense that tells them someone who is insane should not be able to legally buy or own a gun.
But none of that's really the point. The point is that even if gun advocates don't think that's the best solution to reduce mass shootings, they aren't offering any alternatives, other than the idea of everyone owning a gun.
So here's a challenge. Rather than just saying "no, no, no", instead tell me 3 things you think can be done to reduce the risk of mass shootings like the one in Colorado, that don't rely on everyone owning a gun.
Lots of new cartridges are out for the AR platform -- many with much greater punch and range. Some such as the 6.5mm Grendel will probably stick around while some of the others may not last long. Typical wildcatting to see what works. The good stuff stays, the others fade.
Sure but there are physical limitations to the round given the weapon which makes it less useful as a hunting instrument full stop, I have a friend who uses an AR15 as a varmint rifle but it's massive overkill and it's not suited for game, it's a combat weapon designed for that, pure and simple.
I have a friend who uses them for armadillos. He needs something that will take the abuse of being shaken on a tractor for hours on end and has enough power to punch thru the hide. Lot's of folk use them for the preferred coyote gun. They have quite a wide range, and I wouldn't be so quick to put them into a box and say, "this and no more."
Lol, it's ok.
You can get the AR15 in anything from .17 to .50...Yes you can get higher caliber modified versions but I have never seen one I believe they are quite rare and it still does not make the AR15 a good hunting weapon, weapon treatment and jamming is another thing to consider, the AR15 is made to be kept clean and it doesn't take punishment all that well which makes it far from ideal, it's also expensive and especially so for the modified versions, it's not a logical choice for hunting. Why can't people admit this is plainly a combat weapon which people almost always buy for it's anti personnel capability, it just seems dishonest otherwise, I own a Dragunov variant and it's a great gun too, probably better suited for hunting than the AR15 but it's certainly not what I use it for or why I own it.
The lever action was developed for the Civil War. Afterwards it became the most popular hunting rifle, and those who were still shooting single shot flintlocks whined and moaned about how unsporting it was.
The Mauser bolt action was developed for war in Europe 35 years later, and after the doughboys saw it in action in WWI they brought it home and made a fine hunting rifle from it. The lever action guys whined and moaned about how unsporting it was to use one.
Now, 80 percent of the hunting rifles are descendents from either the battlefield lever action or the Mauser. They are a common as dandelions.
You want to really discuss "battle field weapons" and what is suitable for hunting?Yeah sure, modern combat weapons are not ideal hunting weapons they do less damage per round and are more fragile than a good hunting weapon, you can use them for hunting but there are far far far better alternatives and cheaper ones too, as I told you I own an "assault" weapon but I don't use it for hunting and I am not going to lie and say I have it for hunting, it's for defense and I have no problem with that but it's dishonest to suggest it's not.
Ralph knows that the October 2009 issue of Outdoor Life, the premier magazine of hunting and fishing, prominently featured an AR style rifle on it's front cover, and declared it one of the top ten deer hunting rifles of the year.
Let me repeat myself. Ralph knows this. And yet he denies reality. Which brings up two questions...
1) Who ya going to believe... the experts who make their living writing articles about firearms to people who understand firearms and can spot B.S. right away... or a mope on the internet who knows the truth but wants you to believe otherwise.
2) Why does Ralph feel compelled to lie about something when he full well knows the truth? What inner compulsion drives a person into this position? I means, honestly, Dear Readers... do YOU have a compulsion to lie about the things that you know are the truth?Outdoor Life used to be a good magazine. Now it,s a mouthpiece for gun manufacturers and NRA.
And ~this~ is the best defense that Ralph can muster up, eh...
Ralph doesn't know a darn thing about competitive shooting either. Camp Perry is the national match each year, with the best shooters in the world competing in a dozen different categories.
Which type of rifle dominates the matches.... let's read Chuck Hawks, one of the premier shooting writers and see what he says...
"Camp Perry service rifle competitions are dominated by M16 type rifles, and the use of the M1A or the M1 is extremely limited. While I will probably never move to shooting a M16 type for competition, the individual who wants to be competitive should consider such a proposition. The M16 type has lower recoil, more inherent accuracy potential, and better ergonomics. Additionally the advent of 1/7 twist rate barrels for the M16 type allow the use of heavier bullets thereby allowing shooters to shoot very accurately out to 600 yards."
http://www.chuckhawks.com/camp_perry.htm
For those who don't know, the M16 is the military equivalent of the AR, which Ralph just declared as not being used by "competitive target shooters."
Ralph continuously strikes out, Dear Readers. But he is valuable for those of us who stand on the side of freedom. His shining example of the misinformation that he puts forth allows everyone to understand the sheer bankruptcy of the anti-freedom arguments.
If I put a hammer in my toolbox and never use it, it doesn't stop being a hammer. Likewise, putting your gun in a draw and never using it doesn't doesn't stop it being a lethal weapon. The fact you haven't used your guns to injure or kill doesn't change the fact that they were designed to do exactly that.
Would you be happy with Iran having a nuke as long as they keep it in the silo, and don't use it for what it was designed for? No? Why? According to you that's a perfectly valid argument for keeping a lethal weapon.Errrr... I do use my guns... many times a year. Perhaps you missed that part.
And Don said that guns have "no other purpose." If you want to continue to argue that I am always willing to be amused.
And it takes a special kind of person to confuse personal self defense with nation's having nukes.
BTW, the operative phrase in your post is "you haven't used..." Think about that for a while. Perhaps something will come to mind... such as the gun being totally subject to the purpose I choose to use it for.By the way... if your argument is that you use your guns for a reason other than self-defense then that use is in no way shape or form protected by the second amendment...
In short the constitution doesn't protect your right to play with your guns and/or collect them for piss and giggles. The constitution doesn't protect anyone's hobby.Uh, right.
Melissa's version of the second amendment:
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, excepting for any purpose other than self-defense, shall not be infringed."
(emphasis hers)I defer to Ms. Constitutional Scholar <giggle>
Read my hub on Evil Black Rifles and you'll learn.
Yeah, the government could issue every child a handgun with a 30 round clip after mandatory training at age12. That would solve the school bullying problem and provide an additional bonus of reducing fhe gang banger population.
Another thread has been started on it also, but talks about placing blame on who?
http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/100940
As for the Gun Control issues in this country, my hub addresses it, as does the picture below.
Charleton Heston is full of crap... there are plenty of decent people who owned guns who have buried children because of it.
Were those guns a threat to those "bad" toddlers?
I would ADORE a mental hygiene fitness exam for all gun licenses. If I got that and stricter sentences for any death/wounding/crime committed because some irresponsible idiot had to have his "right" to own a gun but was too stupid to adequately take precautions then I would shut up and never say another word about it.
The NRA would crap bricks over either of those suggestions though.Just curious Melissa, what would you want in a mental exam?
The MMPI combined with a review of any past mental health treatment records would be sufficient I would imagine. Repeated every 4 or so years.
Melissa, you're over-looking the point. Self responsibility is what he's advocating. If someone lost a child because of irresponsibility of ownership, then that's not being responsible is it?
This is one of the most ridiculous things you could have ever said.
I'm sure you would, but would never happen.
Not likely. Think you would still complain if something happen out of pure happenstance/accident.
I'm sure they would.The quote says nothing about responsibility... it simply lumps bad guys as being the ones that cause gun violence and the good guys as being completely harmless... which is crap.
Actually I thought it was pretty apt... If only bad people are hurt by good people who own guns then the children who die must be bad. I would just once like to hear a gun advocate say "Yes it is quite possible that your children will die with the gun you brought into your home for protection".
I'm sure it won't. Nevermind that license requirements for DRIVERS licences include mental hygiene questions in many states... yet owning a gun is fine.
Only if it was an obvious failure of responsibility.Decent(honest) Good people are not going to purposely kill others. Get real. When people are responsible about their ownership, people don't get hurt.
And, I said already that it would be by pure accidents. Accidents do happen with people being responsible. You're looking for perfection and that's just wrong.She knows she is wrong and it doesn't matter. She is only trying to use the issue as a hammer against freedom. If she was truly concerned about kids she would be agitating for the removal of swimming pools, bikes, and a dozen other things that do far more harm to children each year than guns.
How about if we say, 80,000,000 homes with guns and about 50 children die each year from an accidental gun death (which, BTW, the rate is falling at a consistent pace over the past 20 years).
That means that for every 160,000 homes with guns, an accidental death will occur. That odds are far less than one in one-hundredth percent of happening. While each childs death is a tragedy for the family, and community, trying to scare people into thinking that their children are going to die if a gun is in the home is willfully fraudulent and typical of the misinformation that anti-freedom people purposefully spread.When you find a driver's license in the Constitution then get back to us. BTW, a driver's license is only required if you drive a car off your property.
This is a silly and futile argument. Guns aren’t going anywhere, and more importantly people aren’t going to stop killing people anytime soon. As my grandma would say…bless your little hearts.
Melissa~ My kids could be killed by guns, someone else’s gun, my gun, my car, your car, lightning, a shark, shall I go on? They are much more likely to be killed by a car than a gun I keep at home, so you give up your car. Isn’t that the same reasoning? I guess violent crime would stop shortly after the passing of the Melissa Gun Control Act, along with kids not getting killed accidently by guns. I know you’re just trying to use some common sense to make the world a better place, but it’s not going to happen.
I’d prefer to not need weapons at all, but in our world they are the best method of protection. Hoping for the best and planning for the worst is a pretty sane rationale to have. For many of us, the planning for the worst part includes having guns. Sorry that’s just the way it is.You haven't been keeping up have ya sparky?
Read the whole thread and make comments at the end. It helps from having the exact argument over and over.
Here is the best that this thinking is. Let's examine reality, though.
Approximately 80,000,000 gun owners in our country. About 100,000 people do bad things each year with guns.
So Melissa thinks that the problem are the 79,900,000 gunowners who cause no harm. She wants to subject the 99.5 percent to costly, invasive exams because of the .05 percent who most likely don't have guns legally and therefore would not be given an exam.
Melissa simply cannot tell the difference between the 99.5 percent and the .05 percent. To her, they are all the same. The 79,900,000 people who go about their lives in a peaceful manner, disturbing no one, harming no innocents, are equally guilty in Milissa's mind as the thug who uses a gun to hold up a bank or mug a person.
This, Dear Readers, is why the gun control movement has lost so much steam. They talk about "reasonableness" but when their ideas are actually examined it turns out they are living in fantasy land.
But...don't you think alarm bells should go off when someone buys all the supplies this shooter bought in such a short time, legally or not?
Yes, better checks and balances of online retailers is a must. Anyone buying huge amounts of ammo or guns, should be flagged by the FBI.
Anyone attempting to purchase anything other than a hunter riffle should be flagged by the FBI. Can anyone really walk into a store and by a semi in the USA? Can't do that in Canada. The USA had 88.8 guns per 100 residents with a murder rate of 5.22 per 100,000 in 2007 while Canada had 30.8 guns per 100 residents with a murder rate of 1.67 per 100,000.
Statistics don't lie, but people do.Yes people do lie, but that still doesn't take away the fact that people kill people and the gun is just a means to an end.
Because the statistics are irrelevant to the largest issue which is freedom. Just because people can be morons doesn't mean you punish those who are in fact innocent.
You don't want to look at statistics, you want to change the subject and talk about freedom. Do you have the freedom to buy anything you want? Do you have the legal right to buy prescription drugs without a prescription or any drugs for that matter? How about tank? Can you buy a tank and park in on your driveway? Do you have the legal right to bring a firearm on an airplane? Why not demand your freedom to drink alcohol and drive? Do give me this FREEDOM crap.
Actually, I haven't changed the subject. I'm attempting to keep it on track.
I have the freedom to buy the things I need. Your statement is ambiguity in context.
Now, who is changing the subject? Good show.
Tanks are available on the black market. So, if I had the ability to buy one, then I would be able to.
Irrelevant.
Not presently, because rights are oppressed out of fear.
It's not legal to do, but that freedom is already there and no one can do anything about it, except pass along a consequence if caught.
Yeah, I know. You don't mind restricting other people's freedom. Talk about a waste of a good issue on the mindless ineptitude.I didn't change the subject, incase you were unaware I was showing you your lack of Freedom. Which you brought up. You don't have the freedom to drink and drive, because if you get caught you go to jail. No freedom.
And what you are failing to realize is that I have all the freedom I choose. No lack of freedom.
Freedom is the underlying thing when you bring up Gun Control or Gun Banning. Duh! Do try to think straight would you.
I can still do it if I choose.
Are you so blind you cannot tell what honest freedom is?And you are unaware that drinking and driving is an "action" that may cause specific, immediate harm to an individual. Buying or owning a firearm isn't.
So a law against one has nothing to do with the restrictions of freedom on firearms. Therefore your example is not only a waste of time, but makes no sense.You are a riot.
You are correct in that drinking and driving MAY cause specific, immediate harm. You failed to see that buying and owning a gun MAY cause specific and immediate harm as it did in the movie theatre.Ahhh... you want the mere act of "buying and owning" to be comparable to "acting". It ain't, and you can't make it be so no matter how you twist it.
No, they both MAY cause damage. Your words... not mine... Yet you have the freedom to do only one. I'm merely trying to show you the illusion of freedom. You said only drinking and driving may cause damage, you were wrong. Buying and owning guns MAY cause damage.
Inept playing with word won't get you anywhere. The Dear Readers know the difference between buying something, and then using that for harm.
No, they are the same thing. One of them of course is far more likely to cause harm. I'll give you that, but they both do cause harm. You've got to give me that.
Nope...buying and owning a gun does no one any harm. You just can't get your mind wrapped around the fact that 80 million guns owners in American and 99.5 percent of them who have bought and own guns do no harm with them.
My guns are likely to kill one person in my lifetime. The person who has vowed to kill me and my family.
If criminals stay out of my house, and away from me when I'm out, they are perfectly safe.So, according to you buy and owning a gun as never harmed anyone. Ever? No kid has ever taken his dads gun to school and shot a student? No gun has ever been put in the hands of criminals as a result of a B&E? Come on.
No, owning a gun has never killed anyone. Something always happens to make a gun go off.
That's like saying no one has ever been killed by a drunk driver. Something always happens to the car to make it go out of control.
No, it's like saying nobody was ever killed by owning a car. If you get in a car and drive inebriated, you might kill someone. Just by owning one, you won't.
If you take a gun and shoot it, you might kill someone. Just by owning one, you won't.You are assuming that no one else get access to the gun. The question is, can someone get shot from someone buying and owning a gun? The answer is yes, the guy in the movie theatre bought and owned his guns and people died. You are trying to get tricky with words, but it doesn't work. You seem to think the use of the gun nullifies the buying and owning, but it does not, it's just a precursor.
No, someone can only get shot if a gun goes off. Generally speaking, that requires someone to pull the trigger.
The victims in the theater died because James shot the guns. It wasn't because he owned them.If the people were shot just because this mope owned the guns, then why didn't many people die months ago from these specific guns when he bought them?
Sorry, no.
According to rad the mere buying and possessing of a gun puts other people in mortal danger. The guns didn't know what he was planning. They should have done their job according to rad and started in shooting people within moments of the dollar bills being laid on the counter.That is a ridiculous argument and you know it. The fact he bought them should have caused someone to look into why he was buying 6,000 rounds of ammunition and guns.
You do know that about 70 BILLION rounds of ammo are bought each year, don't you?
It's common for dedicated shooters to run through several thousand rounds a month. Some claim to have that many rolling around in the back of their pickup.
Besides, just how many of these 6,000 rounds did this shooter use? 200? 300? 70? So it's okay with you if he only bought 1,000 round, eh. No need to investigate that, and you wind up with the same exact incident with the same exact number of people hurt.
It was also because he owned the guns. If he didn't own the guns he wouldn't have shot the guns. He owned the guns because he was able to buy guns he had no business of owning. What did the store clerk think he was going to do with them? I'm not sure what anyone needs an automatic riffle for? Kind of like picking up a new car while your drunk. Someone should say "hey body you shouldn't be driving". Driving and owning a car is a privilege, not a right. Cars and drivers are licensed. Perhaps owning a gun should be a privilege and licensed the same way as a driver or car.
If he didn't own the guns he could have borrowed or stolen.
Yes, someone has to have a gun in their possession to shoot it. What kind of argument is that? What point are you trying to make?
I'm going to buy a few assault rifles. Why? For sport and defense, that's why. I love shooting, and I want to have a solid SHTF rifle, just in case of zombie apocalypse
Makes sense to me. We have a bit of a Zombie problem in my neck of the woods.
Really don't know much about rifles and U.S. gun laws, eh.
Yes, someone USED the gun. and that is why people were hurt.
Thank you for admitting that the gun is not at fault... the person controlling and pulling the trigger of the gun is.
No, the people who prevent the passage os sensible gun laws and programs to provide mental health care are the ones who are at fault.
Ralph, what would prevent this from happening? I'm curious about your idea of what the solution is, but you won't say.
Ralph always posts about "sensible gun laws" but when challenged he can only come up with ideas that have proven unworkable, and that limit the freedom of law abiding citizens without affecting bad guys in the least.
But it's nice the way he blames others for the misdeeds of the social deviants.
Ralph is a social drinker who stands against Prohibition of alcohol. He is personally responsible for every single drunk driving death in America this year. Shame on you, Ralph.Not one single person here has blamed every gun owner for this, only the guy who did it. It is in the best interest of everyone to ensure the mentally ill and the unstable cannot buy guns.
Really... then perhaps you can explain to us why some posters are calling for tighter restrictions, up to the point of banning guns, for the 99.5 percent of those who do no harm?
And it is already illegal for adjudicated mental health patients to buy or own firearms. Do you want to make it double illegal?Rather than giving the nut job and automatic riffle why not first see if he's okay. Clearly he wasn't okay and bought the guns. Perhaps there needs to be a process to filter out the nuts?
It's called going to court and making a legal determination.
Doesn't seem like rocket science to me either! Why would anyone argue against preventing a nut job from buying guns?
As noted many times, which you ignore as usual, it is illegal for someone with adjudicated mental problems to buy or own weapons. When you ignore reality like that for your own fantasy world it is certainly telling.
Obviously some of these guys are getting by. Don't you think something should be done to stop this? Or do you think he should have the right to by these guns?
He missing the whole preventative aspect of it. So those who have been adjudicated as unstable aren't allowed to have guns... goody... that means that they have already done something obvious enough to be in the court system.
A psych exam as a requirement for a gun license would cost around 200 dollars...it would be covered under most insurance programs and it would add no more to administrative costs because the cost would be the responsibility of the person who wanted the gun. If you can afford the gun and ammo then you can certainly afford the 200 dollars.Let's see... 80,000,000 gun owners at $200 each...
Why... that is only 16 BILLON dollars to solve a problem that 99.99 percent of them don't have. But what the heck... insurance companies have all this free money just sitting around in their vaults, eh.
Since the vast majority of crime is committed with people who already have illegal guns I can just see myself standing in line to see the counselor with the rapists, muggers, home invaders, burglars, mass killers, terrorists, white-sheeted bigots, gay bashers, gangbangers and anti-Semites who are sure to abide by this mandatory review.
And that $200 that you so causally write off. I can just see the compassion for those who are poor, elderly, and live on a fixed income in a bad neighborhood just oozing thru your pores. We can also disregard that single mom who is struggling to put food on the table working minimum wage who would like to defend against that stalker who has threatener her life. But these are just "little people" with no real need for such things as self defense, eh.If you have enough to buy a weapon you can afford 200$ but functionally I would say it should only be for handguns and automatics which means people can defend their homes just fine with a shotgun etc. without issue, those are the weapons that allow wholesale slaughter like we saw recently.
Josak, you say you know guns but you toss around a word such as "automatic" which gives the appearance that you really don't have a clue about guns. So which is it?
And not every one can handle a shotgun. Nice of you to think you can make that choice for them, though. The concept of freedom is getting smaller each day.When I say automatic I am referring to automatic rifles like the one I own which are selective auto-semiauto hybrids and also the variety of other weapons that allow true automatic fire (not just semi automatic) but really you should have been able to figure that out.
No not every one can handle a shotgun but I said a shotgun etc. (just selected it for it's popularity as a home defense item) which means they can basically use anything aside from handguns and full auto weapons which provides a massive variety of options more than adequate for home defense.If you use "automatic" to mean "automatic" or "full auto" then you already know that these firearms are highly limited and controlled by the federal government. Mentioning them in the context of handguns is akin to trying to fool people into thinking that the same car that races the Indy 500 is also a street legal car that is causing too many wrecks on the highway.
You should have been able to figure that one out.
He doesn't see the preventative aspect because he doesn't want to. To get a drivers licence we have to do a written and driving test to prove we are safe to be on the road. This is how the government does it best to take care of us. These movie watchers were not taken care of.
Rad doesn't see that the 79,900,000 law abiding gunowners who never hurt innocents that he wants to spend 16 billions dollars are not the problem because he doesn't want to.
The vast majority of drivers never hurt anyone either.
True. Makes you wonder what the real purpose behind the license is, eh.
... No. No I want untrained drivers around just as much as I want untrained gun owners around me.
400,000 thousand "untrained" gun owners are walking around Indiana every single day with legally carried handguns and somehow we manage to survive without having bodies draped across sidewalks, lawns, cars and doorways every day.
Reality is a beach, eh.I didn't say it was an Armageddon I know must gun owners are responsible and I have no problem with carry etc. I just think the situation can be improved. When I got my license in NZ I went to the station, sat a test, talked to the firearms officer (who is just a cop), wen to the range demonstrated I knew how to handle it properly and got my license, it cost 60$ and took two hours, I like that system if you fail either test you have to go to a free two hour tutorial then resit.
Here's the problem that you cannot overcome.
Indiana, Washington, Pennsylvania and several other states have NO requirements for training of the CCW carriers. Yet, they have virtually the same less than 1 percent of the problems with the gun owners as the states that require extensive training.
In other words, lack of training gives the same results as required training.
There is no reason for a government mandated training to solve a non existent problem other than "you want one."I would like some stats to prove that states that require training have more or the same number of accidents.
everything you need to know...
http://gunfacts.info/pdfs/gun-facts/6.1 … screen.pdf
Eh? How Canadian!
This is interesting. I like the "I'm not in my home state. How can I get another?"
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/windsor/s … order.htmlI must admit to being double-minded. Sometimes I am glad that we were not able to capture and retain Canada as part of the U.S. in 1812, and other times I am wishful that you all could have had the benefits of being part of us. Since many of the Royalists ran away to the north in 1776 it is probably better that we didn't.
In what other area of life do you demand perfection?
Freedom is messy sometimes. And people who wish to do harm can often do so without anyone being able to stop them in advance.
"Minority Report" was just a movie, you know.You don't think the movie goers should have been giving the freedom and protection from there government to watch a public movie?
Yes, I do. The government should have assigned a personal bodyguard to every single person in that theater from birth until they die of old age. And a food taster. Along with a highly trained chauffeur. Plus an armored vehicle.
You are being unreasonable, all that was needed was someone stop the guy from buying guns and ammunition.
He was not a criminal with a criminal background. He was not adjudicated as a mental case.
You really do believe that Minority Report was a documentary, don't you? That people can tell the future crimes of other people.
See the sleight of words that rad is trying to pull here on unsuspecting readers?
He changes it midway from "buying and owning" to "using" a gun. That's an intentional and willful attempt to confuse people into buying his argument. He simply cannot make a logical argument in his favor without attempting to cheat in his favor.Those were not even my words. And for your info, YOU don't have to use a gun to kill someone, someone else does. I'm not nearly smart enough to trick people with words. Trust me.
This is the first thing you have said that's accurate.
Best you can do, eh.
The Dear Readers know the sleight of words you tried.
This Smith and Wesson cam has been focused on this firearm for about 16 years now. It has done no harm.
In rad's fantasy world, it would have killed at least five people in the past years because at some time in the past someone "bought" it.
Which world is reality?
http://montego.roughwheelers.com/gun_cam.html
Yes, I can buy a tank and put it in my driveway if I had room Nothing in the law says I can't and many citizens do own just that.
And up until a few short years ago we all could carry handguns onto airplanes and -- wow -- nothing happened because of it.
Your concept of freedom is that nothing is allowed unless the state specifically gives you permission to do so. The American concept is that everything is allowed unless the state denies it. I think most Americans greater prefer our style.
Here's all you need to know about Canada and guns...
http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/01/20 … attackers/Here's all you need to know about Canada and guns...
http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/07/19/nahom-tsegazab/
Which "supplies" do you think should have triggered the alarm? Millions of people buy somewhat identical amounts of guns and ammo each month and you think that because some wack-job hurt other people that all these millions that don't should somehow "trigger" an alarm?
It does in Canada, because millions don't buy assault riffles. Even buying a hand gun in Canada is a lengthy process which involves character witnesses and background checks.
Good for you in Canada.
Apparently speaking freely also triggers alarms in your country...
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/edito … ee_speech/
After the ability of the citizen to stand against the state goes away, it doesn't take long for the state to begin oppressing the citizen.Yes, Canada doesn't tolerate hate speech. If a white supremacist what to come in and spread hatred we don't allow it. Thanks for changing the topic when you know your wrong. You can argue with statistics.
There ya go, Dear Readers. A canuck who thinks he has the ability to tell which people what they can or cannot say, and if they violate his feelings he feels comfortable shutting them down, and even putting them in jail. And he wants to tell Americans just how much freedom WE should also have.
I call it over stepping individual authority.
I don't want to tell Americans how much freedoms you should have. Perhaps your not understanding. I'm merely stating that freedom is an illusion. None of us have complete freedom.
In Canada the state PROTECTS it's citizens by making it difficult to purchase a gun. It's all a matter of how you look at it. With less than a 3rd of your murder rate they seem to be doing a good job.
In Canada the state PROTECTS it's social deviants by making it difficult for law abiding citizens to purchase a gun to defend themselves with. It's all a matter of how you look at it.
Absolutely. Quite obvious. Maybe the guys at HubPages could show them how ti improve the system.
Ralph wants the authorities to investigate the quite legal actions of millions of people each month because one person was psychotic. And the anti-freedom people wonder why they are losing so badly in the court of public opinion when they attempt to pass that kind of thinking off as "reasonable."
Seems to a system would be easy to implement that would have resulted in an interview with Mr. Holmes which might have averted the tragedy.
Millions of guns bought each year. Ralph wants every single person interviewed, at the cost of billions of dollars, when he knows that 99.99 percent of the people buying them will never hurt a single person.
As noted earlier, this is what passes as "sensible" by those like Ralph.
Guns Are A Primary Source for contributing to the death of citizens in America and around the world. Now others can claim that one can use explosives-(however we all know that exposes can be volatile-so not a good choice). We can say we could use a knife and it could be an effective weapon if however your opponent has been trained to disarm a person with a knife-(not a good choice). A person could use a hatchet a hatchet would make a good weapon unless the people coming after you outnumber you are you one.
I decided to keep weapons in our society is our problem we as citizens are also creating so that more innocent lives in the future will be lost to this stubborn denial of the truth.
A solution I've mentioned before:
we have the technology to create non-lethal weapons. We can ask the public to trade their lethal weapons in for these new nonlethal weapons.This statement alone shows you're not even attempting to understand what's bigger than the product/goods available.
Guns are not the primary source. People are the primary source. The gun is a means to an end.And I say you are wrong. People are brave because they have handguns or firearms take those away and you will have a few people who are brave without the courage of a handgun but you won't have that many.
Criminals don't follow law and will still find a way to get hold of a gun. There are ways to make your own home made guns. People aren't thinking logical here. Take all the guns away from the innocent people and the innocent people won't be able to protect themselves causing more deaths.
You are correct-people still need to be protected and if you read what I wrote I said replaced the lethal weapon with non-lethal weapons. That way citizens can still protect themselves without causing further death to even innocent bystanders.
Star, you can protect you and yours with a spray can of cheese whiz, or a baseball bat, or even a Indiana Jones bullwhip all you want. Go for it. I'll back you to the hilt. Just don't think you have any say on how I protect me and mine with the best possible way of doing so.
Jack Burton,
I wouldn't think of telling you how to protect yourself. Just recognize that maintaining this wild West mentality is responsible for every man woman and child being killed through years of gun violence.No, it's not.
Citizen's desires to have guns for self-defense is not responsible for criminals using guns to kill people.
By your standard, if all law-abiding citizens gave up their guns, nobody would get shot.
My having guns will only affect someone who breaks into my house or attacks me.They deserve to have guns because we created a gun society. We have a society where people now must carry guns I don't know about you but it seems as though we missed the point somewhere about a society if all we doing is bringing back gun toting people from the date of the old West.
We come this far in the future only to continue to live in the past.
That's as silly as stating that all social drinkers are responsible for every drunk driver who has killed a person on the road.
I wonder what would have happened if one brave CHL holder had been in attendance?
Hey Repairguy,
I had this conversation with someone else on Facebook and the person told me that there were 4 people seeing the movie who were actually armed, but did nothing.Has that been proven? Or is that just a rumor?
I don't know. I haven't yet investigated. I only mentioned what someone else said about it.
Regardless though, if you stop to think about it....what does that say about the people who didn't do anything(if there were people armed)?
12 people had to die and 50 others were injured, when after the beginning of the onslaught they could and had the power to stop it sooner. That would be a shame on them for not preserving the lives of those in their surroundings.
Self preservation didn't even kick in? Why not?
Why would they be armed?Cagsil,
This is only my idea of why they may not have responded to the situation surrounding them. Every one doesn't have a killer instinct and people actually have to be trained to kill, one of the reasons why a soldiers goes through basic training it is normally not in our nature to want to take another person's life.agreed.
"In the final moments of his life, Trayvon Martin was being hounded by a strange man on a cellphone who ran after him, cornered him and confronted him, according to the teenage girl whose call logs show she was on the phone with the 17-year-old boy in the moments before neighborhood watch volunteer George Zimmerman shot him dead."
Why does a neighbourhood watch volunteer need a gun?Rad Man,
For whatever reason it just seems sad that we can't elevate out thinking and I behavior. It's like women used to called men "Boys with their toys." It's like children playing the game King of the Hill everybody struggling to get to the top of the hill-the idea of having these deadly weapons I'm guessing must be some kind of macho trip.I agree. I see our policemen playing king of the hill out back behind the station house almost every day.
A gun is not a Harry Potter magic wand. There are many situations where they just are a lump of metal in your pocket. Better, still, to not need one and have it than to need one and not have it.
Yes, before guns were invented mankind lived in virtual paradise.
:-)
I am sure the rapists, muggers, home invaders, burglars, mass killers, terrorists, white-sheeted bigots, gay bashers, gangbangers and anti-Semites will be lining up to take advantage of your trade-ins.And where do you think the above list of people are getting their guns?
Errrre... they are criminals. c r i m i n a l s. And you do know that it takes about five minutes in a decent home garage workshop to build a workable gun, don't you? You didn't know that?
Hmmmm......The USA had 88.8 guns per 100 residents with a murder rate of 5.22 per 100,000 in 2007 while Canada had 30.8 guns per 100 residents with a murder rate of 1.67 per 100,000.
How is your gun control policy working out for you? Your murder rate is over three times higher than Canada's and you have 3 times the amount of guns per resident. Hmmmm. Do you really think more guns will help?So what your point? That social deviants do bad things when they get the opportunity? That is surprising news, eh.
I know this might be a new concept to you, but freedom is neither predicated on statistics, or bound by the actions of those who are outside the law.How? If the Gun gives the opportunity, take the gun away (or limit the purchase). Which is the hardest part because big money is being made selling them.
And that restricts only the honest owner and doesn't do anything about the guns available on the streets.
Except for the fact that guns are so readily available through illegal channels in the US.
There are places that have tried gun bans before. The only effect is that citizens don't have guns, just the criminals do.
If bans worked so well, prohibition would have worked. The war on drugs would be working.
I understand the emotional argument, but the fact is, gun control and gun bans only serves to reduce the number of guns that law abiding citizens have.Considering most illegal guns in Canada are brought across the boarder, we still have 1/3 your murder rate per citizen as was as a third the guns. Just make it more difficult to purchase guns. No citizen needs an assault riffle.
Rad, stop comparing different countries. Canada is not the US. Canada does not have the same base crime rates. Canada does not have the same socio-economic-political factors.
Making it more difficult to purchase guns doesn't stop criminals from getting guns. The vast majority of guns criminals use were obtained illegally, not bought at a gun store.Obtained illegally. Correct. Perhaps stolen from someone who purchased it from a gun store. Look at a list of number of guns owned per citizen by country and then look at a list of murders per capita. Sometimes it's okay to look outside your own country for better solutions.
Yes, we could look out the country for better solutions, but then again, we could find them without looking also and most likely with the knowledge we could do better than the outsiders.
Rad, you argue that you can just compare different areas.
Why do states that change their laws to let citizens carry guns see a reduction in crime, instead of an increase?
Why do states that have the lowest crime rates often have the highest ownership rates?
Why does Switzerland have 1/3 your homicide rate with 50% more guns?
Why does Sweden have less homicides than Canada with slightly more guns?
The only evidence you have that more guns = more crime is selective and weak correlation.It's working fine for me personally. As for America, it appears as if people outside of America would prefer Americans to do as they want and that's unacceptable.
I have no idea what your talking about.
(People outside of America would prefer Americans to do as they want...)? I don't care if Americans do as they want. Is that what you meant?
Rad, you can't compare countries, unless you find some way to control for every other factor other than gun control. Switzerland has 1/3 Canada's homicide rate, and 50% more guns. See, it doesn't work.
As ownership and carry permits in the US goes up, crime rates are going down. Shouldn't they go up?
Some of the states with highest gun ownership have the lowest crime rates, and vice versa.
Again, comparing different situations is nearly impossible. The best data you can get is comparing the same area before and after a change takes effect. Gun control laws in DC didn't help. They didn't help in Chicago.You can't control guns flowing in from other areas. We can't control guns coming over the boarder. It needs to be done on the Federal level.
If the whole US had a federal ban on guns, they would still be made illegally, they would still be smuggled in illegally.
Are you open to other viewpoints? You just poo-poo over everything I say.I am open to views. If you've got one, I'll listen. I think clp2190 has got something there. May need a little work, but it's a start. Serial numbers on guns just doesn't cut it any more.
Ok.
First, the war on drugs isn't working. People steal for money to buy drugs. People kill to steal drugs. People go to prison for drugs, and end up economically disadvantaged for the rest of their life. Gangs fight over control of drug trafficking. We need to end it.
Secondly, we need to try to help people in disadvantaged areas. Detroit has a homicide rate about 1000% the national average. People are less inclined to turn to crime if they have work and money available. We should work on the unemployment rate, and work to give equal opportunities to everyone.
As far as guns go, I would support legislation that required safety training and marksmanship training to be able to carry. IIRC, Sweden has a high ownership rate, but people are required to pass tests to have guns. The more people who are educated about guns and responsible with them, the better.+1000 Many of the problems we have with guns we have because people have not been taught to respect them and give them a healthy dose of fear, they should not be treated like toys and everyone who owns one should know how to use it properly.
The drug war comment is also dead on, those policies have failed.No way!
Josak, don't you remember? We always have to disagree!True that.
The US Constitution guarantees the right to bear arms. It does not infringe on those rights to require a license in order to own one. I feel strongly that one should have to take an extensive course like the ones that the NRA offers (Safe Hunter, Marksmanship, etc.) where you do learn safety and respect.
When I was 13, I wanted a rifle. My dad signed me up for the NRA classes. I went as far as you could go in the programs. They are more intensive than basic military training. When I did receive military training, I aced it from my prior experience. Within a couple of years after I got my rifle, I got a shotgun and an automatic pistol. I had to go back to the classes for both weapons. Dick Cheney should have done the same. I don't believe a severely emotionally disturbed person could go all the way through without showing his hand.
The war on drugs is a war on people. We need to have a war on poverty, instead.80,000,000 gun owners. About 2,000 accidents a year and the number is dropping each year consistently. That means the 79,998,000 gunowners should spend billions of dollars and countless man hours to satisfy a government requirement for a problem that statistically is approaching zero? The 99.99 percent must jump through hoops that are going to do nothing for them except cost them money and time?
This is why the population is beginning to wake up when people talk about "reasonable" gun control. They are understanding that it is by and large based in fantasy.
I like training in firearms. I think every one should have lots of training if they so choose. But government mandated training? For what purpose?Hello? Why do you need training to drive? Should the government not require that you can pass the test? It costs people millions.
It would cost more in human suffering.
Besides, you learn to use the weapon properly. You sure don't want to get in a gunfight with me. I don't miss. Most gunfights don't have much of a success rate for hitting the target, including law enforcement.
I am concerned that you don't see the wisdom. Why would you be opposed to sound judgement? You probably couldn't pass the course.Hello yourself. If you want to compare the complexities of driving a car with multiple controls, moving at a high rate of speed, and thousands of other drivers all on the road at the same time with the simple working of a firearm with one to maybe three controls at the max then go for it. And BTW,. we managed to get by for decades without mandated driving lessons or even tests.
And you've yet to make the case that the 79,998,000 gun owners who didn't have one of the 2,000 accidents are somehow responsible for all that suffering.
Please explain why these multi-millions of people don't know how to use their weapon "properly."
A gunfight with you? My goodness, we have an authentic internet commando here on Hubpages. He doesn't miss. That's too good for a LOL so I am going to have to go with a .<snicker>.
So if most "law enforcement" don't hit their target, then why do you want to waste money on citizens who will also miss their target according to your logic and wisdom.
I am concerned that you think it appropriate to waste billions of taxpayer dollars for something that is not needed. You've yet to make any case that it is. You've yet to establish a problem with even 20 percent of the gunowners... not even ten percent... or even 5 percent. Yet you think it is reasonable to have 100 percent of them spend money on your whim, and not be allowed to have a firearm in the meantime. And this, Dear Readers, is what he labels "sound judgement."
This is why the gun control crowd is losing the population. They can very well see for their own just how this judgement is based on fantasy.
Training simply because people need to learn to respect and fear a gun because so many are killed because some people treat them like toys, they need to be taught how to care for the weapon properly so it won't blow up in their hands, they need to learn how ricochet work so they don't accidentally kill someone, they need to learn to use a safety properly as well as a holster, they need to learn to store it properly and safely they need to be taught never to fire their gun in the air etc etc.
As other posters have pointed out a gun is far more deadly than a car and we expect people to get a car license, why not do the same with a gun? at least for automatics and handguns.I think it should be for every fire arm, like it is for every vehicle.
Josak has probably had more real, live or die experience with fire arms than anyone who has spoken so far. He is a man of peace and his main concern is for the common man. I will stand with a man like him any day.Again, 99.99 percent of the gun owners have none of the problems that you stated, yet you want them to spend billions of dollars on training for what? So that 99.99 percent of them won't have any of the problems that you stated?
That makes a whole lot of sense. This is truly the best that you people can do, eh.
It makes you fffffeeeeeelllll gggggoooooodddd to think about training, so you want to mandate it for everyone regardless of the lack of need for it.where do you get this figure ? from the figures I have seen the number of unbalanced individuals in therapy alone make up more like 20% of your population, then there are the unbalanced individuals who are not in therapy, the crack heads and other dope stupid people, and now apparently armchair gamers who lose touch with reality and work out that they can live out their online fantasies then spend the rest of their life online gaming at the expense of your mental service.
I am not sure if having guns is why so many Americans are so immature or if immaturity is the reason for the guns.Yes, because the rest of the world is so pure in heart that even their scat doesn't stink.
The figure you used was annually, I have owned and used guns for about 50 years so that means at this 0.1% of users yearly figure I have about a 5% chance of having had such an accident (and I have, a barrel fractured in my hand because I forgot to check it for obstructions after a march) I imagine the vast majority of such accidents never get reported and an awful lot of close calls occur which should also be prevented. Owning and using a gun is a big responsibility, it doesn't make me feel good that people should have training but I think if you can't pass a written test and a practical test you should not be allowed to own a weapon because you are a danger to yourself and others. I have seen hunters do incredibly stupid things like fire at a sound or a shape etc.
I am not a guns expert but I have used them all my life as a civilian and in the military I own a few hunting rifles, a .45 and an ak47dragunov Norinco variant so I have plenty of experience with automatic weapons and am plenty qualified to discuss the subject so please stop acting like lord god of weapons and give functional logical reasons why gun owners at least of handguns and weapons with automatic capability should not get some mandatory training and pass a test to own them.Need to work on your math also.
If 2,000 people have an accident each year for 50 years that means over that period of time there has been 100,000 people who have accidents.
Now if we know that the total number of gun owners over that same 50 years is far greater than the 80,000,000 that exist today, but the sake of consistency we'll stick with the lower, 80,000,000 figure.
That means that you have a 1 out of 800 chance of having an accident, which is far less than 1 percent, and no where near the same universe as your "5 percent" that you figured.
And all states do require hunter firearm training. If you testify that you've seen hunters do stupid things with firearm then you acknowledge that training is not a cure all for what ails you.
And I will stop poking fun at and mocking other people when they stop posting really stupid, ignorant things about guns, gun owners, and life in general. I'd rather they upgrade their posts to be at least somewhat intelligent and reasonable instead of stopping posting but I believe that may not be possible for some of them.So 100 000 reported accidents is not sufficient? Not to mention that training should also cover how to use a weapon defensively and when to use a weapon etc. 1100 accidental deaths occur yearly in the US from firearms, training can only be a good thing.
Nothing is a complete cure but everything should be done to maximize safety without taking people's guns from them, that is the right balance of liberty and security for the populace.100,000 accidents over 50 years? When you find perfection in any other human endeavor then please let us know.
Training is good. I've had lots of training. I train others. Making it the government responsibility to determine who is trained well enough to exercise a basic human right is not within common sense.
poor Josak.... so earnest and yet his buddy wd screws him over.
According to wd "Josak has probably had more real, live or die experience with fire arms than anyone who has spoken so far"
Yet, Josak makes the elementary (but predictable) mistake of thinking that people are walking around willy nilly with "automatic" weapons. No true firearms enthusiast, or knowledgeable person, would make a mistake in terminology such as that.
Rad is like totally fixated on the concept that criminals do criminal things like steal from other people.
You have no clue as to what an "assault rifle" is.
I am not "promoting": my hub but using it to answer this topic. Go and look at the one I did on Evil Black Rifles and everyone will know more about this rifle than rad has learned in a lifetime.
So rad wants to "take away" the guns from the 99.5 percent of the people who do no harm to innocents with them because of the actions of the .05 percent. And this is the best he can do.
So totally doesn't understand the concept of freedom up north.
Well, it's illegal for a criminal to buy or own a firearm. I guess in your mind we can make it "double illegal." No one will possible violate that.
How do you take away the opportunity Ralph?
Well, I haven,t given it a lot of thought, but one possibility would be to implement a system which would identify purchases like those of Holmes which would or could trigger an interview which would determine, for example, whether his purchase of 6'ooo rounds of ammo was because he operated a commmercial firing range or had some other rational explanation or not. If not, further investigation would follow. The absence of an effective tracking system allowed Holmes to fly under the radar by spreading his purchases among multiple sources and over several months, time.
Millions of law abiding citizens do just what this shooter did each month, and Ralph wants each of them investigated. No wonder the general public has seen through the guise of "reasonable" gun control.
I doubt that. If it,s true, we,re in more trouble than I thought.
Doubt away Ralph. But please explain to the Dear Readers just why you think we are "in trouble" when you know that 99.5 percent of all gun owners are peaceful and law abiding.
Rad, if you really think you can just compare homicide rates across countries, without even attempting to control for any other factor, then you truly fall under the 'lies, damn lies, and statistics' category.
As gun control laws in the US have loosened, homicide rates have fallen. The US has a naturally high crime rate compared to other countries, for many, many reasons. Guns are not it.
Guns are used in the US millions of times to stop crimes. In our current environment, it's better to have an armed, responsible citizen base, as compared to a defenseless one.
I'll admit I have not been partial to either side of the gun argument in the past, but I think the answer lies in improving the technology associated with guns. I think installing microchips in the guns that lock the guns firing mechanism when in certain locations could go a long way in solving the issue without inhibiting anyone's 2nd amendment rights. If my phone can track my every location and send me targeted ads based on my location, than I believe something similar is at least possible for fire arms in the US.
Of course a question some of you may have is how do we find all of the older guns and install this new technology? Who fits the bill with the associated "upgrades"? How can we ensure that the chip is not uninstalled?Do you know how guns work and the tremendous stress that they are under? There is a reason that the barrels, slides and much of the parts are made from steel.
And just what locations do you feel should be off base to people with guns? Do you know you just advertised those as "victim disarmament zones" to any bad guy in town? Take your pick, no one will be able to defend themselves.
And do you know that it takes a couple of minutes to make a hand gun in a garage workshop? If I am a bad guy I will be delighted knowing that I am the only one in the room with a functional gun.So there are no targeting mechanisms associated with any other weapon that fires projectiles under intense stress like navy gunships. I understand what you are saying but i believe american engineering could easily solve that issue. Also I would not label them as victim disarmament zones, but simply as disarmament zones. FYI i know other critical parts of the gun can be made of plastic, reason why the M4 is so light. And why the m16 is a lot lighter than it's earlier version.
There would be an immediate demand for gun modification to bypass these zones, old guns, or custom guns without the chips.
It wouldn't really be much different than just asking people to check their guns at the door on an honor system. Anything like that, law-abiding citizens will comply. Criminals won't.Yes I agree. You asked me to go back and look at your posts so I did. I made the same comment. The hackers would be hard at work. But it certainly would make it more difficult than sawing off a serial number.
I was wondering if you looked at my posts about Sweden and Florida, and about other states with low crime rates and high gun ownership rates. I posted this elsewhere, but do you see a correlation between gun ownership and crime rates?
Homicide rates by state, ordered by gun ownership rates. One end of the chart is a state with 6% gun ownership. The other end of the chart is a state with 60% gun ownership. Can you tell which way the chart is ordered?
I don't think it's fare to look at stats from different states because guns can be taken in and out of individual states without checks. However if you look at states from neighbouring countries such as ours that do contain a boarder that makes it a little more difficult to transfer guns you do see a clear difference between the murder rates and it's in direct correlation to guns per capita.
Haha, Rad, be serious!
You can't compare states, which have more similar socioeconomic conditions, but you can compare countries?
What does it matter if you can take guns across state lines? There is no correlation between gun ownership rates and homicide rates.
The state with 60% gun ownership had homicide rates of 1.8. The state with 8% gun ownership had homicide rates of 2.6.
You can't say that more guns = more crime, there is no statistic to back it up.Just for fun though Rad.
Canada, you say has a murder rate of 1.67.
North Dakota had 51% ownership and a homicide rate of 1.1
Vermont had 42% ownership and a homicide rate of 1.1
Maine had 41% ownership and a homicide rate of 1.4.
New Hampshire had 30% ownership and a homicide rate of 1.4.
Wyoming had 60% ownership and a homicide rate of 1.8
All those figures are old, too. Updated figures would be lower.
I really don't want to carry around a Naval gunship in my back pocket so that is not a realistic solution.
And why not call it what it is. If the law of unintended consequences allows the bad guy to be the only armed person in a room of victims then we should call it what it is.
And the plastic they use in guns is extemely tough and durable. Electronics are not. And a 5 second pass through a microwave oven will disable any chip you can think of putting in there. Oh... I am sorry... the criminals won't do that because it would be against the law. My bad.Ill admit it is not a perfect solution, but I believe it will defer a number of criminals.
Obviously i was not insisting everyone carry a gunship in their back pocket... I was making a point that weapons that hold a lot more stress than guns have microchips inside them.
And if the chip is damaged... then the gun wont work. A fail safe
But i'm done with this discussion it seems you are getting a little to aggressive for my taste. I hope not all conversations are like this on this site.A vastly imperfect solution that puts innocents at risk, deters no bad guys, and will cost billions of dollars to do nothing and you wonder why I am so "aggressive" in pointing out the flaws?
The way things are constructed puts innocents at risk, deters no bad guys, and will cost billions of dollars to do nothing and you wonder why I am so "aggressive" in pointing out the flaws.
I guess my imperfect solution and your lack of one are not that different!Actually, it's not a bad solution. It would not cost much at all and would be easy to find if stolen. Might be hard to keep ahead of the criminals and there hackers, but at least someone is thinking.
99.5 percnet of gun owners do no harm with the existing system. Your idea will cost those 99.5 percent of guns owners to lose about 98 percent of their guns that cannot be converted to your special idea. I hardly think that is comparable.
The difference is i was trying to make suggestions that could potentially deter tragedies like Aurora, while you just sit back and say how wrong everyone else is. That is not good for a healthy argument.
My lovely three year old granddaughter is having trouble braking her two-wheeler with training wheels. As a consequence she keeps running into things. We were working on the problem when she pops out with the suggestion that she just carry an anchor on her bike and toss if behind her when she wants to stop.
I have no idea where she got such an idea. But I commended her on her insight and creativity. However, I didn't spend a great deal of time wondering if such an idea was either feasible or would work.
If you need a pat on the back for creativity I'll give you one. But your idea itself is about as good as an anchor on a two-wheeler with training wheels.
- JaxsonRaineposted 12 years ago
0Rad Man
If the number of guns is the problem, then why did Florida, which had always been above the national average for homicide rates, see such a drastic decrease in murder rates when it started allowing citizens to carry guns with them?I'm not saying you are wrong by any means, but there are many more variables to consider before making deductive assumptions.
Oh, I'm not saying it's the only reason, but you can look at ANY state in the US when it passed right-to-carry laws, and homicide rates didn't spike in any of them.
It does show that the argument 'more guns = more crime' doesn't hold water.
Over the next year or so, we'll be seeing the crime rate in Detroit start to come down, finally.
Personally, I think is is bad form to delve into this until the families have had some time to grieve
Yep, I agree. That's why I don't bother debating these subjects online. Arguing with people just to argue when you know the person you're debating against isn't there to change their opinion is a waste of time. To many arm chair quarterbacks in this world.
Thanks for the agreement, but I turned out to be a hypocrite. It is messing with my self image that I got sucked into the debate.
If there were armed civilians in the theatre, don't you imagine they were in shock like everyone else? It would have taken a skilled, trained shooter to properly aim under the conditions given. The room was smoky and chaotic and the killer wore protective gear. Just because someone carries a gun does not ensure they are skilled to use it in any situation, nor does it mean they are less of a citizen because they didn't use it in a mass murder setting.
I thought the question was: What else can we do to avoid anymore mass shootings like this?
Although I'm sure most of you will not like what I am about to say, I will say it nonetheless: I think that we need to go back to a ban on assault weapons as we did in the glorious days Bill Clinton! This, I think, will help to stamp out home-grown terrorism that has tended to be in the upswing since the 1970's.
Yes, I believe in the second amendment. Yes, I believe that people should have--and do have--the right to bear arms. However, I do not believe that people should have the right to bear any weapons of their choosing. That right to bear arms must be checked by the kinds of weapon that people can and cannot bear.
The US government would not allow you to own a nuclear warhead, would it? Then why do you think that you should be allowed to own an assault weapon?
I hope my contrarian viewpoint don't make you rain down fire and brimestone on me? Quick! Let me take cover.1) You have no clue as to what an "assault weapon" is
2) You don't know that all through the so called assault weapon ban these types of firearms were perfectly legal to sell and buy.
3) Those who compare buying a firearm with a nuke are not fundamentally serious people.
4) People who post about subjects that they know nothing about don't even deserve fire and brimstone.
5) Read my hub, Evil Black Rifles to find out more in five minutes than you've learned in a lifetime about these firearms.What is it with all of these eagle head/American flag avatars around here?
Can'[t speak for other folk but I happen to like that picture. I've used it in various forms since a few weeks after 9/11.
Haha I was just wondering the same thing
I was never that concerned about gun laws in the past but now I live in a country where gun laws have been stringently enforced for about ten years. Guess what is happening? The only people who have guns are the police and the criminals. The police feel comfortable abusing citizen rights and the criminals feel like they can do whatever they want, as long as there are no police present who have guns. Burglars know they are never going to go into a home where the homeowner has a gun, holdup artists know the shop owner will never be able to defend himself, etc. Is that the kind of world you want to live in?
No. I like it here in Florida where we stand our ground.
http://youtu.be/LKqO0FeaCFQ
In a concealed carry state like Colorado, is it weird that no one in the audience was carrying to take out this lone gunman?
Absolutely!
There just never seems to be a George Zimmerman around when you need him.
Someone suggested he could have gotten the same results with tear gas and a baseball bat. I don't believe that for a minute.
And the point it, he didn't bring a bat.
He brought THREE guns.It is unfortunate that nobody was able to stop him, it's always nice when civilians are able to prevent criminals from hurting more people.
And no, he wouldn't be able to do that much damage with a baseball bat, I agree.Can we name a single mass murder where civilians, who outnumber the gunman by a ratio of several to one, were able to stop or minimize the damage?
Kinda weakens the guns are necessary for self-defense argument, does it not?I can point to stories where a single individual stopped an armed criminal, one on one. Stories where a single individual stopped multiple armed criminals, one on one. Stories where a single individual stopped an armed criminal(s) in a public place with multiple civilians... there are thousands and thousands of such stories.
From what I've read, the theater is a gun-free zone. I know some permit holders respect those policies, some don't and carry anyway, and some simply don't do business there.We can read the nonsense that non-gun owners try to post about what gunowners coulda, shoulda, woulda done if only they were magical beings akin to genies or superheros, or we can read what actual dozens of gunowners and those who carry on a daily basis are writing about the effect of a CCW holder in the theater...
http://ingunowners.com/forums/carry_iss … orado.html
Yes, mom, I can name quite a few. The school shooting in Pearl, MS, the law school shooting in Virginia, the church shooting right there in Colorado, the shooting in Texas where a CCW holder stopped a mass murderer at the expense of his own life. All those were stopped or minimized by the actions of an ordinary citizen with a personal firearm.
An older, great example was the original school shooting done by Whitman in Texas several decades ago. He had barricaded himself in a tower and was picking off students with ease. A number of students (back when they were allowed to carry on campus) began firing back. At that distance they were unable to hit him, but they forced him to keep his head down and not take any more shots until the police arrived.
The vast majority of mass shootings take place in gun free zones such as schools and place (as in the theater) where they have signs telling patrons not to bring guns in. The CCW crowd generally obeys those signs, or just stays away from the place all together. This makes it difficult for a CCW to then step up and do anything, eh.
And how does this logically "weaken" any argument in the favor of citizens carrying guns. Do you believe that guns are supposed to be akin to a Harry Potter magic wand, able to do amazing, supernatural feats? My gun doesn't protect me against lightning strikes, losing the winning lottery ticket, or even Auntie Susie coming over for a week.
If you want to make the argument that because guns are not a 100 percent guarantee of good things and peaceful times then they are not good for anything then go for it. I'd be amused to read it.So does Reagan,s shooting while surrounded by armed and trained Secret Service agents.
What's up with these weak arguments?
Nobody claimed that someone having a gun will prevent someone else from being able to fire a gun.i guess I don,t understand your argument. I thought you have been extolling the value of guns for self protection??? Are you suggesting that the problem was that Reagan and Brady were,t carrying???n
I have never said that carrying a gun makes you invincible. You are completely straw-manning my argument, to a ridiculous level.
Pointing out individual examples and saying 'see, guns don't work' is cherry picking.Ralph is trying to make the kind of argument that says because one person was killed in an auto accident while wearing a seat belt then it is obviously pointless for anyone to wear seat belts.
Why do you think Ralph is reduced to this kind of infantile reasoning?Seatbelts weren't made to kill people.
And your point is...? Specifically...? In regard to Ralph's original attempt to make a point.
I had a lightning bolt strike my radio tower once and burn out the transmitter even though I had two separate systems for protecting the equipment from such a thing.
Ralph would have us get rid of all lightning rods based upon that anecdote.
Mighty Mom-
That’s the whole point; there wasn't a person in close enough proximity with a firearm to stop any of the shootings. When someone finally arrives with other “guns” the incident soon ends. There are many cases where crazed gunmen/women were put down before they got to do more damage, they just don’t get the spotlight that tragedies like this do.
The libs favorite radio guy, Rush Limbaugh had a suitable perspective…Blaming guns for murder is like blaming forks for obesity.
Just slap some more regulations and laws on the citizens and it will solve all the problems.
- JaxsonRaineposted 12 years ago0
Sorry, but I couldn't help it.
Mall ninjas never miss.
Preferred gun of mall ninjas. Gun control is inevitable. The NRA and all its members might as well get ready to give ground and compromise. For many years the underclass has been driving by and killing men, women, and the children of the underclass with military anti-personel assault weapons. The freedoms that has allowed atlease a million homocides and injuries in the underclass over many years, has brought the possibillity of drive bys and walk bys to middle America. THE UNDERCLASS IS POWERLESS. The middle class will not stand for the senseless killing the underclass live with daily. When they get laws passed to protect themselves the underclass will also be safer.
As long as the people-control advocates such as junko feel compelled to lie about such things as "military anti-personel assault weapons" the general population will understand that they lie pretty much about everything else.
That kind of negates any fantasies about people-control and new laws.
I believe in the right to bare arms, but I do believe that there needs to be greater regulation on the amount and types of weapons and ammo that private persons can own. In the news reports they indicated that this young man was able to buy SIX THOUSAND rounds of ammo in the last few weeks.
To me anyone purchasing that mount of ammo should trigger an alert. If chemicals like iodine can be monitored and regulated by the DEA because it's used in meth production, then I don't see why access to high-powered weapons and excessive amounts of ammunition shouldn't be extremely monitored. It may still not prevent every single act of gun violence, but I think in a case like this if he had triggered an alert at the FBI level when he bought all that ammo (even having some delivered to his university address), I honestly feel this tragedy could have been averted just like the FEDS have successfully averted other terrorist acts by intercepting/disrupting the plans of individuals or groups.
Tragically the 6yr old wasn't the youngest victim: I read that there was a 3mth old victim who died today. Sadly, also, at least one of the victims had dodged a similar act of terrorism during recent mall shooting in Toronto, only to end up dying in this gruesome event.I believe in the right to bare arms, but I do believe that there needs to be greater regulation on the amount and types of weapons and ammo that private persons can own. In the news reports they indicated that this young man was able to buy SIX THOUSAND rounds of ammo in the last few weeks.
To me anyone purchasing that mount of ammo should trigger an alert. If chemicals like iodine can be monitored and regulated by the DEA because it's used in meth production, then I don't see why access to high-powered weapons and excessive amounts of ammunition shouldn't be extremely monitored. It may still not prevent every single act of gun violence, but I think in a case like this if he had triggered an alert at the FBI level when he bought all that ammo (even having some delivered to his university address), I honestly feel this tragedy could have been averted just like the FEDS have successfully averted other terrorist acts by intercepting/disrupting the plans of individuals or groups.
Tragically the 6yr old wasn't the youngest victim: I read that there was a 3mth old victim who died today. Sadly, also, at least one of the victims had dodged a similar act of terrorism during recent mall shooting in Toronto, only to end up dying in this gruesome event.I believe in the right to bare arms, but I do believe that there needs to be greater regulation on the amount and types of weapons and ammo that private persons can own. In the news reports they indicated that this young man was able to buy SIX THOUSAND rounds of ammo in the last few weeks.
To me anyone purchasing that mount of ammo should trigger an alert. If chemicals like iodine can be monitored and regulated by the DEA because it's used in meth production, then I don't see why access to high-powered weapons and excessive amounts of ammunition shouldn't be extremely monitored. It may still not prevent every single act of gun violence, but I think in a case like this if he had triggered an alert at the FBI level when he bought all that ammo (even having some delivered to his university address), I honestly feel this tragedy could have been averted just like the FEDS have successfully averted other terrorist acts by intercepting/disrupting the plans of individuals or groups.
Tragically the 6yr old wasn't the youngest victim: I read that there was a 3mth old victim who died today. Sadly, also, at least one of the victims had dodged a similar act of terrorism during recent mall shooting in Toronto, only to end up dying in this gruesome event.I. I admit that I am not an expert on what weapons qualify as assault weapons, but a quick reading of Wikipedia shows me that my concept—though general and somewhat hazy—is not too far off.
II. Those who say that those who compare nukes to firearms are not serious are they themselves not to be taken seriously.
III.Those who are arrogant and believes that others don’t know what they are posting about assume that they are right in knowing that the others do not know what they are talking about. Saying that a person doesn’t’ know what they are posting about does not necessarily mean that they do not know what they are posting about. Perhaps it’s you who has a problem.
IV. Finally, I don’t waste my time arguing with know-it-alls and religious—I meant—gun fanatics. It’s a waste of both my time and my energy!But in this case you really, really didn't know what you were posting about.
If you don't like people pointing that out to the readers then perhaps you might want to be more diligent in knowing at least a little about the subject before you post.@ WD Curry & Jack Burton, The hubber thinks he has a following of readers that think his post are logical. I've never called jack a liar, I feel that would be insulting. Maybe he think that if is disrespectful me, the readers will give him as much attention as the man who shouted "You lied" at the President. Well, saying I lied don't change the fact that an A-K-47 is an anti-personel military assault weapon. Calling a Man a lie on line or at a press conference is as cowardly as a drive by ,walkby, or what that coward did in Colorado. I did once tell you Burton, your ignorance was painful and you would argue with a stop sign. than I refused to debate you because you were acting childish. If you can't respect me and my post,don't comment. I didn't address you in My comment, JACK , because you don't know,jack.
You do lie junkio, because you know full well that the AK-47 that is used on the battlefield is not the same as the AK-47 that is bought and sold in thousands of gun shops across America.
If a man purposefully lies, I have no moral hesitation in calling him a liar.
And no, there is no reason to "respect" a poster who must willfully and knowingly lie to attempt to make a point.Jack Burden, you are too stupid to comment to me and I asked you not to do so. You just had to show just how stubornly stupid you really are.The red head coward was a little more dumber than you, but super stupid will one day define, Jack Burton. You are a disgrace and you stand alone, nobody wants to identify with a fool, stop fooling yourself. No need to reply.
And ~that~ is the best that Junko can do, eh...
All this simply comes down to is the exchange of freedom for security. Just a small dabble into history will show you what path that leads down. Personally, I believe the old saying "people kill people" because frankly, it is true. Even if guns were to be completely removed from the world we would still find ways to maul each other, weather it be poison slipped into drinks, automatic machine guns, or a rock you found on the ground.
not totally logical, the number of drive-by poisonings are not that high I suspect
the Happyland nightclub murders of almost 100 people was done with a gallon can of gas and a match. Would you outlaw those?
Matches and gasoline weren't made to kill people.
There are many cases in which people have been murdered with poison. It is probably one of the oldest tools used to murder another human being other than your bear hands.
I'm half asleep but I'll put my two cents in
If you outlaw guns, you take away one of the fundamental rights of the Constitution, the right to bear arms.
This was put in place I believe not only to hunt deer and learn how to live off the land in case of possible need in the future (just my interpretation) but also to ensure that the government could not oppress its civilians; that they would have some sort of defense- although I can see that may not work.
It just comes down to basic rights, like free speech and freedom of the press. When you start taking away rights one by one, you lose the freedom in a society.
(We needn't be motivated to do things out of fear but to do them with a lot of thought and logical thinking. ) Already, many rights are being taken away as a result of 9/11 and I don't think we should live in fear and act on that fear.
Rather teach how to better implement gun laws, etc and the use of guns. I'm not a person who is interested in owning guns but I wouldn't want to take that priviledge away from hunters etc.
The criminals will always get guns illegally, and so it's important for "good" people "responsible" people to have guns. It's part of being an American and the land of the free.
Let's not try and change too much and destroy what our founding fathers fought for.I am not sure that it can be said that man lived in virtual paradise until guns were invented. What about knives, spears and bows and arrows and canons.
stop these type of people before they start shooting bullets. by catching them in social media where they write their manifestos and describe their intent beforehand. turning a blind eye to the crazy's spewing violence and hate speech all over social media. is very much to blame for the authority's not catching acts like this in time.
If this killer hadn't purchased these guns, then most likely he would have used a different weapon. He could've used homemade bombs, and probably caused even more loss of life. Look at the Oklahoma City bombing--McVey didn't use a gun of any kind.
I agree with most guns shouldn't be banned. In the days we live in now, I would feel pretty uneasy, not being able to defend my home, or my family.
The problem is that banning them wouldn't stop these massacres, because the criminals who really wanted them would either already have them and refuse to give them up, or know where to get one on the black market.
As far as the number of accidents in the home because of private ownership of guns--so many could be prevented if the gun owners just stored their guns safely. I wrote a hub a couple years back about gun safes and trigger locks, and how easy it really is to protect your children if you own guns.
I don't think there is any "pat" answer to this problem, sadly. The killings won't go away if guns are taken away from law-abiding people, we all know that.Why can't this issue be discussed in a rational matter, without all the insults?
Aren't we all supposedly adults here?
No one is going to change the others' mind, but it can still be discussed without all the vitriol, can't it?
And I know no one wants to hear that. I've said it before, and it never does a lick of good.I generally find Junko to be level headed and withhis own opinions etc, in this case he appears to be in the line of a torrent of abuse from Jack Burton mostly - as you would expect from a shill for the right and the gun lobby.
In this case, though, the abuse is coming from both sides, isn't it?
I learned a long time ago that nothing gets settled like this--it only makes both sides dig in that much more. I've had many discussions with people who disagree, but usually we manage to handle the talks without mockery or ridicule.
Oh, well, I tried...I knew it wouldn't do any good, lol.You are right, but I get pursued by mindless trolls, shills and carpetbaggers and it is hard to just ignore the dimwits. oops, did I just insult someone
Tam... people like junko are not going to change their mind even if Jesus came down and slapped their heads. I have no interest in even attempting to do that job.
But it still needs to be pointed out where they are lying, illogical, and just plain silly. Junko knows that he is not being truthful about the AK 47. He didn't even bother to defend himself on that because he can't. His only option was to attack me for revealing his willingness to mislead the readers.
If plain speaking offends someone... so be it.No the weapons are not exactly the same a they are civilian versions but functionally they are very similar and you can buy a military AK range weapon quite easily, I have one myself the weapon i own is the same as certain branches of the Chinese military.
Well, he is finally forced to begin to tell the truth. These weapons look similar, but they are radically different in that the military version is fully automatic and the civilian weapon is semi-automatic, just like virtually every other rifle sold in the country.
There is no real difference between the civilian AK and the semi auto deer rifle that uncle bob has in the closet. But junko wants you all to believe that every AK in the country is fully automatic, able to continue to fire bullets with just one pull of the trigger.
His assertion that you can easily buy one is also a lie if you are speaking of the United States. Here are the specifics of what hoops you must jump thru...
http://www.gunsandammo.com/2011/10/19/h … e-weapons/
And since automatic weapons are highly regulated and controlled by the federal government I'd like to know just how junko can claim to have one -- unless he resides outside the country where they might be legal.Many many states do not restrict NFA weapons. Getting a gun capable of burst or full auto fire is not that hard.
I think that when people follow the link I gave they'll find out just how hard it is. They don't sell full autos down at Walmart, you know.
I own one, you just have to get ATF permission register it and get the signature of your sheriff. Then they check you aren't a criminal, you pay 200$ and it's yours.
Not to mention that with the Gun Control Act of 1986 (think that is the right year) which prohibits any new automatic firearm from coming on the market the price for the existing ones have quadrupled and greater. And it can take up to six months to get the approval back from the ATF. And lots of sheriffs won't sign off on the application regardless of state law.
Because, Tam, when people willfully lie about firearms it should be pointed out.
Those who don't know about guns are more than willing to accept a lie as the truth. Why should we let that lie stay in place, unchallenged?
Charles Joseph Whitman (June 24, 1941 – August 1, 1966) was a student at the University of Texas at Austin and a former Marine who killed 16 people and wounded 32 others (a total of 49 victims including himself) during a shooting rampage on and around the university's campus on August 1, 1966.
My Aunt was one of the women shot by Whitman. And I had three friends killed on 9-11. It makes me sad that people like this exist in our world.
It's really sad that it keeps happening again and again and I think the News stations running non stop coverage may help to breed more but I will tell you I believe very much in the First Amendment and the US Constitution.
I set all weekend and thought how do we fix this problem.
I have hundreds of weapons and I am a former U.S. Combat vet but I've never thought of crawling up in tall buildings. What could make someone do this. And why?
It's sad that we have this problem here in the USA. I could name many other people that have done it but I won't. And while it has happened in other countries it does seem to happen more and more here in the USA.
Is it the way children are raised? Is it the drugs in our society? Or is it the video games?
I've heard all three blamed this weekend and today on news shows.
I think a lot of it is that our American system of values has gone to hell in a hand basket. TV Shows and Movies are filled with violence.
I'm really sorry for those people at the movie theater but I fear it's only a matter of time before it happens again. It's sad that young people are choosing to do this over and over. I just don't know how to stop it. Do you.I really don't know, I'm sure there are a lot of factors, that probably won't be changed anytime soon.
More kids are raised by the TV, compared to having grown up working on the farm or at the shop. We over-medicate and over-diagnose in some areas.
It's hard for me to understand the idea of desensitization due to movies and games, but that's just me. I've 'killed' my fair share of zombies, monsters, and enemy combatants in games, but I never once confused that with reality.
I don't know if there's an answer, but I do know that the knee-jerk reaction to ban guns is not the answer and would only make things worse.
Businesses need to realize that gun-free policies don't make anybody safe as well. Anytime a large number of people is gathered somewhere where they are supposed to be unarmed, it's an attractive scenario for these crazies.Here's some interesting thoughts on this...
http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/07/ … hrive.htmlNo I don't think guns should be banned. Not ever. Too many American lives have been given for freedom.
I think a lot of it is how kids are raised. Or not raised today.
The TV plays way too much a part of life in our American families today.
I watch some of the cartoons and shows and wonder how did programming get to this. How indeed.
Get a load of the pic of James Holmes in court today...
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/col … 06043.htmlthe word is facilitate and make it easier to kill in a minute with multiple rounds. Then we wonder why we don't like other countries to have nuclear.
- JaxsonRaineposted 12 years ago0
Eh, there is no point Jack. Melissa and Ralph definitely aren't interested in rational discussion, or logical arguments('Somebody died and he had bodyguards = Proof guns don't work' style arguments). But I'm not surprised, most people on these forums who disagree with me have disagreed with factual figures backed up by primary sources.
Instead of using guns to defend ourselves from criminals, we should just educate them, work on socioeconomic factors, pie in the sky, blah blah blah. Yeah, we can work to reduce crime rates, but while we have crime rates, I am certainly going to make sure I can defend myself and my family.
Just because all civilians started 'abhorring' guns, as Don would put it, doesn't mean criminals would go 'oh, guns are bad, I'm not going to use them anymore! For shame! How could I ever have been such a brute!'Ralph, Melissa and the others are good folk for our side. They don't understand this, and sit around and wonder just why their anti-freedom side is losing so badly in the issue with the public.
The more they continue to put out bad info the more the public see through them. When you lose your credibility by the means that they do, then the middle and the fence sitters begin to reject all their arguments. Ralph will die an anti-freedom poster even if he lives another 20 years. I don't really care. But I get to use him in the meantime as a human posting pinata to shower blessings of truth down to those who are wondering just what reality is. When the Dear Readers see the fantasy world that Ralph and M. have constructed for themselves, and realize that R and M expect the readers to also live in that world, the readers soundly reject it.
R and M will never understand this, so I don't feel as if I am giving away a game plan. They simply cannot adjust and change their style. They have far too much invested in it, and will never understand the game they are playing is not the game the rest of the world is playing.How about a 73% reduction in shooting and killing in an area of Chicago? How? A "pie in the sky" project called CeaseFire that changes social norms so that violence is seen as 'uncool' by perpetrators and the communities they live in. So 'violence is what's expected of me' becomes 'violence will make me look stupid'. It's also working in Baltimore. Guns don't feature in the project at all.
But hey, why worry about actually trying to solve the problem when you can just scaremonger and play at being Wyatt Earp instead.270 plus shootings in gun free chicago so far this year.
I made no mention of Chicago being gun free. I did mention a 73% reduction in an area of Chicago though, and more success in Baltimore. The point being that arming everyone to the teeth with lethal weapons isn't the only solution to gun crime. There are other things that can be done. They take more time, and need a different approach, but the benefits are surely worth it. Besides, guns are a false economy. It may feel safer to have a gun, but statistics show that people with guns are 4.5 times more likely to be killed than those without.
Don, I'm not saying that guns are the only solution.
But while we have crime, taking away guns from citizens isn't going to help anyone but the criminals.
It's like the whole oil thing. Yeah, we need to work on alternatives. No, taking away oil isn't going to help anyone right now.And people who go into a hospital are much more likely to die than those who don't.
I don't know anyone who objects to sitting down and talking with people about how to solve problems without using guns to avenge insults. Or removing guns from gangbangers.
But when two young gangbangers just outside Chicago confronted me one day, wanting what was mine, I really didn't have time to engage them in a conversation over learning acceptable behaviour, or to see that they would attend a class on violence management while I waited for them. It was my handgun that saved me. Nothing else.
That sounds great and I fully support it, doesn't really have anything to do with legal gun ownership restrictions though.
- JaxsonRaineposted 12 years ago0
I mean, who cares if civilians use guns millions of times a year to stop crimes and save lives?
I mean, who cares if concealed carry permit-holders are only 20% as likely to commit a crime as the average American(strange that people who respect the law are the ones more concerned with gun rights)?
Come on! We don't need to keep allowing law-abiding citizens to have access to guns. If they just start abhorring them, then the criminals will stop using guns too!I absolutely do not give a damn about civilians stopping crimes. Good guess.
I do care about dead kids though.
Priorities.Yeah, who cares about the kids who are alive because someone stopped them from being killed, right?
I care about kids too, which I why I support education and training. I'm very glad to see the accident rate dropping every year. We're to a point where children being accidentally killed by guns is so statistically insignificant that many more could be saved by putting effort into education about other danger.Good to know about that even one dead kid is considered statistically insignificant. Nice.
Yes, Melissa, like you said, priorities. I didn't say that child doesn't matter, I said that the rate is statistically insignificant compared to other causes.
Let's say 1 kid under age 10 out of 45 million died from accidental firearm discharge every year. You could spend all your time and energy trying to reduce that number...
Or, you could focus your attention on the much larger number of kids who die from drowning, falling, poisoning, car accidents, suffocation, etc...
Don't the 16 children who accidentally drown for every child accidentally shot deserve your attention as well? What about the 29 children who suffocate for every child accidentally shot?Who says they don't get my attention as well... start a thread on pool safety and kids and I'll be right on it.
How statistically important do you consider the hundreds of thousands of people who save themselves with a firearm each year?
Oh. My bad. You already told us you just write them off as insignificant.What do these people save them selves from anyway? Bows and arrows?
It's beyond your imagination that some people can attack other people with more than just guns, eh.
Perhaps you can ask this lady if her attacker which didn't have a gun had a bow and arrow instead...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OkS8mdbml0A
Or you can ask this young widow defending herself and her child if her multiple attackers without guns had bows and arrows...
http://articles.cnn.com/2012-01-04/just … PM:JUSTICE
Or you can ask this 67 year old woman about the social deviant holding a knife to her throat instead of gun...
http://www.mlive.com/news/flint/index.s … t_int.html
Or maybe this 71 year old gent who had two thugs smash in his door without guns...
http://www.myfoxdetroit.com/story/19070 … s-intruder
Damn... pretty cold hearted. So much for liberal compassion. It's not often stated that baldly but I guess Melissa is under a lot of pressure
Oh... was there a liberal handbook I should be following to tell me what my opinions should be? Do conservatives have one of those?
nice deflection... but the cold heart and lack of compassion is still quite noticeable.
If you say so... you are the one who says that 50 dead kids a year is just fine so long as you get your guns so your opinion of my compassion really doesn't hold a lot of water...
According to the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism report of December 2000
http://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/economic-2000/
“…costs of alcohol abuse grew from $148 billion in 1992 to $185 billion in 1998, approximately a 25 percent increase” Who knows where it is in 2012, but with certainty it has not gone down.
We can perhaps put a dollar figure on alcohol abuse, but that doesn’t even begin to put a face on the hundreds of thousands of shattered and lost lives, the beaten wives, the children who grow up under intolerable conditions, the jobs lost, the companies gone bankrupt, and the hazards it creates for everyone else who is innocent.
The question is, are you willing to accept these hundreds of thousands of incidents for the freedom of the American public to be social drinkers. Are you willing to stand with those courageous people who demand that all alcohol either be strictly controlled or banned all together?
Anyone who is not an alcoholic would have no objection to the following federal laws...
1) Every person desiring to purchase alcohol must have a photo ID permission card, updated yearly, and signed by their physician that they are not addicted to alcohol.
2) Only two 12 ounce beers can be purchased a day, and only six total in a week. Any other alcohol can only be bought once per rolling two weeks, and is limited to a total of no more than one quart. There will be a nationwide registry put into place paid for by those retail outlets that are licensed to sell alcohol to keep track of all purchases and tied to the permission card.
3) If you give a 30 day notice to the local police dept of a planned party and receive their permission, then up to 20 beers and one gallon of other liquor can be purchased on the day of the party. This does not apply to SuperBowl day when all alcohol is forbidden to be consumed. Beer and other alcohol can only be served to those possessing a photo ID permission card. The police have the right to come and check the home the day of the party to ensure no cheating on the alcohol consumption.
4) Whiskey and other hard liquor is available only to those 30 years and older to prevent early onset alcoholism.
5) No alcohol can be sold with an alcohol percentage greater than 3 percent.
6) Every separate container of alcohol be taxed at $5.00 per container to use for the cost of alcohol rehab centers and women's shelters in the local areas.
7) All alcohol in a home must be stored in locking containers to prevent any access from minors. Any consumption of alcohol within 300 feet of a minor child is forbidden.
8) No liquor can be sold in a municipality where there is a school, a daycare, or a public park.
9) If you're caught violating any of these rules then you are required to take an alcohol inhibitor such as Acamprosate or Disulfiram for five years minimum. Weekly mandatory blood tests at your cost will confirm the medicine intake.
Seeing the out of control harm that alcohol is doing to our country only a fool or a drunk would object to these provisions.
It is crazy. It is just too easy for USA citizens to get hold of guns and ammo. It must stop. Too many people are dying.
So you would have shot them?
Just out of curiosity... how much was in your wallet? I want to know how much their lives were worth to you... Or why you felt that they deserved the death penalty from you when the courts would have given them a year or so in jail...
You weren't protecting yourself you were protecting your money. No... your money is not worth another person's life. No matter what you consider their worth to be.Did I shoot them? I don't recall it happening that way, but good imagination.
And I am sure my lovely wife and children appreciation your willingness to sacrifice my life or well being for a few dollars. More of that compassion, eh.
BTW... do you know what AOJ means? Might want to brush up on that before you enter any conversations about what is and is not acceptable in self defense.I asked if you WOULD have shot them... see reading helps...
But if you WOULD have then you would have been killing over money not to protect yourself. If you WOULDN'T have then it was damn stupid to pull a gun.
So if you would have shot a couple of people to save whatever you had in your wallet then you might not want to argue compassion anymore. Apparently the lives of others come pretty cheap to you.If AOJ was met then, yes, I would have shot them.
As noted earlier, Melissa would much rather see an innocent person violated and on the street dead than to see them standing over the dead body of their attacker with a smoking gun in their hand.They weren't threatening your life... just your money.
And you are coming to some pretty big conclusions that I never said...
I would rather see you beat to crap than your attacker shot. Yep. The death penalty is excessive for assault.
I would rather see you robbed than your attacker shot. Yep. The death penalty is excessive for robbery.
I would rather see a woman raped than her attacker shot. The death penalty is excessive for rape.
If you are defending your life then have at it.You never know. Crimes escalate.
That is Melissa's respect for human rights. You don't have the right to defend yourself against criminals. Imagine a world with those kinds of laws.
Melissa, if someone is beating you, how do you know they are going to stop and not just kill you? Where does the line get drawn where you say 'Heck, I'm almost dead, now it's ok for me to shoot them!'?
People who infringe on the rights of others forfeit theirs.ROFLMAO...
You realize that there is such a thing as reasonable force right? If someone is hitting you then by all means hit them back. That is retaliation in kind. How pitiful it is to shoot someone just because you are getting your ass kicked.
Taking the law into your hands and deciding someone needs to die because they are trying to take your money is vigilantism though. It's not self-defense. It's deciding you should have the right to be judge and jury... and executioner.Melissa has no more idea what "taking the law into your own hands" and "vigilantism" than anything else she has posted about.
She also doesn't know what AOJ is, which is what is required to use any self defense, especially lethal force, against a attacker.
Since the law specifically allows one to defend oneself, just how is it "taking the law into your own hands" to operate within the bounds of the law and defend one self?
And vigilantism is to track someone down after the fact and meet out what you perceive as justice. That has nothing whatsoever to do with self defense.*rolls eyes*
Yep... just like I didn't know anything about guns or hunting. Could it be that I know just as much or more about the law than you and just don't agree with you?
Nope... it must be that I am ignorant.
And you might want to go back through my posts... I've listed my educational credits before. I've also talked about my family/life experiences. Disagreeing with you doesn't make me stupid dear... but assuming that it does might backfire on you.
And the other readers that you seem to be concerned about can make there own decisions if they like but I (nor you) likely don't even register on their "I don't give a crap meter" but hey if you are so anxious to impress a bunch of internet people on a forum then have at it. I might recommend actually finding real people to impress though... it is more rewarding.nice of you not to consider your fellow hubbers as real people. That'll impress them for sure.
And yes, you don't know what AOJ is, or you didn't when you entered this thread. Otherwise you would not have made the remarks about self defense and gotten so much of it wrong.
No one said you're stupid so that's a fairly good strawman argument.
But we have said you're mistaken multiple times. Rightfully so.
What if they have a knife? What if they are stronger than you? What if they outnumber you? You have NO WAY to say whether or not they are going to beat you up or kill you.
And, you continue to ignore the fact that they ARE NOT FORCED to attack someone who has pulled out a gun. They have a choice.
It's sad that you prefer the rights of criminals over the rights of innocent citizens. Nobody knows how a situation will end. Nobody knows if you will be robbed, raped, beaten, or killed(well, the criminal might). It's completely irrational to think the criminal should be the one who has the right to decide your fate.
If I pull a gun on him, he has the right to decide his fate. If he attacks me, he risks his life. If he stops or runs, he doesn't.
You seem to think that my pulling a gun is taking away his right to life. It isn't.
Did you buy your Godlike power to forecast the future for everyone, in every time, in every place, off from Craigslist? I've never seen it advertised there myself.
Here's Mellisa's superpower, Dear Readers. She KNOWs (K N O W S) that the social deviant is going to stop with merely beating the crap out of you... she KNOWs (K N O W S) that the rapist is content with merely raping you. She KNOWs (K N O W S) that the mugger is merely content with the money in your pocket. All this knowledge in her head and her picture look almost normal.
Think about this, Dear Readers. Rape is more acceptable to Melissa than a woman defending herself. That's all we need to know. And we don't even need superpowers to find that out.And you apparently KNOW they are not going to stop. It appears that you shop on Craigslist as well.
And yes as the victim of a rape... which I presume you are not... I do not feel that my rapists deserved the death penalty. One of them is actually a very upstanding member of the community now with two beautiful children a lovely wife and even a small pastorship. If I had a gun I likely would have shot him. He's done a lot of good in the world and I'm glad I didn't have that gun.
Of course that "deviant" was about 16 or 17 at the time. But I guess that doesn't matter.Yes, when my life is on the line I prefer not to take that chance. If you choose otherwise, go for it. I am not responsible for you. I am responsible for myself.
And we've already had your definition of "rape." I doubt that your experience was either anything but you changing your mind half way through or having regrets about a mutual teen experience and crying rape to mollify your emotions.Actually I was giving the average experience.
My personal experience is that I was on a date when I was 16 and decided to have sex with the guy I was out with. When we were done he left and 4 of his friends came in after him. They held me down and took turns raping me until they were tired... then they each spit on me as they were leaving.
The funny thing is I lived through it. I can talk about it... and do so regularly to other women... without flinching or crying. It was damn crappy for a damn long time... however... it wasn't fatal for me and I'm glad it wasn't for those boys who mostly grew up to be decent people.And they easily could have went on with the behaviour with multiple other girls since you gave them a free pass afterwards.
Again, you are only responsible for yourself ... you don't get to make that decisoin for others.
Here is a woman with perhaps a more mature look at the subject.
http://corneredcat.com/Finding_Your_Reason/How do you figure they got a free pass? Because I didn't kill them? I never said they got away with anything. And it's a pretty big assumption that I let them go on to do it again. Once again there are other ways to stop them from doing it again rather than killing them. This isn't Dodge City anymore.
Oh... was I trying to do that? By saying I don't think it was worth a rapist dying over? Obviously I'm not alone in thinking that as rapists generally aren't put to death in the U.S. Justice System. Maybe you like Sharia law better?
Wow... now a man who has never been raped is telling me that my view of my own rape is not mature enough because I am not reacting the way he thinks I should. Nice. You are completely right... perhaps I should go and shoot them now? It would take care of all those unhealthy feelings of non-anger and forgiveness that I feel.So what did you do? Shun them in the high school hall ways?
And the Dear Readers note that you compare a women defending herself against a rapist is the same exact thing as Sharia laws.
And yes, Kathy has a more mature understanding of the use of force than you do. That is why I posted it.You know people get arrested for rape... right? There are these things called laws and these people called police. My dad was actually one. As were/are quite a few of my other relatives. The people who do bad things go into this big room called a courtroom and this person called a judge makes them do unpleasant things and puts them in unpleasant places for doing bad things. Sometimes it actually teaches them not to do bad things anymore... especially when they are very young and get appropriate therapy.
Wow... you really are approval seeking. As most members of hubpages can actually read I'm not really worried about them coming to that conclusion.
Ah... okay. So it is HER that knows how I should react to my own rape rather than you. That makes it better.You react as you choose. That is what I've always said. But Kathy has a more mature view. As I've said.
In your opinion. I think I'm handling it swimmingly though... I'll go ahead and go with what works for me not works for her.
This one Melissa...and for the last time, I do not lie. I consider these boundaries, but maybe you have another term you prefer.
And I am not running--I am trying to fix a meal for my family, which, to me, is much more important than this conversation.
Now, I have to get back to it. But I promise I am NOT running towards my kitchen.Those are not me setting boundaries... those are my preferences. I have no ability to set boundaries for anyone but myself. Me stating my opinions is not condescending... it is simply me stating my opinion.
The boundaries that I think should be set on guns by the government (who does have the ability to set boundaries) were well defined in several posts... none of which said anything about limiting anyone's right to use a gun for any reason they like... unless they were found to be insane or unable to understand gun safety. So obviously my personal opinion on what I would morally prefer and what I think should happen legally are separate.
In addition... just because correct word use is a little quirk of mine... condescending implies by definition that I am attempting to be falsely kind. I'm obviously not attempting to be kind... falsely or not.Boy, you love to argue, don't you? lolol I know, I know--you're not arguing, you're just stating your opinions...
Problem is, in my home, we don't state our opinions so harshly--we discuss different opinions in a civil way...we also don't jump on every little thing said and dissect it into little pieces... but maybe that's just us.
Okay--I believe that I mentioned that "I" considered them boundaries as to how far you would go--but that "you" may consider them something else....didn't I? I looked at them as personal boundaries. But I do agree with some of your other boundaries, as far as the government and gun laws, and not allowing the mentally unbalanced to own them.
I can't believe I am debating over the meaning of another word here, but here goes...to make sure I was correct, I looked up the meaning of the word "condescending", after you called me on it. I thought "Okay, maybe I've been using this word wrong". The first definition on Google is "Acting in a way that betrays a feeling of patronizing superiority." I realize that you don't believe you fit that description, so I'm sorry-- but that's how you come off to me. And yes, I do realize that you're not attempting to be kind...but, I don't understand why you wouldn't want to.
Sooooo, I disagree that I was using the word incorrectly. And I'm sorry that you feel like you have to pick every little thing I said apart like this. I am not skilled as a debater, but sometimes I try to get in on debates that I feel strongly about, and this is one of them. I probably don't state my case in the way that's considered proper on here, but this is the best I can do.
You don't have to shoot someone to stop a robbery. If you pull your gun, they will almost always run away. If they decide to attack you, then it is their choice to escalate to violence.
You ALWAYS have the right to defend yourself and your property, and you don't have to kill people to do so.Jaxson once you pull a weapon you better be ready to use it... and you KNOW that. Otherwise it is a big dangerous liability. Any police officer or member of the military will tell you that.
Now... with that in mind... nevermind your "rights"... is it morally acceptable to be prepared to kill another human being over money or property?"Prepared" is quite different from "must."
And it is so gracious of you to decide that the mopes will be huggy and kissy after the fact. Might even become your BFF after they mug you.
Or, perhaps, on the way out the door they can turn around and shoot you just for kicks and grins, and then come back and put another one into your head at six inches.
http://posttrib.suntimes.com/news/lake/ … lling.html
Melissa would have us trust in the sweet, affable nature of social deviants. I prefer not to take that risk.Did I say otherwise? No. You don't have to use your gun if you pull it out.
If someone threatens to rob me, I pull out my gun. At that point, they have to attack me to get shot. If they are dumb enough and disrespectful enough to try that, then they are forfeiting their rights to infringe on mine, and I will shoot them.
Statistics show that firing is generally not required.
It is acceptable to kill someone who chooses to attack me and refuses to stop, yes.Umm... and you don't see yourself pulling the gun as escalating the situation?
If someone tries to rob you and you give them the money and they go away... that's worse than risking a fatal confrontation?
Is money really that important to you?
Is your idea of self-defense really money? Do you think that's what the constitution intended?Did you buy your Godlike power to forecast the future for everyone, in every time, in every place, off from Craigslist? I've never seen it advertised there myself.
It wasn't all that clever the first time... the second time was kinda pathetic.
Don't kick the same piece of hyperbole around so close together... try some variation.It got under your skin... that was all the clever that it needed to be.
But as noted much earlier... you're not, and never will be, the intended target for the posts. So don't worry too much about how clever it is.
And the Dear Readers noted you still don't have an answer for how you KNOW what is going to happen.You haven't addressed his point! Or mine, for that matter.
You would rather I get beat up than shoot someone. How am I supposed to know that a thug coming at me is just going to beat me up? You say it's ok if my life is in danger, but how do you know if it's your life, or if they are just going to beat you up?
YOU want to let the CRIMINAL control the situation. WE prefer that the law-abiding citizen control the situation.Yes. I thought I stated that pretty plainly.
You don't know. Either way. In your scenario you would rather certainly kill rather than possibly die. I would rather possibly die than certainly take someone else's life.
There are too many variables in potentially violent situations for anyone to control the situation. It might make you feel better to think you have control but like you said no one can see the future. You don't KNOW that pulling your gun will put you in control or get you shot.In that situation, I'm not the one making the decision. Statistics show that overwhelmingly, I won't have to kill, or even harm the person.
I absolutely won't certainly kill someone. There's a reason why civilian justified homicides are low. Predators don't like being in disadvantaged situations.
Besides, my rights take priority over the rights of the person who is violating my rights. In my situation, it is much more likely that nobody will end up being harmed.
Total cop-out. I'm not going to pull a gun if its going to get me shot. Again, statistic show that I'm much less likely to get hurt than if I do nothing. Me having a gun gives me more control over a situation than if I don't, no questions asked.
If things happened the way you claim, we should have tens of thousands of civilian justified homicides, and our homicide rate should have been steadily climbing since the mid 90s.I would feel much more confident that your statement, " I would rather possibly die than certainly take someone else's life." is honest if you pledge to insist that the police who you call to investigate a broken window noise at 3 in the morning leave their guns at the station house before they come over to check things out.
Or is is alright that ~other~ people take the lives of a social deviant for you? do you think that because they are paid to do so that somehow makes it "okay."
You asked for provable facts. You ignore them if they don't agree with your opinion.
No, statistics aren't always facts. Some are though. Learn to tell the difference.
If I were able to post 5 million news reports of civilians using their guns to stop crimes this year, would you count that? I don't know what you want. Peer-reviewed studies by leading criminologists don't count. Studies by the government don't count. News stories don't count... It really seems like it is just your opinion that counts.No I don't ignore them. They just don't address my concerns. You are giving me apples when I care about oranges.
Actually they aren't ever facts... statistics are simply statistics. A fact is true 100 percent of the time. . Statistics deal in probabilities based on past events. Probabilities aren't facts unless they become certainties... which isn't the case in any statistics you have quoted.
Sure... but it still wouldn't be addressing my concerns... so it would do little if nothing to change my opinions.
Honestly the biggest thing I want is no dead children. Your studies on self-defense are completely unrelated to what I want. I'm not understanding what you aren't understanding about that. I would also like to see stricter laws and psych evals... as I've stated before. Your studies on self-defense also are unrelated to those things.Yeah. People killed = apples. People saved = oranges.
Except, without the oranges, the oranges would be apples.
No, your view of statistics is wrong. If there are two tax returns for the year, '2 total returns' would be a statistic, and a fact. If one return was for a $1k refund, and the second for a $2k refund, the average of refunds would be $1500. That would be a statistic, and a fact. Proper statistics are always fact.
Statistics aren't facts when they are improperly calculated. Statistics are not probabilities, but probabilities are extracted from statistics.
It would address your concerns if they were all stories where a child's life was saved.
Not completely unrelated. You don't think any of the millions of instances include children? I understand your point, but you aren't looking at the big picture.[Used by permission of the author]
SAVING CHILDREN'S LIVES - WITH GUNS
A 14-year-old Marysville, Washington girl awakens in the middle of the night to discover that a strange man has crept into her bedroom. He approaches her bed and begins to choke her.
As she plays outside her Washougal, Washington home while her mother is tending the garden, a 5-year-old girl comes under threat of attack from a 250-lb. bear.
A 4-year-old girl and her grandmother are savagely attacked by a pair of pit bulls while taking a walk in their West Side Chicago neighborhood.
Before dawn on a February morning, a man breaks into a McMinnville, Tennessee home and slowly makes his way toward a bedroom where children are sleeping.
Children in peril.
Children in need of protection.
As a parent, a friend, a neighbor, what do you do?
In their drive to obtain more restrictive gun laws, the anti-self-defense groups often cite statistics, usually flawed or misleading, concerning the number of children who are injured or killed by firearms. The logic seems to be that no one could oppose measures designed to insure the safety of our children. What, I wonder, would they advise in the four circumstances cited above?
Dial 9-1-1, perhaps? Police might arrive before a home intruder has made his way to your children’s bedroom but is that a chance you would be willing to take? And if a low-life thug already has your daughter in a chokehold, isn’t it just a bit late to wait on assistance from the police? Dialing 9-1-1 certainly doesn’t seem to be a viable option.
As for the bear and the dogs, maybe they would advise the use of pepper spray or bear repellant. Can you get close enough to the bear for the spray to be effective, or will he charge you and then your daughter, when he sees you approach? Can you aim your spray at two dogs in the midst of an attack without hitting the victims and further inhibiting their chance of escape? Again, not really an appropriate response.
Perhaps gun control advocates would advise some other means of self-defense, such as martial arts. While that might be effective against the home invaders IF they are not armed, how effective would it be against a 250-lb. bear or two pit bulls in the midst of a violent attack?
Is the advice we get from those who seek to restrict or prohibit our access to guns realistic? Many parents don’t think so. They own a firearm precisely because they want to protect their families from the kind of dangers that befell the four families above. Yet, these same parents are depicted by gun control proponents as uncaring, foolhardy and reckless. They are painted as dregs of society (or worse) because they dare keep a firearm in a home with a child. Is this an accurate representation of these parents?
The fact is that there are children leading healthy, happy lives today because their parents, or neighbors, took every measure available to them to provide protection from predators - just as the parents or neighbors of the endangered children above did. Although gun control proponents would like us to believe that a gun in the home can lead to nothing but tragedy for children, that is not always the case. Children can, and do, benefit when their parents choose to own firearms for protection from predators.
The 14-year-old girl in Marysville, Washington stated, "I looked up at this man, and he came over to my bed and started choking me. I was kicking the walls and trying to get away. We wrestled on the floor. I felt myself going unconscious." The girl's brother came to her rescue. When the pair's scuffle sent them tumbling down the stairs, the children's father rushed out from his downstairs bedroom with a gun. After he fired one round, the intruder fled.[i]
The 4-year-old girl and her grandmother were saved by an armed neighbor who fatally shot one of the dogs (the other dog was destroyed by authorities.) The girl suffered severe lacerations on her face, legs, and an ear, but she survived.[ii]
The mother of the 5-year-old in Washougal, Washington grabbed her .357 Magnum handgun and fatally shot the threatening bear in the neck. “I looked at that bear as it was looking at my baby, and something happened,” she said. “I turned into the mamma bear.”[iii]
The father of the children in McMinnville, Tennessee grabbed his handgun, ordered the thug to stop and held the intruder at bay until authorities arrived. "I told him to stop right there, but he took another step,” the father said. “Then I cocked the gun and told him to stop again. That's when he stopped. He was about three steps away from where my children were sleeping, so I knew I had a decision to make. All I could think of was the safety of my family."[iv]
Accounts such as these, like many episodes of armed-self-defense, are rarely reported by major news outlets and certainly aren’t addressed by proponents of gun control. (Similarly, the media and gun control advocates don’t advertise the fact that more children die as a result of bicycle accidents, playing with lighters or drowning than as a result of firearms accidents[v].) Anti-self-defense advocates much prefer to ignore the benefit armed protection provides to children and focus instead on the notion that people who want to own firearms have no concern for the safety of our children. You see, the idea that children’s lives can be saved as a result of a firearm in the home doesn’t fit their agenda – that is, to restrict or ban your right to protect yourself, your family and/or your friends and neighbors.
Researchers have found, however, that law-abiding citizens use guns in self-defense as many as 2.5 million times a year.[vi] Logic says that at least a portion of those self-defense uses save the lives of children, just like those cited above. If we severely restrict or ban guns, how many children will die as a result? If we restrict or ban guns, would we only be trading one set of child victims for another - that is the children who are injured or die from accidents for the children who are injured or die as a result of crime. Could the safety of our children be improved if more parents took it upon themselves to become knowledgeable about and proficient with a firearm? Is it possible that guns, in the hands of trained, competent parents who are willing to accept the responsibilities of teaching gun safety to their kids, may be more beneficial than harmful?
The anti-self-defense organizations will say, “No.” The parents of the children above may have a very different answer.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[i] The Herald, Everett, Washington, April 16, 2000
[ii] Chicago Sun-Times, Chicago, IL, October 5, 2000
[iii] The Seattle Times, Seattle, Washington, May 4, 2000
[iv] Southern Standard, McMinnville, Tennessee, February 9, 2000
[v] Don B. Kates, Henry E. Schaffer, P.D., John K. Lattimer, M.D., George B. Murray, M.D., Edwin H. Cassem, M.D., “Guns and Public Health: Epidemic of Violence or Pandemic of Propaganda,” Tennessee Law Review,( Spring 1995):569-570
[vi] Gary Kleck and Mark Gertz, “Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevention and Nature of Self-Defense With a Gun,” The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Northwester University School of Law, 1 (Fall 1995):164That's nice...
But what about the kids that are killed or injured by guns by accident? How does one kid living help another kid that is dead?I wasn't aware that perfection was a demanded trait of the human experience. Perhaps I was wrong.
It's been pointed out to you repeatedly that about 50 children die from gun accidents each year, and at the least several hundred thousand of people are saved from harm by a gun each year. All those people were kids, have kids, know kids, or have some connection with kids. You've already admitted that they mean nothing to you, the same as the kids in these true stories mean nothing to you.
You don't give a damn about the children -- you are just using them as an excuse for your disdain for guns.Yes dear... whatever you say. You go ahead ignoring the deaths of two elementary school classrooms of kids while saying I don't care about kids.
Whatever helps you sleep at night.And you keep ignoring the saved lives of several hundred thousand people that you've admitted you don't care about.
We acknowledge, and have expressed many times here, that any child's' death is a tragedy to the family and the community. You've expressed nothing but disdain for those who have used a gun to save their life. I think the Dear Readers understand quite well.
*sighs* I'm going to try this one more time then I give up...
Say there are three families living in a neighborhood. Little Bobby and his mom are alone one night when someone breaks into their house and attempts to kill them. Mom shoots the bad guy and Bobby is saved.
Susie and her mom live next door... hear what has happened and go to buy a gun in case it happens to them. Mom puts the gun in a locked box and the key in a separate drawer. Susie sees this happen even though mom doesn't know it. When mom goes to work Susie pulls the gun out to see it and shoots herself.
Kelly and her mom live down the block. Kelly's mom also buys a gun for self defense and places it in a wall safe. Kelly knows it's there but really has no curiosity about it and lets it be... until she starts getting picked on in school a year later. She is smart enough to figure out that the combination is going to be a number that is easily remembered by her mother. On her third guess she guesses her siblings birthday and takes the gun to school to "scare" the bullies. As she has had no gun training whatsoever she accidentally shoots the bully.
Now... I am exceedingly happy that Bobby is alive. I think it's peachy as hell. However two other kids are still dead. Him being alive in no way makes the other two deaths better. Now I think it's wicked cool that one kid lived but you seem to be answering my concerns about the other two by saying "But the first kid lived so guns are good!" yet seemingly getting angry when I say "But what about the other two? What do we do there?"Except, that doesn' represent reality.
What if 3 kids are saved for every one killed?Then I would be really happy those three kids were saved... and I would still be wondering why no one did anything about the one who was dead.
That's how it is though, more are saved than are hurt. Meaning guns have a net benefit for our society.
Yea, there are still tragedies that we can work on, and we have been. We're down to 1 in a million kids accidentally dying from guns now. It's not perfect, but it's better than having three times or five times as many more kids being killed because their parents can't defend them.Now there's a statement I can work with.
I have never advocated in this thread for banning firearms... If they save someone's life without taking another persons I am fine with that. I hate guns in general and my opinion will never change on that but reading that as me wanting to take your guns away is counter-productive.
So all things being equal would you oppose stricter sentences/criminal charges for parents of children who WERE killed by accidental gunshots if it could be found that the parents didn't exercise due diligence in keeping the guns secure?They are those beings for whom parents are responsible for...
You know any small human beings that aren't adults.so you can't define kids or children,eh.
Typical.
Yes, along with any other negligent accident that causes a child's death. Gun, rat poison, swimming pool, there is too little responsibility.
I know you don't advocate banning guns, but we disagree on the usefulness of citizens carrying. Sorry if my arguments veer off-target slightly on thatI'll go along with that. You do understand if this was a thread about children dying from rat-poison or swimming pools I would have the exact same feelings right?
you'd require psychological training before a parent could put in a swimming pool? Why do I have trouble believing that?
I'd require the parents to have some vague knowledge of water safety and for them to do jail time if they left the kid alone and he/she drowned.
I'd require psychological testing if there were a long list of events where people walked into a crowded area armed with a swimming pool and proceeded to kill dozens of people indiscriminately with it.Actually up here they are attempting to pass a law giving children free and mandatory swimming lessons. Not a bad idea. Some feel it's unfair to the child to drowned because their parents can't afford lessons.
If you have a local YMCA (I have no idea where you are... I'm sorry for my ignorance
) they have a policy that nobody will be turned away from any of their services for inability to pay. Just as an aside that includes all services including exercise equipment/pool use in addition to safety lessons. In addition the Red Cross offices offer infant CPR/first aid classes under the same sort of waiver program. There is some paperwork involved but it's worth it.
I don't know if you are in the U.S. or not but both programs are country-wide for anyone that is interested.
Well, I haven't seen it, but I'll take your word for it.
I see more stories of kids drowning in pools than being killed by guns, but there's never an uproar over it like there is with guns. I can't stand to watch the evening news because there's always a child being hurt.There are huge pushes in my area for swimming/water safety classes... I haven't seen a drowning story all year. All of my kiddies who swam did the whole YMCA thing and we all had CPR courses. This summer I spent teaching the youngest to swim.
Our big trend around here for kids dying is house fires for some reason... I don't get it but it seems to be on every night.That sucks. Here it's water, there it's fire. We should give you all our water...
Around Phoenix, people do a good job of putting fences around their pools. It usually ends up being 'I left the gate open' or 'I just stepped inside for a minute'...
Parenting licenses are needed...That's the other thing. I learned how to be a very strong swimmer at a very young age. I learned how to safely handle and shoot guns at a very young age. I had chores and responsibilities ever since I could understand them. I had discipline when I did things wrong.
Kids don't get that stuff anymore. 10 year olds are capable of being responsibly safe around guns, if they are taught. 10 year olds are capable of being responsibly safe around pools, if they are taught.
Instead, now kids grow up with an iPhone and an Xbox... they can kill a million aliens, but don't have the slightest lick of sense about real life safety.
You seem to have a morbid fascination for this subject. Be that as it may, the simple answer to your particular scenario is that if the parents acted like responsible adults and secured the guns properly, they wouldn't have been left in the hands of a child. I can secure Cheerios better than your hypothetical parents can secure guns.
Laws cannot legislate every bad thing that can happen to us without a stifling lack of freedom. For every child that has killed others intentionally with a gun, I'm sure the numbers are WAY higher for those who didn't kill anyone -- intentionally or unintentionally.Good for you for securing your cheerios... now...again... I am really happy about all those kids that weren't killed by guns...
What should we do about the ones who were? Just shrug our shoulders and say "That's too bad"?
Yep... I do have a morbid fascination with living children. I like keeping them that way. I'm weird like that.In what other areas of life do you demand perfection. You do know that the rate of accidental deaths has been dropping steadily even as population and gun ownership has gone up? But you know this already. It just doesn't make a difference to you eh.
I'm pretty big on demanding perfection in the whole "parents keeping their offspring alive" thing. Silly me. Tell me what an acceptable percentage for failure there is... I mean do I only have to keep a MAJORITY of my kids alive or is it a 90 percent thing? What level of mortality is acceptable?
Well, Melissa, I hate to disappoint you but parents have been less then perfect in keeping kids alive since Cain first picked up that rock.
But I like it when you willingly admit to living in a fantasy world where life has guarantees and you think you are in complete control of everything. God forbid that you ever lose a child for any reason whatsoever. The guilt would weigh you down for the rest of your life. Probably destroy you.I've already lost a child. See... making assumptions gets you in trouble. Coincidentally his name was Kaine.
I sorrow for your loss but in your stated reality it makes you a parent that is unfit.
...And I think the guilt is pretty evident. Your irrational approach towards firearms is evidence that not all is quite well with you.
Nice try...
No guilt at all. Sadness grief and anger but no guilt. I'd stop trying to play arm-chair psych if I were you. You really aren't that good at it.
And disagreeing with you isn't irrational hon... sorry. It would be nice to think that you had the inarguable facts of the cosmos but you don't. You are just some guy on an internet forum.
Then you should be ecstatic about all the chidren's lives that are saved by guns each year.
