jump to last post 1-4 of 4 discussions (60 posts)

Gun Control: Should We Lose The Right To Bear Arms?

  1. tHErEDpILL profile image88
    tHErEDpILLposted 3 years ago

    Okay so another guy dresses up like The Joker and kills people.  I will resist the urge to state how bizarre and coincidental that is and stick to the question.

    The media is intent on showing Americans all the LEGAL gun killings they can while not informing us about the countless lives that are taken in anit-gun states like Chicago where ILLEGAL guns kill in the double digits by the day.  Google: Chicago body count: 4 dead, 35 shot over the weekend.  This happens everyday, but no news coverage.  Why?  I think you can tell where I stand.  Where do you?

    1. wilderness profile image98
      wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      Given a choice between guns killing 4 and a plane or truck bomb killing thousands, I choose the guns.

      1. Zelkiiro profile image95
        Zelkiiroposted 3 years agoin reply to this

        Wait, what? What do these two scenarios have to do with each other?

        1. wilderness profile image98
          wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

          Giving up the right to bear arms has absolutely nothing to do with the homicide rate in this country.  Something gun haters don't want to discuss, but well proven throughout the world.

          In theory, then, if we take guns away the killers turn to something else.  Whatever the actual mechanism or cause, the result is that just as many people die, just without the use of guns.  Planes, maybe, or truck bombs.

          1. rhamson profile image76
            rhamsonposted 3 years agoin reply to this

            This conversation again. Geesh! I will state it again and we can have a go at it but with the availability of guns and our societal numbness to others feelings, a gun is a easier, quicker and less personal way to kill another human being. If we were able to magically know who would have the proclivity to commit a murder with a gun, would it inhibit them if an intervention was done to prevent the murder? Maybe but there is no magic way of knowing. Do we all arm ourselves so that no one can get the jump on us and maybe we kill another person who may be innocent? No guns or many guns seems to be the question with little or no compromise in between.

            1. wilderness profile image98
              wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

              Yes, I know.  Your insistence that your gut feeling, your opinion and intuition override all facts and experiences continues to amaze me.  You're better than that, Quite capable of understand and accepting factual experience anywhere else, when it comes to guns your "common sense" is allowed to control all conclusions without regard to experience very clearly showing the opposite, as if saying that taking guns ensures people will no longer kill. 

              We've all met people who declare that their wants or opinions trump everything and everyone else, but you KNOW better.  On any subject but guns, where your statement that taking the guns away will save lives trumps the experience of the rest of the world and somehow makes it so.

              1. rhamson profile image76
                rhamsonposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                And once again you seem to apply all or nothing logic as I intimated in my original post. Logic is what dictates my opinion and not feelings. If the wrong person has easy access to a gun with no compunction to take a second thought about killing someone then they will do so. Such is the case with the Sandy Hook killings. I agree that if someone sane or otherwise wants to kill someone they will do it by whatever means is at their disposal. A gun is merely an instrument by which they can accomplish the task. Easy access to the weapon whether it be a gun or knife or sword make the task that much easier. But a gun is the easiest to accomplish the murder. Lets hear some more all or nothing logic if you please. smile

                1. bethperry profile image92
                  bethperryposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                  I'd have to disagree with you rhamson. A pillow is probably the easiest to access. A kitchen knife, also easy - just ask Jodi Arias or Charles Manson.  A bottle of furniture polish used on a hard floor, simple simon.  Antifreeze in a drink, no problem. Heck you don't even have to register a gas oven and a book of matches. A speeding car in the middle of the night - ask the woman that killed my half-brother. None of these weapons have to be registered, and they can be every bit as deadly and used by any wrong person without compunction to take a life. The only "advantage" guns offer to the want-to-be-killer is it is a phallic symbol. Take away the symbol, they still have the urge to do wrong. And it is this runaway desire to harm in our society that should be addressed. Every time we want to dope it up, it bites back. Every time it is treated as a one-sided political hot topic, it changes course. And every time murder is shown on the silver screen or television as the sexy or trendy answer to a personal dilemma, the problem is embraced by more easily influenced people. We have to stop perpetuating the idea that murder is acceptable, period.

                  1. Kathryn L Hill profile image82
                    Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                    ...a poisonous mushroom in the scrambled eggs...

                2. wilderness profile image98
                  wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                  Still on it. 

                  "I agree that if someone sane or otherwise wants to kill someone they will do it by whatever means is at their disposal." 

                  So the obvious answer to the killing is to figure out who the killers are and make sure they don't have guns so they can find that "whatever means is at their disposal".  Makes perfect sense, but won't stop or even slow down the killing, as shown all over the world, just as you say.

                  1. bethperry profile image92
                    bethperryposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                    Unfortunately no. That will only happen when we, as a species, realize how foolish and meaningless that petty wrath and vengeance are sad

            2. tHErEDpILL profile image88
              tHErEDpILLposted 3 years agoin reply to this

              We were given the right to bear arms by the same people who created and signed the constitution.  Why would they write that in there you say?  Well because they had just fought to free us from British rule.  They wanted us to have a country where we had rights and we didn't have a KING ruling, but a political system and criminal process.  Do you want to go back into British rule.  Damn, I swear people go to history class and fall asleep when history is the most important class of them all.  To understand your present and future you must know about your past.  Go ahead and wish for that right to be taken from us.  Then when the criminals and government are the only ones left with the necessary weapons to defend themselves you know what this country turns into......IRAQ.  That or Nazi Germany.  Instead of reading all these comic books, short stories, and poems, go read a damn history book.  that's where all these stories come from anyway.  Harry Potter fought magic with magic.  The X-Men fought weapons with weapons (themselves).  In non of these stories did any of the heroes you look up to fact or fiction, wait for the government or someone else to save them.  That's why we like these stories, because inside we have that survival instinct and like to see it portrayed in books and on screen.  It's biological.  You have an instinct to survive in you.  Even you out of shape, couch potatoes or stay at home moms, you have it in you too.  You've just suppressed it.  Let someone attack your kids or your food.  At that point you better hope you can dig down and get it.  Buncha goddamn drones in this country I swear.

              1. Zelkiiro profile image95
                Zelkiiroposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                Or, you know, Japan. Or The Netherlands. They both have nearly-total bans on guns, and they do fine.

                (Fun Fact: Citizens of Iraq are, indeed, permitted to own guns. Particularly AKs, though with limited ammo. Looks like you forgot to look it up. Whoops!)

                1. tHErEDpILL profile image88
                  tHErEDpILLposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                  You are correct about Iraq, you are allowed to have select fire AK-47 for home protection, not full carry.  While this is good, that AK won't help you when someone runs up on you while you're out to the market and blows your head of in front of your kid.  Over here in a state like Texas you can walk around with your piece showing.  If you know how to use it I guarantee people will think twice about the same scenario.  As for Japan...eh.  They did good over there, but this is America, a nation built through violence; That is not happening here.  Just like our national debt will never be paid off.  It's not a pessimistic outlook, it's a logical one.  We are too far gone.  Yes there needs to be stricter gun laws, but total gun ban is not a good idea.  That's all I'm saying.  I agree to a certain point with  anti-gun people,  just saying we have to keep it as balanced as we can.  It has been proven that you can not trust the American government (the same one that spies on you), so I'd say you are better safe than sorry.  Hey what do I know?  Maybe people want to die and be enslaved.  Maybe people don't care about their kids anymore.  They certainly don't act like it.

                  1. Zelkiiro profile image95
                    Zelkiiroposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                    And that's what 90% of gun control advocates are saying. Background checks, limited ammo, limited makes and models--you don't need an armory to fend off an intruder or shoot a deer.

                2. wilderness profile image98
                  wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                  Yes, Japan and the Netherlands both do well with fairly low homicide rates.

                  Of course, Iceland, with 10X the gun ownership rate, has a lower homicide rate than the Netherlands.  And Germany, with 50X the gun ownership rate, has 1/5 the homicide rate of Japan.

                  Try again?

                  1. Zelkiiro profile image95
                    Zelkiiroposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                    Actually, I was just addressing their claim that the only places where firearms are banned are totalitarian regimes and broken theocracies.

              2. rhamson profile image76
                rhamsonposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                I love how you make a historical stylized post mentioning Nazi's and X-Men in the same post.lol I too am a student of history and have been for several years. I also like to exercise my constitutional right of free speech as you do. All I ask is a conversation or dialog for a solution. Not an all or nothing application of a right. Is there not any logic other than what both positions offer? Is there no compromise that can appease both sides AND offer a solution? I agree that the right to bear arms is a good one and have even owned guns in the past. But as we see political positions swing dramatically from one side to the other and as incendiary as this topic is there may be solutions no one will like if not discussed with an open mind.

                1. wilderness profile image98
                  wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                  No, there isn't.  The biggest reason is that to the anti gun group, it will not be over until only criminals own guns.  All firearms SHALL be removed from private citizenry.

                  And although thousands of people say that's nonsense, that no one wants that at all, that's what we see happening.  Try to own a hand gun in Detroit, for instance, or NYC.  Listen to the rhetoric of Gabrielle Giffords or Cuomo and THEN try to claim that no one wants to take all the guns away.  Take a look at laws limiting gun ownership over the past 100 years and consider how it's grown - it will not stop as long as any gun is legal. 

                  The problem is that every time the gun nuts accept a compromise, we find that it doesn't work - that the killing goes right on - and the anti gun nuts crank up again, wanting MORE limitations.  Limitations that will never end, because the killing will never end.

                  1. rhamson profile image76
                    rhamsonposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                    ...No, there isn't.
                    only
                    All firearms SHALL
                    no one
                    at all
                    no one wants
                    take all
                    as long as any
                    every time
                    will never end
                    will never end

                    These little phrases that you use make my argument for me. It does not matter what you attach to them it is an all or nothing reasoning that you propose. These types of phrases is what keeps the killing going on because things are not all one way or another. The human being is not all one thing and neither is it's actions. I know I am pi$$ing up a rope trying to explain this to you but maybe someday you will see your way to talking about a solution rather than a hopeless impasse.

    2. bethperry profile image92
      bethperryposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      I don't like guns personally, which is why my defense weapon of choice is a sword. However, look at China, where guns are outlawed and they have mass killings involving people brandishing kitchen knives. The two school age girls in Wisconsin that killed their school mate just to impress "Slender Man" used knives. Blades aren't the only other weapon used: 3 persons have been killed in a fire set by an arsonist in Jefferson Parish, LA. Casey Kasem's is being killed by a court order to stop feeding him. Children and infants are killed practically every hot day of summer in cars because their parents rolled up the windows. Even more are killed through mere child abuse and neglect. We have Vets who have died because of greedy, lazy and inept VA administrators that deemed it more appropriate to let our warriors die than to have them treated. What all this tells me is if someone is bent on killing another person, they will look for a means to attempt it, whether guns are outlawed or not. Yes, we have a very serious problem in this nation with people killing others. But I blame the problem on a growing widespread indifference to the sanctity of life.
      Just my two-cents.

      1. wilderness profile image98
        wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

        +1
        And your conclusion is borne out by hard numbers, statistics throughout the world.

      2. tHErEDpILL profile image88
        tHErEDpILLposted 3 years agoin reply to this

        A sword?  COOL

        1. bethperry profile image92
          bethperryposted 3 years agoin reply to this

          Sounds unusual, I know. I had to choose a physical activity course in college, and since I already did aerobics at home, I enrolled in the fencing course. I found it highly enjoyable, and went on to take a few more swordsmanship classes. The concentration it requires is actually soothing to the mind; like yoga for the brain! lol

          1. Kathryn L Hill profile image82
            Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years agoin reply to this

            I vote swords in, guns out!

            1. Zelkiiro profile image95
              Zelkiiroposted 3 years agoin reply to this

              At last! Taking that semester of Fencing in Phys. Ed. will finally pay off!

  2. psycheskinner profile image84
    psycheskinnerposted 3 years ago

    What makes you think all the shootings in Chicago are illegally owned guns? Sure some are, but most probably aren't IMHO.

    1. tHErEDpILL profile image88
      tHErEDpILLposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      Um it was all street crime, ie. drug or gang related.  You can read the article.  Chicago is a anti gun state just like New York (where I live).  It is almost impossible for anyone to get a legal gun in these states.  I don't know where you live or how much you know about gun laws, but that's how I know it wasn't legal guns.  Unless these people were all career police officers, that's the only way they would be walking around with legal guns.

    2. profile image0
      Motown2Chitownposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      In part because it is entirely illegal to own a handgun as a civilian if you reside within the city proper.  So, unless those folks are coming in from the suburbs with their legal guns - gun deaths in Chicago come from illegal guns. Automatic assault weapons are illegal pretty much throughout the state of Illinois.

      1. wilderness profile image98
        wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

        Automatic weapons, "assault" style (whatever that may mean) or not, are pretty much illegal everywhere in the country.  A special license is required and there are very few issued.

        1. profile image0
          Motown2Chitownposted 3 years agoin reply to this

          I figured as much, but I knew for certain about Illinois, so that was the only state I mentioned. smile

  3. Madison Resare profile image75
    Madison Resareposted 3 years ago

    Taking away guns because people might use them for something bad, like shooting another person, is like taking all bikes away from children because they might fall, or like taking all knives away from the kitchen because someone might use them to hurt someone else. I don't have a gun, but I would like to have the option of getting one if I chose to do so.

    1. rhamson profile image76
      rhamsonposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      Taking away guns is not the answer. Why? Because then criminals will be the ones with the guns. The real question is how to keep guns out of those not responsible enough to properly care for their security and use. Any Ideas?

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image82
        Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years agoin reply to this

        Glad you asked:
        Doctors need to stop prescribing pharmaceutical drugs.  These substances are destroying naturally functioning brains and causing people to go nuts. We need to learn how to help people without damaging their sanity.
        IMO
        PS Guns should not be necessary in a civilized society!
        We are a civilized society
        We are a civilized society
        We are… keep chanting...

        1. tHErEDpILL profile image88
          tHErEDpILLposted 3 years agoin reply to this

          Yup.  In just about every one of these "mass shootings", we always find out that the gunmen were on prescription drugs.  But, we all know that won't stop.  Drug companies pay the lobbyists and they in turn get people into office or and or keep them there.

      2. wilderness profile image98
        wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

        Taking guns away from crazies won't help - they'll just use something else.  You said so yourself, and statistics bear that out.

        Instead we need to find and then either cure or lock away those people.  And no, no ideas that are not worse than the problem of the pile of corpses they produce.

  4. rhamson profile image76
    rhamsonposted 3 years ago

    With HIPPA in place a physician is only allowed to break the patient/physician confidentiality if they feel the patient is a threat to himself or others. Could it be expanded to any patient who receives mood altering drugs that could result in a violent episode? Could that person or the persons inside the house that have guns be required to surrender their weapon(s) while the ill person is treated and cleared?

    1. tHErEDpILL profile image88
      tHErEDpILLposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      Drug companies do not want to lose sales---->their money lines the pockets of most the politicians in the U.S.----->anything that hinders their sales will get Shot down (no pun intended) immediately.

      1. rhamson profile image76
        rhamsonposted 3 years agoin reply to this

        I hear what you are saying but giving up because congress won't allow it is like not voting if the only outcome is predetermined. We can demand through voting and legislation that is meaningful if we have the will. To have a defeatist attitude will get nothing done.

 
working