This article says pretty much what I think: guns are fine, but don't expect owning one to magically save your life or anyone else's.
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/20 … mp;emc=rss
Not sure about the Tuscon massacre, as there was a lot of confusion going on, but it isn't hard at all to find home and business owners who have successfully defended themselves against robbery or assault by use of their second amendment rights....
In the case of the Arizona shooting, another gun pulled after the first shots, probably would have been of little use. In this case, the rescuer would have had to have a premonition or acted very quickly upon seeing the pulled gun. Unfortunately, incidences like these happen quickly and are over in seconds. Another gun, after fact, would have added to the melee.
Guns are a legal fact of life in the US. Undoubtedly, they have been used to negatively and positively impact many episodes.
Is it possible to legislate guns out of the hands of the mentally ill? Possibly, this would have prevented the widespread killings and injuries. However, there are always others weapons with worse consequences. Should all individuals have gone through some type of weapons screening; or would this just dehumanize this type of public interaction? Lots of questions . . . . no definitive answer.
Common sense legislation could have prevented this: require background checks, including mental health issues, before selling guns. I would go even further and say that concealed carry permits should require stringent training and requalification each year to demonstrate not only basic understanding of your weapon and safety, but also your tactical competence. If we're going to have an armed citizenry, we should have a well trained armed citizenry.
My problem is with all the magical thinking that comes from the gun lobby: "more guns will make everyone safer!"
No, more common sense laws, and a more well trained, informed, aware and competent citizenry will make us safer. Guns are not magic - you're just as likely to shoot a family member or yourself in a fight or an accident as you are to fend off a robber. If you want to own a tool that exists only to kill, you should at least be required to demonstrate that you are worthy of such a responsibility.
I think it's pretty clear. The guy had mental health issues. The issues were known by local authorities. THEY WERE NOT REPORTED. The FBI is flagging records that they get info on. Regardless of conviction of a felony or being committed to a mental institution.
It's ridiculous! As if asking for safer gun responsibilty is "taking away my rights....." bulloney!
This issue has been totally skewered by the NRA.
Time to take them down a peg or two.
We all have rights.....not just you!
You can't cover all scenarios with gun control laws. A person can be just fine on the day he is tested and flip out months or years later.
It's been said a million times but if you take the guns away from the citizenry then who is left with them? You got it, the criminals and the government (One in the same)
I was born and raised in Chicago but lived 14 years in the Deep South of MS and SC and have many friends that are truly into guns and survival. Many stockpile weapons "just in case" there is ever an insurrection with the Govt.
In my mind, controlling who has guns is not the answer, dealing swift and immediate justice to those that use them improperly is the answer.
That's a cliche. We have to start somewhere.
My question is, why are automobiles so regulated, but guns aren't? I can buy a gun and carry it in my vehicle, or even on my person, without any sort of license or insurance. Why is that?
If I'm pulled over in my car, I need to produce a title and up to date registration, proof of insurance, and a valid drivers license. Why the difference in regulation?
State regulations vs Federal regulations, you do the math.
Doubtful. A trained bodyguard detailed specifically to watch Mrs. Giffords might have been able to stop it - but it happened so fast that the person with the gun would have had to be very close and catch on immediately to what was going on. Loughner had his gun out and shot Ms. Giffords at point blank range before anyone even realized something was amiss. From that point all he had to do was empty his clip, and that's what he did. Our hypothetical civilian with a gun would have had to be very alert, well trained with his/her weapon, and very fast to respond.
In the UK there have been 4 or 5 'massacres' in the past 30 years, in a country where very few people own a gun and obtaining a license for a gun is extremely difficult. This is a country with a population of just over 60 million people.
Can Americans at least see why us Brits think that the idea that increased gun ownership reduces the number of gun related crimes is completely damn crazy?
In the USA there were 500,000 non-fatal firearm-related incidents in 2005 alone, whilst there were 16,137 homocides committed using a gun in the same year. There were even more suicides committed using guns.
In the UK in 2005 there were a little over 10,000 gun related crimes in total, including non-fatal and fatal. Our statistics include the use of Air Guns! I can't find 2005 homocide statistics, but the highest on record is just 97 and in 2006 it was 50 gun deaths.
The population of the US is approximately 5 times greater than that of the UK. If you multiply our worst year for gun related homocides, 97, by 5..... you get 485.
16137 versus 485.
Yet you still drone on about the problem being a LACK of guns? You have 200 million of them already, that is 1 gun for every 1.5 persons (including children).
Do you really think that dishing out more guns is going to decrease gun crime? If you were to give everybody Heroin tomorrow, do you think you would see less Heroin deaths or more Heroin deaths?
I love the USA, hence the reason that I am going there the next week. The two things that I find incredibly disturbing about your country are:
a) The ability for anybody to buy a gun in Walmart without the need to have a license.
b) Your unwillingess to treat the ill and injured.
Other than that your country is great, but the last thing that you need is more guns.
We must arm every citizen over the age of 9 years old, and do so quickly... not just with one firearm, but with two (in case the one is clogged or otherwise interoperable at an inappropriate time).
Furthermore, these firearms should be rapid fire, just in case a person is approached by a swarming gang.
Grenades would also be a good idea.. they are portable, and can carry a substantial punch.
With the rise of carjackings, modified cars/tanks should also be made available and affordable.
Despite all these reasonable measures, no doubt that the criminals in our midst would still attempt their dirty deeds.
The only surefire way to deter such madmen is to destroy the objects of their desires.... We might therefore want to proactively destroy all our assets.. cars, homes, jewels, etc.
While such a scorched earth policy would deter thieves, cold blooded murderers would still be out there, however.
Only by killing ourselves via mass suicide initiatives, could we assure that potential victims of violent crimes will be safe from the killers lurking out there.
Thankfully, guns are readily available, and bullets are relatively cheap.
More guns is never the answer. It only means more death and mayhem. People confuse the 2nd amendment rights as the right to vigilante justice, which it is not.
It originally referred to an ad-hoc milita organized on a state-by-state basis. This has evolved into the National Guard, a para-military organization with professional training.
Too many untrained and undisciplined people are running around with guns, which is exactly why events such as occurred in Tuscon keep happening.
As I've said before, it's quality, not quantity.
If you have a well-qualified gun carrier, then those gun-carriers may have been able to react and possibly save some of those that were shot.
What I mean is a person that has taken and passed classes on gun safety, tactical handgun use and decision making, and actively practices with their weapons.
Which is why I say people who want to carry guns should be required to train and demonstrate their competence regularly.
People did have guns, but froze. One guy who tackled the suspect was almost shot by someone who ran out of a store with a gun.
Sounds like the guy "running of the store with a gun" made the right decision.
Only after people yelled at him to stop...
The fact still remains, people were carrying weapons and did NOT behave irrationally. With the exception of the mentally ill person with a firearm.
and the fact remains that in the US it is the right of every nutter to carry a firearm - and most of you think this is the way to go ! no wonder the US is slowly dissapearing over the horizon
Actually, I don't believe that we should have so many people "openly" carrying firearms in our society. However, I see it as a result of the people NOT feeling secure in their communities. Fix that problem and you will find that fewer people are walking around "strapped".
Like Chris Rock said, we don't need gun control! We need bullet control! Each bullet should cost $5,000! If each bullet costs $5,000, there will be no more innocent bystanders because you'll definately think before you shoot!
I'll sell you a couple bullets for $5,000 apiece!
More devices that are only designed to kill people are a good idea to reduce the number of people being killed - are you people raving loonies or what !
i believe they could have, just my 2 cents, i don't want to start on a radical rant though, i respect everyones opinion.
by A Thousand Words 6 years ago
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...
by Christin Sander 6 years ago
When is the right time to talk about gun control - NOT banning guns, but sensible controls?Why is it whenever the subject of gun control is brought up people get so hostile and angry about protecting guns at all costs? Do you need an assault weapon to hunt or protect your family? Isn't...
by Mike Russo 2 months ago
The shooting in Thousand Oaks is too close to home. I use to work in Thousand Oaks. Our thoughts and prayers are with you means nothing to those who lost loved ones. We are being attacked by domestic terrorism from within by mentally unstable people who have easy access to lethal weapons. Every...
by Scott Belford 8 months ago
For the 22nd time just this year, somebody opened fire on an America school campus. While most of the others had an AR-15 as the gun of choice, this one was accomplished with a shotgun and revolver. In my mind, that changes the discussion somewhat based on what facts come out.In terms...
by Thomas Byers 5 years ago
Would You Give Up Your Guns To Protect American Children?Other than guns for hunting and pistols for protection would you have a problem with giving up all military style weapons to protect the children of America. Is there any reason to have military style weapons. Is there any reason for a...
by Michele Travis 6 years ago
Some people already have a lot of guns. So if gun laws are passed, how will the government actually get guns away from people. Some guns are registered and some are not, how could the government find out, and how could the government actually take guns away from people?
Copyright © 2019 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|