Guns Rarely Used to Kill Criminals ... 1 vs. 112

[yssie]

+1 and more! gun control.

And +1 to this!

You can't legally drive a car without taking a licensing exam, registering your vehicle, insuring it, and always observing certain laws... There is, at any given time, a registry of information detailing who owns what vehicle where, when, why...
Cars kill people.
Or "Cars don't kill people, people kill people" - either way the argument boils down to the same issue.
Why should we not be more thorough in our gun ownership and use mandates?

 

[packrat]

People drive w/no license. No insurance. They have their license taken away and still drive. Another thing that takes manpower and time and money to take care of is regulating that (revoked/barred/etc) then w/firearms. JD recognizes people driving by when they don't have a license (how I don't know-I'm sitting next to him going um..There were 15 vehicles at the light there, which one was it? and in the meantime he's called whoever is on duty and described the person and what they're wearing and driving). At least that sometimes is obvious, to them at least.

I wish I could express the scope and breadth of what we're looking at. And it's not that gun advocates don't or won't want to do it-even if they don't want to do it, they'd do it begrudgingly and probably w/much rolling of the eyes and heavy sighing and muttering under their breath. It's that most of them understand what a huge undertaking it is, and most of them understand that no matter how much *they* want things to not happen, preventing innocent people from being shot, etc....they're met w/resistance in quite a manner. "Oh you just want babies to die." No. "you don't care". No. "You're part of the problem" No. And none of it is said in a talking manner, it's more along the lines of foaming at the mouth screeching and maniacally waving of the arms "you bloodthirsty mother ****ers just want my baby to DIIIIEEEEEEE you don't even ****ing care about other people you *******s take all the guns you don't ****ing deserve them you're killing children!!!" cuz THAT will solve things, yanno? When we try to point things out, we're told we don't care. But we do. We're trying to point out what things will entail, and point out what is needed to work toward accomplishing things--it's not something that can be approached by hey guys, let's all just bring our guns and toss them in the town square and set them on fire. There has to be a plan and a manner of implementing. At this point we can't even get people to talk in a normal manner w/out verbally attacking and calling for people's heads on a platter and placing blame squarely on shoulders of people who have no need for it.

Politicians are idiots. (aahhh *most* shall I say? no blanket stereotypes right?) They're not going to do anything. They're going to half ass it and fan the flames to get the focus on the other side's constituents, so they don't have to do anything. From what I can see, their main concern is that they can stay in office so they can reap the benefits. Why work to make the world a better place when you can point your finger at the other guy?

Our officers take, in our town of not quite 5k (that's not all adults, there's about 3k adults between 18-65) takes an average of 5000+ calls a year, plus the investigations on the side that they do, plus having to go to court weekly, paperwork, running to the jail to deal w/the inmates, phone calls to the legal people about charges and filings and running evidence an hour up and back to be looked at, backing up other city and county officers when needed, and who knows what else. They've had a hard time finding people to fill openings-people get hired and when the shit hits the fan, find out they can't hack it, or they move here, get their training and get a job where they came from. The time before last when I asked how the hiring was going, I was met w/a scowl. It takes weeks to hire one officer, and it takes weeks of time from the current officers duties to hire one officer. And you're limited to hiring from those who apply. My brother would be a good officer-but he has no interest in it. But if you guys could've seen some of the other prospectives from the time before last... When they go to the city council to say there isn't anyone fit to be an officer, they're told "make it work. look again and keep looking until you pick one". JD comes home and says "I can tell you right now if we hire from this pool, someone is going to be killed"--and that scares the shit out of me. (we had an officer a few years ago run away from a fight-that's great that he realized LE isn't for him--but not so great that it caused another officer to be hurt and had the potential to be fatal). I should mention that even w/harsher penalties--you can charge someone six ways from Sunday, but that's not going to stick. JD has jacked people up for so much shit they should've gone to federal prison, and they're at the grocery store in front of us in line. People who are barred/revoked etc end up killing people while their driving too...and officers try as hard as they can to get them *off* the streets--just as much as the legal system tosses them back *on* the streets. The same would and will happen w/guns. None of it is an easy fix--I just hate to see people think that there is any one answer that is 100% fool proof--officers can only do what they can do-the legal system is part of what would also need to be revamped.

that's just part of what a department deals w/on a daily basis. Finding more people to deal w/that daily, to add in more control of guns, infiltrating gangs, getting into the smuggling and border security, patrol, drug dealers etc... for what they make per year, I'll tell you honestly, I don't know how it can be done. Doesn't mean it's not worth it to try, by any means. It's an honest opinion from an officers wife, that there is a LOT that goes into this that needs to be thought of and hashed out and understood. Politicians can blow smoke up people's asses all they want, but all it does it camouflage the issue and make it harder to comprehend-they're awful good at getting people all riled up at each other, rather than encouraging people to come together for a common purpose.

In the end, I don't know that most people are ready to actually buck up and do some shit for the greater good. We can't even get people to pay an extra piddly amount a year in taxes to build schools where needed-our new Superintendent left a district who was screaming for her head b/c she had to have classrooms in the basement--but they refused to pass anything to pay for building what they needed, they just expected her to magically solve it which is impossible. I see a lot of that happening in this situation. "Doesn't matter how you do it, just do it" But it *does* matter how you do it. It has to be done right, done smartly, or it's going to make the situation even more out of control and over the top. There's more to it than "just get rid of guns" or getting rid of some but not all, or specific ones. There's a lot to consider, and not a lot of people who want to take the time to consider it, but an inordinate amount of people who want it to just be done haphazardly just so long as it makes them happy.

How far would people go to make this work? Really and truly and honestly, how far? *that's* something else that needs to be considered.

 

[yssie]

Oh Packy... (I hope!) You know how much I respect you, and respect you and your DH's opinions - that he is IN the field dealing with these sorts of questions every day makes his take on it invaluable... And I can't disagree with any part of what you wrote.
There just... Must be SOME steps we can take to mitigate this situation. We can't fix it, not right away, not without a lot of work (including defining what "fix" means) but doing nothing - which seems to be the current default forward - is an abhorrent thought.

It is certainly much more difficult for people who live in/grew up in countries with strict ownership restrictions to understand why giving them up is such a big deal - why the mere thought of it incites such fervor. To me, personally, it's simply an obvious and easy "sacrifice for the greater good".

 

[packrat]

Oh, I know Yssie! What I find hard (and what JD finds hard, and I'm sure a LOT in LE find hard) is the "well just shut up and do X and that will take care of it and if you don't it's all your fault" sentiments. B/c the ones who are *in* it and deal w/it, they're more apt to understand things, but a LOT of people disregard their thoughts/opinions/experiences. That frustrates the ever lovin crap out of me. Like when you work in a job and the manager has never done your job and tells you how to do it-hello? Or someone who works in a different department that has nothing to do w/yours tells you how to do your job.

I agree, there HAS to be a way to make things right--we just need to FIND it. The solution won't however, be found at the end of a pointed finger, or in the spittle that flies out of the mouths of those screeching for action. It's going to be a big undertaking-b/c it's not an easy fix able to be done in one weekend. We're talking man power, money, time, training, getting into legal systems and changing and uprooting everything. Opposition on both sides, people who purposely rile others up for their own gain.

If people could sit and talk rationally (which I've really yet to see for any length of time-FB has me shaking at times, the people who insist they're listening and then tell me I'm stupid, I'm arrogant, I'm ignorant, LE sucks, LE is corrupt and on and on and on...

A lot of it goes back to-what are we willing to do? One side shouldn't have to give up all, that's not a solution for either side and would only make more problems. Are we willing to increase taxes? Are we willing to cut spending elsewhere? Are we willing to *really* make punishments actual punishments? (b/c in all actuality, the amount of people who will defend someone who rapes their own children is staggering and would make people sick if they were aware--there is *always* a faction who will defend even the most heinous acts by others, which goes toward making punishments less an actual punishment and more an inconvenience) Are we willing to actually listen to those w/experience and first hand knowledge? Are we willing to take that experience and knowledge into account? There has to be a certain level of detachment, rather than a boiling cauldron of emotion. There has to be a common goal-it can't be approached "take them all away" and "you'll take them from my cold dead hands"-extremes on either side are never going to work toward a solution.

There are people willing to give up things for the greater good--but sometimes it's a little bit like well shit, why do *I* have to give up X when these people over here aren't made to do it too? You can't tell one kid he can't have a happy meal b/c it's crappy for him b/c he's the sibling who will just accept it, but then bring one home for the other sibling b/c he's the one who will throw and ungodly fit about it.

 

[arkieb1]

Many (not all but a lot) of politicians are funded by the pro gun lobby and others are scared the majority of their voters are also pro guns they don't want to stick their necks out and this is exactly the problem.

They don't want to allocate money to something as unpopular and divisive as this. But that is what needs to be done. Even if it's baby steps at first.

I don't think anyone should be taking all the guns away from everyone. It's not going to work. Getting everyone on board and agreeing is the first step and that is going to be much more likely if it is a matter of banning certain types of guns and regulating who has the rest. And overall recognising the buck stops with people who make financial decisions so that people on the front line like your family in the example above have better manpower and better resources to deal with the sh@* they have to face on a daily basis.

 

[jordyonbass]

Many (not all but a lot) of politicians are funded by the pro gun lobby and others are scared the majority of their voters are also pro guns they don't want to stick their necks out and this is exactly the problem.

They don't want to allocate money to something as unpopular and divisive as this. But that is what needs to be done. Even if it's baby steps at first.

I don't think anyone should be taking all the guns away from everyone. It's not going to work. Getting everyone on board and agreeing is the first step and that is going to be much more likely if it is a matter of banning certain types of guns and regulating who has the rest. And overall recognising the buck stops with people who make financial decisions so that people on the front line like your family in the example above have better manpower and better resources to deal with the sh@* they have to face on a daily basis.

arkieb1 that is precisely my point about Australia; I find there is this huge misconception that guns are illegal in Australia. They aren't, but the amount of red tape and procedures you have to go through in order to get it discourages people from getting it to begin with, then it is further unnerving to basically know that you won't be firing a bullet without the government knowing about it.

I think our gun laws here are perfect. You want a deadly weapon? You can have it, but the state would like to know everything about you, what you are obtaining and what you plan on doing with it in order to protect those also in the same state. I know many US citizens feel like this is people being stripped of their rights and I think that is absolutely insane, I don't think anyone should have the 'right' to a deadly weapon. My driving license was explained to me as a privilege, not a right.

 

[packrat]

Many (not all but a lot) of politicians are funded by the pro gun lobby and others are scared the majority of their voters are also pro guns they don't want to stick their necks out and this is exactly the problem.

They don't want to allocate money to something as unpopular and divisive as this. But that is what needs to be done. Even if it's baby steps at first.

I don't think anyone should be taking all the guns away from everyone. It's not going to work. Getting everyone on board and agreeing is the first step and that is going to be much more likely if it is a matter of banning certain types of guns and regulating who has the rest. And overall recognising the buck stops with people who make financial decisions so that people on the front line like your family in the example above have better manpower and better resources to deal with the sh@* they have to face on a daily basis.

arkieb1 that is precisely my point about Australia; I find there is this huge misconception that guns are illegal in Australia. They aren't, but the amount of red tape and procedures you have to go through in order to get it discourages people from getting it to begin with, then it is further unnerving to basically know that you won't be firing a bullet without the government knowing about it.

I think our gun laws here are perfect. You want a deadly weapon? You can have it, but the state would like to know everything about you, what you are obtaining and what you plan on doing with it in order to protect those also in the same state. I know many US citizens feel like this is people being stripped of their rights and I think that is absolutely insane, I don't think anyone should have the 'right' to a deadly weapon. My driving license was explained to me as a privilege, not a right.

part of our issue comes from taking it from those who follow the laws, those who *would* go thru all the red tape, and doing nothing about the weapons which are in the hands of people illegally-which there are far far far too many to find or comprehend.

 

[Sha]

Thanks for sharing this, Kenny! I've always wondered about the exact same thing. How many of these proud gun-owners have ever used their gun in self-defense? Compared to the number of people who get killed by guns daily??!!

I don't live in the U.S but it just boggles my mind that people can buy a gun from a corner-store with almost the same ease as any other commodity. I feel like guns are seen so casually in the U.S, when nearly every other countries recognizes them for the killing-machines that they are and takes measures to control access.

And the 'guns don't kill people, people do' argument sounds good but makes no sense. There's a reason that guns are the weapon of choice for many killings. You can kill one or more people in a fairly short time, and you don't even have to get your hands messy! You don't have to get 'up close and personal' or exert much effort either, the way you would if you had to stab or strangle your victim. That makes the killing that much more 'quick and easy'.

And we all know that guns can't kill people by themselves, and that a person has to shoot the gun. We ALSO know that there are many evil/hateful/mentally disturbed people/troubled in this world - there will always be. If we know that there are many 'disturbed' people in society, and that it will be impossible to detect them ALL before they do harm, WHY also have easy access to highly lethal weapons? Isn't that creating a 'perfect Storm'? It's like people assume everybody with access to guns will be good, sane, and responsible, so we act surprised when a mass shooting occurs. "Ohhhh....he had a gun but he really shouldn't have done that!" "He was supposed to be good with that gun". Yeah, righhhhht.

While we attempt to continue treating the mentally ill and other disturbed people in our society, it would make a whole lot of sense to me to control access to guns, so that the said 'disturbed' people can't get their hands on it so easily and create mass murder in the process.

 

[Sha]

Guns kill people.

Let's be clear, guns kill people.

A person alone, with their finger in the air can only say "bang bang." A person with a gun is a killing machine.

Guns kill people. So stop playing with words. We are all smarter than this.

I am tired of the same old rhetoric and I am ready for an intelligent conversation. How about this, you tell me how you can justify in your mind keeping the very killing machine that mows down our babies in school on a regular basis just for the sake of your false security or fantasies of vigilanteism? What is real: mass quantities of children being murdered in their own schools, kids being mowed down in movie theaters, college students being killed on campus, parishioners being killed in church, mass shootings are real and done with legally obtained firearms in most situations. What isn't real: fantasies of protecting yourself or others with your firearm. That is media propaganda that the NRA loves to push. When do we hear about citizens protecting themselves or others with their guns? Once in a BLUE MOON? We aren't hearing about this half as much as when a very REAL MASS SHOOTING occurs. Why? Because people protecting themselves and others with guns isn't happening.

So once again, how do you justify the murders of our most innocent for your right to carry your firearm? Because you need to justify it. You need to tell me how my son's life is less important than yours. You need to tell me how your old self, life lived self, is more important than my 10-year-old who hasn't done anything yet. Even on a moral level, this is wrong. You aren't more important than our young. Yet, each time I hear someone argue for their right to bear arms, what I hear is that they are willing to sacrifice however many children it takes in order to preserve this "right" and that disgusts me.

This, times a million!

I feel like many gun-owners can't look past their own noses on this issue. They care more about their individual rights than they do for society on a whole. Whenever the gun-control debate comes up, it's always, "me, me, me! (my guns and my rights!) NOT- "what's best for US as a society...as a country..?", "Are guns hurting more than they're helping, or is the opposite true?" "Do I really NEED my gun?" I know that the U.S is an individualistic country, but come on.. Imagine a whole classroom of children killed at Newtown and still no collective action on this issue. So sad!!

House Cat, I think your comment on 'false sense of security and fantasies of vigilanteism' is so true. I really wonder how many gun owners on this thread ever had to use their gun for protection..

 

[Laila619]

HC: It's your choice to not own a firearm if you dont want to have one. But lets be real - a person with a rock, machete, car, knife, wrench, baseball bat, can of gasoline, tennis racket, candlestick holder or fireplace poker can also kill someone, yet none of those items are banned, nor generate mass protest when used as weapons. I don't need to argue my right to bear arms and protect my family ... it IS my right, so says our constitution. And it's your right to not own one. But I am no threat to you or your children; criminals are.

And if we as a society are going to increase personal choice and 'access' to things that others may not believe in or agree with under the premise it's "their right", trying to take one of my rights away just because you dont like it is nothing short of hypocritical. That's up there with religions opposed to same sex marriage (which FTR I do NOT oppose) because they feel threatened by it somehow. My owning a gun does not preclude anyone from their rights because I am a responsible, sane, law abiding citizen and gun owner. It's the criminal whack jobs with no regard for laws, bans, and gun free zones who you should worry about. Heck, meth is against the law and banned as well, yet people are cooking it up in mass quantities and selling it to our kids. Where's the public outcry about that?

And with that, I too will step away from this topic. It's pretty clear where I stand on the topic.

Yes, there are many mass killings of children with rocks and candlesticks in this nation. It is very possible to hurl mass quantities of wrenches in a projectile manner at people in a movie theater so as to kill 15 of them before they are able to run for their lives. More rhetoric.

And I see that my question still remains unanswered, as it always does by the people who believe their gun rights supersede our children's right to safely attend school.

Edit: I would like to add that a majority of the shooters in mass shootings used LEGALLY OBTAINED FIREARMS. This means that they could be classified as "responsible gun owners" up until the moment that they chose not to be.

THIS.

I am so tired of that argument, that baseball bats and knives and cars kill too. It ISN'T the same thing! And those items have other uses besides stopping someone or something dead in its tracks.

 

[House Cat]

In my mind's eye, I see guns in the hands of criminals being reduced by attrition. The borders are a HUGE problem when it comes to this task. I believe that reducing the 30,000+ deaths per year by firearms is a large undertaking with tentacles that reach far beyond just removing firearms from the homes of Susie Homemaker. Actually, I quite like Australia's model.

I would never think to remove guns from our law enforcement.

Here is my thought, people in this nation really and truly believe they need their guns to protect themselves from criminals. They really think this!!! But the stats show that this just isn't happening. Actually, their guns are more likely to kill a family member, kill a child in an accident, or to be used in a suicide than they are likely to "protect themselves or family." But people are obsessed with this idea of protecting themselves with guns and they completely ignore the actual facts. This ignoring of the facts is what creates the problem and perpetuates the deaths each year, perpetuates the school shootings, the mass shootings, etc.

The NRA is one of the biggest interest groups in our nation. Do you think it is an ACCIDENT that people are so attached to their guns? The NRA encourages a culture of fear and gun ownership. Fear the government, fear the criminals, fear ISIS, fear the apocalypse, FEAR OBAMA, fear mass shootings and the only way you can protect yourself from this fear is to BUY MORE GUNS!! Fear is very profitable and people are eating this up like sheep! Please! And I know this is fact because I know the people who run in these circles. I know the people who are stockpiling guns and ammo because they are afraid that all of the guns will be taken from them. I live in a state with some of the toughest gun control laws in the nation and people are afraid they will get tougher. Most of my friends are military, police, and hunters and ALL NRA members. I am the odd man out, being for gun control. I hear what they say. To me, as an outsider, it all sounds like pure insanity because I know the statistics. I know their guns are more likely to do harm to them or their families, rather than to protect them from any harm.

I know people who work in retail and sell guns. Guns fly off the shelves after mass shootings.

We live in a very capitalistic society. It is my deepest belief that there is very little concern for our true well-being. There is only money to be made. They scorch our earth for oil. They fill our bodies with deadly chemicals for mass produced food. And they keep guns around without consequence even though they are killing far too many people.

Packrat, I am with you. I do believe there is a middle ground. But the moment a pro-gun enthusiast starts spitting their pro-gun rhetoric about their right to keep their guns while children are being shot in their own schools, my hackles go up. Once I am in that mode, I don't really want to discuss middle ground. I am thinking of children and people dying and it seems like the other side doesn't really care about that fact. I get into the mind frame of fighting for all of the victims and for all of the future victims because rhetoric is lazy and these victims don't deserve lazy. These victims and their families deserve REAL and JUSTIFIABLE reasons why people in our nation are allowed to run around our streets carrying guns with very little accountability causing an unforgivable amount of senseless death each year.

 

[Laila619]

And we all know that guns can't kill people by themselves, and that a person has to shoot the gun. We ALSO know that there are many evil/hateful/mentally disturbed people/troubled in this world - there will always be. If we know that there are many 'disturbed' people in society, and that it will be impossible to detect them ALL before they do harm, WHY also have easy access to highly lethal weapons? Isn't that creating a 'perfect Storm'? It's like people assume everybody with access to guns will be good, sane, and responsible, so we act surprised when a mass shooting occurs. "Ohhhh....he had a gun but he really shouldn't have done that!" "He was supposed to be good with that gun". Yeah, righhhhht.

Bingo. Too many people walking around are ticking time bombs with mental health issues. I am tired of hearing of yet another mass shooting where innocent people are slain in cold blood, we cry about it for a day or two, and then nothing changes.

Law enforcement should have guns, yes.

 

[Matata]

We live in a very capitalistic society. It is my deepest belief that there is very little concern for our true well-being. There is only money to be made. They scorch our earth for oil. They fill our bodies with deadly chemicals for mass produced food. And they keep guns around without consequence even though they are killing far too many people.

Bingo! To effect positive change requires sacrifice, sometimes huge sacrifice, and yes, it's the people who aren't causing a problem that usually have to sacrifice the most. That's life, and it isn't fair, and we shouldn't expect it to be. We are the instrument of our own self-destruction, seemingly unable to see past our own noses. And, in spite of how horrific the slaughter of people due to guns is, it's not our biggest problem. It's merely a symptom of an accelerated degeneration of our society. Anyone aware that we're in the midst of the 6th Great Extinction? Predictions are that humans will be extinct within 3 lifetimes. I don't know what the average life expectancy of the global population is, but let's say it's 80 yrs. That means we will be gone from this planet in 240 years. So finally the cliche that "guns don't kill people, people kill people" will be irrevocably true.

 

[telephone89]

part of our issue comes from taking it from those who follow the laws, those who *would* go thru all the red tape, and doing nothing about the weapons which are in the hands of people illegally-which there are far far far too many to find or comprehend.

Did you watch the video posted earlier? They talk about a gun, sold in walmart for $1,000 in the USA would be sold on the black market in Aus for $34,000. His point was, if you have 34k, you probably aren't breaking into peoples homes to steal TVs.

Anyways, guns don't make me feel safe. I live in Canada, and only know one person who owns a gun (hunting). Most criminals we deal with in my line of work dont have guns, more so knives, needles and drugs. In fact, I think most of our criminals are smart in the fact that robbery/theft without a gun is FAR less severe sentencing wise than if you have a gun. Even if you don't use it, it automatically becomes armed robbery, and comes with a minimum term.

 

[kenny]

Hilarious video - http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2015/06/19/an-australian-stand-up-comic-explains-what-u-s-gun-laws-look-like-to-the-rest-of-the-world/?postshare=1431434829369984

Excellent!

That guy nails it!

 

[kenny]

I remember something a very smart friend said.

He was arguing for more gun-control.
When asked how he'd defend himself against someone with a gun he replied, "I'd use my mind."

What I love is he rose above the nearly-universal primitive FEAR FEAR FEAR thing that sells guns.
He is coming from a place of strength, not weakness.

 

[Calliecake]

My husband and I have an argument at least once a year about this. He always plays the protection card. My response is always how does he want me to distract the criminal while he spends 10 minutes getting the gun out of the safe and another 2 minutes to get the bullets from another secure location in the house. In all my years I have never heard of a criminal announcing he was coming to your home on Friday night at 10:45 PM. If Sandy Hook didn't wake people up that the guns need to go or at the very least new laws with extremely strict limits need to be put in place and enforced, I'm afraid nothing will. I will never understand the need for an assault gun. We should go back to only allowing the type of guns that existed when the second amendment was put in place. Heaven knows there were no assault rifles in existence back in 1791.

I also find it difficult to hear people go on and on about needing guns for protection. I am the victim of a violent crime that occurred in my home and do not think guns are the answer.

 

[C-4]

So once again, how do you justify the murders of our most innocent for your right to carry your firearm? Because you need to justify it. You need to tell me how my son's life is less important than yours. You need to tell me how your old self, life lived self, is more important than my 10-year-old who hasn't done anything yet. Even on a moral level, this is wrong. You aren't more important than our young. Yet, each time I hear someone argue for their right to bear arms, what I hear is that they are willing to sacrifice however many children it takes in order to preserve this "right" and that disgusts me.

You're under the mistaken impression that the primary purpose of firearms and the Second Amendment is to protect against criminals. While that's certainly an important aspect, the Second Amendment clearly states that it is to protect the People from government tyranny.

Time and again history has shown us examples of the government turning on its people and committing mass killings. The Nazis had no problem herding children into gas chambers, hundreds at a time, or using them for medical experiments. I remember seeing a movie where only government forces, including the police (Reserve Police Battalion 101) had guns: Shindler's List.

If you want a more recent example, look at Syria where Assad's government and the Islamic fundamentalist rebels he is fighting have contributed to countless dead children:

By early June 2015, the opposition activist group Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (SOHR) reported the number of children killed in the conflict had risen to 11,493, while at the same time 7,371 women were also killed.

You cannot see the forest for the trees. You focus on the rare, albeit tragic, deaths of 20 children in CT, but forget that is a small price to pay for preventing mass genocide.

But that doesn't mean I expect you to carry a gun. You have the freedom to do as you wish.

Getting back to the common criminal, I would never deny a battered woman the chance to defend herself from her abuser, or a gay man from defending himself from a gay-basher just because he has a different lifestyle. The right to defend ourselves is a divine, universal right. The Second Amendment simply spells it out.

 

[C-4]

The US needs similar laws to Australia for gun use although I am concerned that it may be too late. There's a bizarre misconception that guns are illegal to get in Australia, fact is that they aren't illegal BUT you will have to jump through many hoops, navigate endless red tape and at the end of the process you're left with a relatively small selection of weapons that you can legally buy. I'm all for hunting, vermin eradication and target practice - which is basically the only reasons gun owners in australia own a gun - but nobody owns one for self-defence and shouldn't have to IMO (with maybe the exception of police).

I don't believe that any person other than law enforcement should have access to hand guns and semi-automatic rifles.

The U.S. has 2 long land borders, one of which is a Third World country that has no problem trafficking multi-ton quantities of cocaine, heroin, marijuana and other contraband. Australia is an island with ship traffic that is dwarfed by what comes into the U.S. on a daily basis. I assure you that even if you could ban guns for law-abiding citizens, criminals would have no problem acquiring firearms on the black market. Guns would simply be another illegal commodity to bring across the border.

When you need a gun, you need it now, not 3 to 30 minutes away which is how long you may have to wait for the police. The police are usually on scene to document the crime, not stop it. God bless them, but they can't be everywhere and they aren't your personal bodyguard. When people ask why I carry a gun, I answer, "Because I can't carry a police officer around with me."

 

[librarychickie]

My one and only comment on this issue.

 

[distracts]

So once again, how do you justify the murders of our most innocent for your right to carry your firearm? Because you need to justify it. You need to tell me how my son's life is less important than yours. You need to tell me how your old self, life lived self, is more important than my 10-year-old who hasn't done anything yet. Even on a moral level, this is wrong. You aren't more important than our young. Yet, each time I hear someone argue for their right to bear arms, what I hear is that they are willing to sacrifice however many children it takes in order to preserve this "right" and that disgusts me.

You're under the mistaken impression that the primary purpose of firearms and the Second Amendment is to protect against criminals. While that's certainly an important aspect, the Second Amendment clearly states that it is to protect the People from government tyranny.

Time and again history has shown us examples of the government turning on its people and committing mass killings. The Nazis had no problem herding children into gas chambers, hundreds at a time, or using them for medical experiments. I remember seeing a movie where only government forces, including the police (Reserve Police Battalion 101) had guns: Shindler's List.

If you want a more recent example, look at Syria where Assad's government and the Islamic fundamentalist rebels he is fighting have contributed to countless dead children:

By early June 2015, the opposition activist group Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (SOHR) reported the number of children killed in the conflict had risen to 11,493, while at the same time 7,371 women were also killed.

You cannot see the forest for the trees. You focus on the rare, albeit tragic, deaths of 20 children in CT, but forget that is a small price to pay for preventing mass genocide.

But that doesn't mean I expect you to carry a gun. You have the freedom to do as you wish.

Getting back to the common criminal, I would never deny a battered woman the chance to defend herself from her abuser, or a gay man from defending himself from a gay-basher just because he has a different lifestyle. The right to defend ourselves is a divine, universal right. The Second Amendment simply spells it out.

As the man said in the video, the government has drones now. You'd be bringing a gun to a drone fight. No amount of guns is gonna save you from the US Govt if it decides to go after you. The only thing that would work is key parts of the military rebelling, which has nothing to do with the 2nd amendment.

 

[packrat]

My one and only comment on this issue.

hahahahaha

we should make murder illegal.

 

[House Cat]

So once again, how do you justify the murders of our most innocent for your right to carry your firearm? Because you need to justify it. You need to tell me how my son's life is less important than yours. You need to tell me how your old self, life lived self, is more important than my 10-year-old who hasn't done anything yet. Even on a moral level, this is wrong. You aren't more important than our young. Yet, each time I hear someone argue for their right to bear arms, what I hear is that they are willing to sacrifice however many children it takes in order to preserve this "right" and that disgusts me.

You're under the mistaken impression that the primary purpose of firearms and the Second Amendment is to protect against criminals. While that's certainly an important aspect, the Second Amendment clearly states that it is to protect the People from government tyranny.

Time and again history has shown us examples of the government turning on its people and committing mass killings. The Nazis had no problem herding children into gas chambers, hundreds at a time, or using them for medical experiments. I remember seeing a movie where only government forces, including the police (Reserve Police Battalion 101) had guns: Shindler's List.

If you want a more recent example, look at Syria where Assad's government and the Islamic fundamentalist rebels he is fighting have contributed to countless dead children:

By early June 2015, the opposition activist group Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (SOHR) reported the number of children killed in the conflict had risen to 11,493, while at the same time 7,371 women were also killed.

You cannot see the forest for the trees. You focus on the rare, albeit tragic, deaths of 20 children in CT, but forget that is a small price to pay for preventing mass genocide.

But that doesn't mean I expect you to carry a gun. You have the freedom to do as you wish.

Getting back to the common criminal, I would never deny a battered woman the chance to defend herself from her abuser, or a gay man from defending himself from a gay-basher just because he has a different lifestyle. The right to defend ourselves is a divine, universal right. The Second Amendment simply spells it out.

Ahh yes, good luck to you, defending yourself against the advanced weaponry our government possesses with your little firearms!

I didn't bring this aspect of The Second Amendment into the discussion because it is so absurd. The Second Amendment was written at a time when people were actually able to defend themselves against their government! Today, we wouldn't have a prayer!

More gun toting fantasy.

20 dead children is NEVER a small price to pay. What a disgusting thing for you to say while hiding behind a fake screen name.

 

[jordyonbass]

C-4

I am sorry but I have to respectfully yet firmly disagree with you here. Guns are not a legitimate and proven way to prevent mass genocide and I also do not agree and find it rather distasteful that you have insinuated that the occasional 20 person massacre is a small price to pay for the population to have guns - the problem is that it is NOT occasional, it's becoming more and more frequent. I feel like I am seeing stories about massacres in the US every other week and I am from the other side of the world.

You mentioned the population need guns to prevent mass genocide, yet in Australia and England where guns are virtually illegal, there has not been a mass genocide or any kind of attack that was directly due to us not having guns amongst the population. Actually we haven't had either of those events happen, period (with the exception of the Port Arthur attack which catalyzed new, stricter gun laws).

My concern for the US is that it's gone too far with gun ownership to 'turn back'. Too many people are too addicted to their guns.

 

[packrat]

I've never understood why the focus is on say...my husband and I, as a group of people who are "addicted" to their guns and don't want them taken away. Or my mom and dad. But yet...the gang members who attack each other and shoot each other and do drive by's and plenty of innocent people are shot daily, drug dealers who carry, people in like, the freaking mafia, nobody mentions that they kill people too. And you'd have a hard time taking them away from them. And yeah, if you have $34k to spend on a gun, you quite very possibly could be a part of those groups I just mentioned, and quite able to spend that kind of money on a gun, and quite willing and able to use the gun against another human. It's not like making a gun thousands of dollars prevents shit from happening--there's always going to be someone willing to sell it cheaper under the table to someone willing to buy it under the table. Smuggling will continue. And probably the response would be then is "omg he bought a gun illegally and is now out shooting clay pigeons omg omg omg he broke the law" rather than the cry of "omg he bought a gun illegally and is being used in gang wars and has killed two people"

That's what I mean by the focus.

 

[kenny]

I've never understood why the focus is on say...my husband and I, as a group of people who are "addicted" to their guns and don't want them taken away. Or my mom and dad. But yet...the gang members who attack each other and shoot each other and do drive by's and plenty of innocent people are shot daily, drug dealers who carry, people in like, the freaking mafia, nobody mentions that they kill people too. And you'd have a hard time taking them away from them. And yeah, if you have $34k to spend on a gun, you quite very possibly could be a part of those groups I just mentioned, and quite able to spend that kind of money on a gun, and quite willing and able to use the gun against another human. It's not like making a gun thousands of dollars prevents shit from happening--there's always going to be someone willing to sell it cheaper under the table to someone willing to buy it under the table. Smuggling will continue. And probably the response would be then is "omg he bought a gun illegally and is now out shooting clay pigeons omg omg omg he broke the law" rather than the cry of "omg he bought a gun illegally and is being used in gang wars and has killed two people"

That's what I mean by the focus.

My focus is not on the good responsible folks.
The criminals and nutjobs are the ones who must find it MUCH more difficult or impossible to get guns.
Cutting them off means cutting everyone off.
Sorry.

Again, it is the bad gun owners who who are going to ruin it for everyone.

 

[Tekate]

I have a friend, she had 3 sons, all good young men.. the middle one got in trouble at his school for helping out another classmate, his intentions were the best, he was 15. School calls Dad, Dad goes ballistic, son goes into Dad's room, unlocks Dad and Mom's guns, goes outside and shoots himself.

I'll take border problems, I'll take my chances on a robbery in my house, I'll take my chances period, if I could just have prevented this one death by a child.. a child who was such a high achiever, a beautiful human being, a sweet boy.. yes he may have killed himself anyway, but studies show that people who commit suicide over the course of minutes and have access to guns are more prone to die than those who do not have access to firearms.

A family destroyed, a life cut off.. a real shame. a tragedy. This triggering event led to his running for the gun. very very painful. I'm for a serious halt of gun sales in the USA, licensing, training.. and for parents/caregivers training on the signs of depression in kids.

 

[telephone89]

Some of the posts on this thread really make me If you want to continue wearing your blinders and keep trucking along, that's fine, but nothing is going to change, and shits just going to get worse. The USA is not the be all and end all of the world - there are places that are doing it better/smarter, and eventually the US will notice.

I agree with jordyonbass - there are alot of folks addicted to their guns. But the younger liberals are coming in, and mindsets will change as the generations turn. I'm sure there will still be gun toting folks around in the future, but they will be out numbered.
I just hope it happens before too many more people die needlessly.

 

[packrat]

I've never understood why the focus is on say...my husband and I, as a group of people who are "addicted" to their guns and don't want them taken away. Or my mom and dad. But yet...the gang members who attack each other and shoot each other and do drive by's and plenty of innocent people are shot daily, drug dealers who carry, people in like, the freaking mafia, nobody mentions that they kill people too. And you'd have a hard time taking them away from them. And yeah, if you have $34k to spend on a gun, you quite very possibly could be a part of those groups I just mentioned, and quite able to spend that kind of money on a gun, and quite willing and able to use the gun against another human. It's not like making a gun thousands of dollars prevents shit from happening--there's always going to be someone willing to sell it cheaper under the table to someone willing to buy it under the table. Smuggling will continue. And probably the response would be then is "omg he bought a gun illegally and is now out shooting clay pigeons omg omg omg he broke the law" rather than the cry of "omg he bought a gun illegally and is being used in gang wars and has killed two people"

That's what I mean by the focus.

My focus is not on the good responsible folks.
The criminals and nutjobs are the ones who must find it MUCH more difficult or impossible to get guns.
Cutting them off means cutting everyone off.
Sorry.

Again, it is the bad gun owners who who are going to ruin it for everyone.

And that's fine-but 99% of what I hear about isn't about the criminals and nutjobs, or the drug dealers or the ones smuggling or anything else-it's centered on a certain group of people, and it's centered around that certain group of people having a certain mindset. There's no cry of "take guns away from criminals" there's a cry of "you ignorant asses and your gun addiction are getting people killed". *my* guns aren't the ones out killing people. But that's where everyone looks-at me, suzy homemaker, who owns a gun. Much the same as I've posted about before, not one person talks about the kids who are killed every year in drive by's by people who own guns illegally. Or the people who happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time and get shot by people who have illegal weapons. The focus is always on the legally obtained firearms. Or the fact that "hey this guy broke into so and so's house and stole a gun and shot someone." ok..so the focus is on the gun, not the fact that if'n he'd not have broken into my home in the first place, nobody would've gotten shot. It's was begotten illegally-from someone who had it legally. That doesn't make the one who owned it legally at fault or the root of all evil or the cause of the problems. Focus.

 

[kenny]

I've never understood why the focus is on say...my husband and I, as a group of people who are "addicted" to their guns and don't want them taken away. Or my mom and dad. But yet...the gang members who attack each other and shoot each other and do drive by's and plenty of innocent people are shot daily, drug dealers who carry, people in like, the freaking mafia, nobody mentions that they kill people too. And you'd have a hard time taking them away from them. And yeah, if you have $34k to spend on a gun, you quite very possibly could be a part of those groups I just mentioned, and quite able to spend that kind of money on a gun, and quite willing and able to use the gun against another human. It's not like making a gun thousands of dollars prevents shit from happening--there's always going to be someone willing to sell it cheaper under the table to someone willing to buy it under the table. Smuggling will continue. And probably the response would be then is "omg he bought a gun illegally and is now out shooting clay pigeons omg omg omg he broke the law" rather than the cry of "omg he bought a gun illegally and is being used in gang wars and has killed two people"

That's what I mean by the focus.

My focus is not on the good responsible folks.
The criminals and nutjobs are the ones who must find it MUCH more difficult or impossible to get guns.
Cutting them off means cutting everyone off.
Sorry.

Again, it is the bad gun owners who who are going to ruin it for everyone.

And that's fine-but 99% of what I hear about isn't about the criminals and nutjobs, or the drug dealers or the ones smuggling or anything else-it's centered on a certain group of people, and it's centered around that certain group of people having a certain mindset. There's no cry of "take guns away from criminals" there's a cry of "you ignorant asses and your gun addiction are getting people killed". *my* guns aren't the ones out killing people. But that's where everyone looks-at me, suzy homemaker, who owns a gun. Much the same as I've posted about before, not one person talks about the kids who are killed every year in drive by's by people who own guns illegally. Or the people who happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time and get shot by people who have illegal weapons. The focus is always on the legally obtained firearms. Or the fact that "hey this guy broke into so and so's house and stole a gun and shot someone." ok..so the focus is on the gun, not the fact that if'n he'd not have broken into my home in the first place, nobody would've gotten shot. It's was begotten illegally-from someone who had it legally. That doesn't make the one who owned it legally at fault or the root of all evil or the cause of the problems. Focus.

The only way to keep guns out of the bad hands is to keep them out of all hands.