I've had it with guns

[CR McDivot]

1 minute ago, jbishop15 said:

So, your argument is quotes from the 18th and 19th centuries? 

Quotes of men who were well aware of the nature of unlimited government and evil men.

I will not try to convince you anymore, but if you truly believe in being unarmed, declare your own private "Gun Free Zone"...

Just don't try to enforce your foolish notions on those of us who cherish the God Given Rights of freeborn men.

[CoachB25]

2 minutes ago, CR McDivot said:

2 minutes ago, CR McDivot said:

Quotes of men who were well aware of the nature of unlimited government and evil men.

I will not try to convince you anymore, but if you truly believe in being unarmed, declare your own private "Gun Free Zone"...

Just don't try to enforce your foolish notions on those of us who cherish the God Given Rights of freeborn men.

Quotes of men who were well aware of the nature of unlimited government and evil men.

I will not try to convince you anymore, but if you truly believe in being unarmed, declare your own private "Gun Free Zone"...

Just don't try to enforce your foolish notions on those of us who cherish the God Given Rights of freeborn men.

I appreciated your quotes.  Thank you!  I might add that one contributor, Alexander Hamilton, died from a gunshot in a duel.  He didn't believe in dueling and let his intentions be known that he would not shoot at Aaron Burr.  So, Burr had time to aim and fire.  Still, Hamilton understood the importance of American citizens owning firearms as demonstrated by his quote. 

[CR McDivot]

8 minutes ago, CoachB25 said:

I appreciated your quotes.  Thank you!  I might add that one contributor, Alexander Hamilton, died from a gunshot in a duel.  He didn't believe in dueling and let his intentions be known that he would not shoot at Aaron Burr.  So, Burr had time to aim and fire.  Still, Hamilton understood the importance of American citizens owning firearms as demonstrated by his quote. 

I have my differences with Hamilton (Central Bank), but respect his unwavering stance on "Honor Killing"!

[gatsby47]

As a long time observer of American culture and noting that my country has a huge gun ownership without the same killing lust for people, it still amazes me the way American will go to great lengths to justify having the ability to kill one another with guns and rifles. That is their government rights and for the majority of the people it is one of the few "rights" they cite.  You as a collective set of people "LOVE" guns. It is in your DNA. Your heritage is the Wild West  Randolph Scott, Clint Eastwood style.   Very few of you admit to liking guns. Don't know why, It seems it is always hidden under the mantles of protection of family and property.  The roar that went up when Heston yelled out " Out of my cold dead hand". Chilling and eerie. Good Luck.  No place in America is safe any longer. TV coverage enables your crazies to see first hand how to become infamous.  I have witnessed Americans with guns in their golf bags. Wont be pranked by some crazies that is for sure.

Edited December 3, 2015 by gatsby47

[Gator Hazard]

Due to what is currently happening in our society we seem to be having this conversation about once a month.  It is the new energizer bunny.  No one is going to change anyone's opinions here.  We are all outraged, we are all upset and know it is a horrible thing but the discussion is going to be no different than it has in the past where guns and mass shootings have been debated extensively and exhaustively.

[pfnaas]

9 hours ago, Lihu said:

The caveat with more strict gun laws is that more criminals will own guns and the balance will tilt towards more heavily armed criminals.

It's not a simple answer because the USA is such a large country and there are many sources for any kind of weapon.

Please see Australia. They seem to have fixed their problem. Of course, they didn't have to deal with the NRA, so there was no real impediment to taking action.

[chspeed]

 

5 hours ago, Gator Hazard said:

Due to what is currently happening in our society we seem to be having this conversation about once a month.  It is the new energizer bunny.  No one is going to change anyone's opinions here.  We are all outraged, we are all upset and know it is a horrible thing but the discussion is going to be no different than it has in the past where guns and mass shootings have been debated extensively and exhaustively.

If this forum is a microcosm of the national debate, i still don't understand why this country can't make progress on this.

I think that even most gun proponents would agree that something should change. Deeper background checks, more waiting periods, restrictions on the types of guns, mandatory education, something. That doesn't mean taking away the right to own a gun.

[pfnaas]

9 hours ago, Lihu said:

Agree that in general there would be less deaths due to guns, but mass shootings could actually be even worse.

You seem to be suggesting the "good guy with guns" argument. I just don't think that argument has merit. In this country everybody has guns, good guys, bad guys... everybody. If the Congress wasn't owned and operated by the NRA they would ban folks on the "do not fly list' from purchasing guns. A bill to prevent that very thing was voted down, YESTERDAY, in the House.

I'm a gun owner and a former hunter. When I was a kid guns were about hunting, we all hunted, now it seems, guns are just about "personal protection". That's not working out very well.

7 hours ago, CR McDivot said:

Quotes of men who were well aware of the nature of unlimited government and evil men.

I will not try to convince you anymore, but if you truly believe in being unarmed, declare your own private "Gun Free Zone"...

Just don't try to enforce your foolish notions on those of us who cherish the God Given Rights of freeborn men.

I must have missed the part where God said anything about guns.

[Lihu]

Australia has a natural border of lots of water.

Congress is not owned by NRA, and we agree that guns are very easy to obtain in the USA.

The simple logic that follows is that gun laws will only reduce those owned by law abiding citizens.

Even with draconian laws, criminals will still easily get weapons.

Take away the possibility that when committing a criminal act the potential of a good citizen shooting back at you, and there would be nothing stopping that criminal, gang or cartel.

It will be worse.

[newtogolf]

Most violent criminals, terrorists and mass murderers that use guns are at their core, cowards.  Their crimes are based on and assume the odds are in their favor that their victims can't or won't shoot back.  Even gang attacks are carried out in cowardly fashion, usually in a drive by or sneak attack where innocent lives are put at risk.

If the government really wants to disarm this country they have to first convince the law abiding citizens who believe their guns are necessary to protect their homes and family that the government is serious about punishment of all criminals that use guns to commit crimes.

I'm not willing to trade the life of a loved one for some low life serving 5 - 10 years in an all expenses paid jail cell.  IMO, any discussions about a Federal gun ban have to be combined with a Federal death penalty for any crimes that result in death from use of a gun.  Criminals have to know their life is on the line when they choose to use a gun in committing a crime.

Until the Federal Government is willing to step up to that level of punishment I'm not willing to acknowledge or support any sort of gun ban.

[boogielicious]

7 minutes ago, Lihu said:

Australia has a natural border of lots of water.

Congress is not owned by NRA, and we agree that guns are very easy to obtain in the USA.

The simple logic that follows is that gun laws will only reduce those owned by law abiding citizens.

Even with draconian laws, criminals will still easily get weapons.

Take away the possibility that when committing a criminal act the potential of a good citizen shooting back at you, and there would be nothing stopping that criminal, gang or cartel.

It will be worse.

Then what do you suggest be done? Do you think the current level of violence is acceptable? Your point seems to be to do nothing.

What bugs me most is not the position that pro and anti gun advocates take, or even the arguments that are made. All points are worthy of discussion. The issue I see is that Congress will not even discuss the issue. It is like a taboo and they don't want to touch it.

This level of violence cannot be accepted. We've got a lot of bright people in this country. We should be able to figure out how to reduce it.

[Mr. Desmond]

7 hours ago, saevel25 said:

Then you have Norway, Finland, and Switzerland who had more mass shootings per 100,000 people than the Unites states. All of which have much more restrictive gun laws, and far less gun ownership. 

http://www.ijreview.com/2015/06/348197-obama-said-mass-shootings-dont-happen-in-advanced-countries-like-in-us-one-chart-proves-him-wrong/

and 

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/jun/22/barack-obama/barack-obama-correct-mass-killings-dont-happen-oth/

not to say that the USA wouldn't benefit from stricter gun laws, but the argument that more gun laws equal less mass shootings is false. Our country is basically 48 countries in one country (continental). Looking at rates is the best way to compare.

 

 

I think you overstate your case. As Mark Twain said, "there are lies, damned lies, and statistics." I think one must look at the culture as well as gun ownership, and then look at the mass shootings that occurred to get a realistic view of mass shootings. 

I think per capita stats do not get to the bottom of anything. One outlier incident in Norway skews the stats where one loner kills 77 people. In the USA, we tend to have these incidents more frequently, not once or twice per year, or once every 5 years as in developed countries.

We can use per capita stats even among US states and you see outliers with a relatively low rate of gun ownership but high incident of gun murders (Washington DC). So the problem is more than gun ownership - it's cultural, economic, and educational (or lack thereof).

I do have a question - if we have so many guns and people carrying them to defend themselves, which the NRA says will reduce gun violence, why isn't right to carry (RTC) working. In those states with RTC, violence with gun stats have increased, and the NRA apparently wants to make RTC a constitutional right.

Stats also show that the guns we keep in the house to defend ourselves are more likely to be used against us by a criminal who finds the gun by the nightstand while one is sleeping.

The NRA is fighting against safe storage of guns, or any regulation of guns -- The NRA lost their way, corrupted apparently by the same influences that corrupts others - money over common sense. The good they do is overwhelmed by their lack of common sense. They do not balance. They are a lobbyist group. We can't treat a lobbyist group as a credible common sense organization. They are corrupted.

I think we need to rein in the NRA for starters, and hopefully, use common sense. We don't need to disarm the public. That will not happen in our individualistic society, and I don't think if it would help reduce overall crime although it may reduce gun violence.

This problem we have on a daily basis of shootings with multiple victims is more than guns, although we need to close loopholes on background checks, evaluate who should own guns - should people on our no-fly or watch lists own guns? or the mentally incompetent, and administer current laws more efficiently and rein in the NRA. We also need to look at the way we talk with each other.

We have politicians practically endorsing violence against Planned Parenthood. Seriously? Let's ratchet down the hate talk and the extreme radio and television commentators that make money with hate. Why do we allow hate talk? It is irresponsible. Hold those people accountable. Let's look at mental health and encourage therapy. How about closer families and support? Our problem is more than guns. It is about who were are. 

Are we going to be accountable to each other and as a society or are we going to continue down a helter-skelter road. I don't know. What I do know is what we are doing, or not doing, is not working for us.

[mcanadiens]

A big part of the American concept (of itself anyway) has been that you trade safety for freedom. 

Constantly watching this stuff on the 24/7 news cycle is a bit rough. Maybe people want to be protected now.

 

[iacas]

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/03/opinion/on-guns-were-not-even-trying.html

Quote

We can improve public safety without eliminating guns. Switzerland has guns everywhere because nearly all men spend many years as part-time members of the armed forces (it’s said that Switzerland doesn’t have an army; it is an army). Yet while military weapons are ubiquitous, crime is low.

To nobody in particular, too, the NRA does not represent all gun owners. In my experience, few gun owners care what the NRA represents or says. Gun owners that I know are not against slightly longer waiting periods or background checks or education. We don't want it to be a ton of red tape, but a reasonable level is fine. After all, if a crazy person or someone in the heat of the moment of being fired or discovering his wife cheated on him or whatever can't get a gun, that's beneficial to gun owners too.

There are a lot - a lot - of responsible, perfectly safe gun owners in the U.S.

Gun violence as a whole remains an economic issue in the U.S.

Economics don't explain these recent mass shootings, but what role does the media glorification and fame-making play in other copycats planning their own "mass shooting event"? What role does their mental health play? What would having to wait an extra five days have done to their plans?

[pfnaas]

What really scares me are the concealed carry  folks. I get the impression that when they carry they are looking for a reason to paly with their toy and too many of them find  a reason. See the folks shooting .at shoplifters in mall parking lots.  Now there's a responsible gun owner.

[Jeremie Boop]

I keep thinking back to my posts in other threads about how very few legally purchased/obtained guns are used in violent crimes, and how increasing the difficulty of purchasing these guns will have little impact on these things. I do think that gun show sales need to use background checks, but outside of that, increasing the difficulty of a person legally purchasing firearms is not really going to help much.

[CoachB25]

I need to stay out of threads like this but will add one more opinion.  When talk turns to these tragedies, it is east to look up the numbers and cry out about how guns kill.  If one were to look at Chicago etc. you might understand that guns aren't the problem but instead a culture created by dependence upon the government where the male has been taken from the home so that the government assistance check can be granted, the deplorable level of education, a culture that exist where "snitches get stitches" and those in that area refuse to clean up their own neighborhoods by turning in the guilty.  This climate and culture is not about race.  It happens throughout America as witnessed first hand by me when I grew up.  More people will be killed this coming weekend in Chicago than in this senseless tragedy.  Yet, no one will take action or care.  I went to look at our local news for shootings this week.  We have had four.  One guy high on drugs tried to invade a house in a very small community where I teach.  He was shot.  One 13 year old was robbing cars and pulled a weapon.  He was shot.  One "robber" was shot by Police and we had one guy cleaning his gun when it went off and the Police were called.  There was only a slight injury in that case.  I live 20 miles east of St. Louis.

I have my opinions about what happened last night in San Bernadino.  I'll wait to see if I am correct.  I've done the math with the young lady.  She was married 8 or 9 months ago.  She gave birth to a child 6 months ago.  Her husband went to marry/meet her at their marriage.  The math doesn't add up.  Again, I'll wait for more info. 

[Lihu]

34 minutes ago, boogielicious said:

Then what do you suggest be done? Do you think the current level of violence is acceptable? Your point seems to be to do nothing.

What bugs me most is not the position that pro and anti gun advocates take, or even the arguments that are made. All points are worthy of discussion. The issue I see is that Congress will not even discuss the issue. It is like a taboo and they don't want to touch it.

This level of violence cannot be accepted. We've got a lot of bright people in this country. We should be able to figure out how to reduce it.

I think more people should volunteer for community service and deputy. People should not only depend upon the police to stop criminals. They need to help the police in all the ways they can.

They found the people who did this within a day thanks to some people who were more involved.

The issue is that the workers and other people on site did not react seriously enough. One person even thought it was a drill.

We all need to be more vigilant.