Opinions/Discussions on Guns

[GoIrish41]

Actually this is not the case:

A Gallup survey conducted just days after Newtown found that 58 percent of American adults support stricter laws covering the sale of firearms, up from 43 percent in 2011. Thirty-four percent believe the laws should be kept as they are, and only six percent believe they should be made less strict. By this measure, at least, the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School has strengthened support for gun control.

But advocates for stricter gun laws continue to face opposition on other fronts, according to a few other findings from Gallup's poll. Only 44 percent of respondents voiced support for a ban on semi-automatic weapons, one commonly-floated solution in the aftermath of Newtown. Fifty-one percent were opposed to such a ban, and both numbers have scarcely changed in the last few years.

Gallup's poll surveyed 1,038 adults between December 19 and 22 and had a margin of error of plus or minus four percent.

It would appear, based upon this poll, that these views are not as out of touch as the gun control crowd wants people to believe.

Did they ask about high capacity clips? It wasn't mentioned in this article: Gun Control Support Soars In New Polls

 

[Opus]

Did they ask about high capacity clips? It wasn't mentioned in this article: Gun Control Support Soars In New Polls

I don't know if the poll asked about the high capacity magazines. I didn't see them mentioned in the article I quoted.

 

[GoIrish41]

New gun control laws will NOT prevent someone from snapping. They will also not prevent them from obtaining any weapon of their choosing if they are determined to get one. Why do some people always believe that making new laws, for anything, is the "cure" for the problem? Fixing what is wrong with the current laws will have more of an affect than any new law will.

I'm in favor of all of these: Longer waiting periods, by the way I live in Arizona and we have no waiting period, more thorough background checks, eliminating the ability to buy a gun at a gun show without a waiting period, mandatory training for any new gun purchase, whether you own 15 guns or this is your first gun you have to take and pass mandatory training.

I'm also in favor of registering all weapons on a yearly basis. I would even be willing to pay a nominal registration fee to help offset the cost of background checks, classes etc.

Below was my first post in this thread. It appears that you agree with at least half of what I believe. I also like your ideas about annual registration and mandatory training for any new gun purchase. I don't care if you call it changing laws, altering laws, or chocolate cupcakes as long as some positive moves to curb the violence happens.

I would support background checks on the entire family of anyone purchasing a gun.

I believe the gun owner should be held criminally responsible for the use of a gun in a crime, no matter who weilds the gun.

I believe there should be extremely servere penalties for anyone who uses a firearm in the commission of a crime.

I support the elimination of the "gun show" exception to the requirement to undergo a waiting period to buy a gun.

I am for a waiting period of a month or longer to purchase a firearm.

I support a ban on all assault weapons.

I do not believe that anyone's "right" to own a gun for hunting or "self protection" outweighs the right of a student to go to school, or for a teenager to go to the movies without the fear of being murdered.

 

[GoIrish41]

I don't know if the poll asked about the high capacity magazines. I didn't see them mentioned in the article I quoted.

I saw some polling yesterday on this, but I can't remember where I saw it. Something like 69 or 70 percent wanted to see a ban on them.

 

[HereComeTheIrish]

Below was my first post in this thread. It appears that you agree with at least half of what I believe. I also like your ideas about annual registration and mandatory training for any new gun purchase. I don't care if you call it changing laws, altering laws, or chocolate cupcakes as long as some positive moves to curb the violence happens.

Hey bud.... I feel ya, and I'm with ya. This is a tough, hot button topic right now. That said.... Go to :48 of the video.
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/V1PqslRMWaE" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Nothing is gained by trading shots with brothers... Nothing gets solved.

 

[Bogtrotter07]

Actually, it is.

We can trade stats if you want, or you can just trust me.

Do you remember what you were trying to say, about the number of people killed by police outnumbering those that murdered illegally?

With that kind of stretch, I can't think of anyone I would trust on anything.

 

[no.1IrishFan]

Do you remember what you were trying to say, about the number of people killed by police outnumbering those that murdered illegally?With that kind of stretch, I can't think of anyone I would trust on anything.

You might be thinking of another poster, I don't think it was me that said that.

 

[JadeBrecks]

would support background checks on the entire family of anyone purchasing a gun.

I believe the gun owner should be held criminally responsible for the use of a gun in a crime, no matter who weilds the gun.

I believe there should be extremely servere penalties for anyone who uses a firearm in the commission of a crime.

I support the elimination of the "gun show" exception to the requirement to undergo a waiting period to buy a gun.

I am for a waiting period of a month or longer to purchase a firearm.

I support a ban on all assault weapons.

I do not believe that anyone's "right" to own a gun for hunting or "self protection" outweighs the right of a student to go to school, or for a teenager to go to the movies without the fear of being murdered.

So you believe it is impossible for someone with a mentally unstable relative to safely own a firearm? You are going to punish that person for something outside of there control?
I could be wrong but if Im not mistaken you are already responsible for your firearm if you didn't do anything to protect it from somebody. The only question I have is where do you draw the line? I have a nice fire safe for my guns. Still if I had 30 min and an angle grinder I could be in it. 30 mins is not much to ask for when Im at work.
There are severe penalties for using a gun in a crime. The problem with a suicide shooter is it won't matter what the penalties are because they know they will never see them.
What will a waiting period do? These firearms being used were stolen. Do you think the thief will turn the guns in after stealing them to comply with the proper waiting period? All you are doing is slowing down law abiding citizens.
Everyone will call me crazy for recommending this but I believe a big step in the help of these people is to eliminate "gun free" zones. All you are doing is disarming law abiding citizens. The people preforming these shootings see a slaughter zone because they know nobody in the school has the ability to legally carry a firearm. And if you want to tell me that it won't slow or stop a mass shooter look at the Oregon mall shooting. It was stooped by a law abiding concealed carry permit holder. Where is that in the news? Buried.
Oregon Mall Shooting Stopped By Licensed Gun Carrier

 

[chicago51]

Some items from a Havard study on firearms
Firearms Research - Harvard Injury Control Research Center - Harvard School of Public Health

Guns in relation to homicides: Get this, they found that guns equalls more homicides. Homicide - Firearms Research - Harvard Injury Control Research Center - Harvard School of Public Health

Guns in relation to sucides: More guns equals more sucides
Suicide - Firearms Research - Harvard Injury Control Research Center - Harvard School of Public Health

Guns in self defense: Guns are more likely to be used to intimidate than in self defense. Those that do own guns are more than likely to be a victim of an accident than to they would be to use the gun in self defense.
Gun Threats and Self-Defense Gun Use - Firearms Research - Harvard Injury Control Research Center - Harvard School of Public Health

 

[chicago51]

Well...I say we get the smartest people in the world, and figure out how to convince you guys that you can't fix gun violence...

Ending gun violence is not plausible but you can make it harder for the criminal. Yes there will always be criminals that go around whatever laws we make. Right now though there is nothing. It is very easy criminals right now. I'm saying make it harder.

My solutions I have proposed have never been about ending gun violence. They have been about curbing gun violence in the right direction.

What's the matter are you afraid if we tried something it might actually work?

BTW I actually think some folks are afraid that if we tried something that it would work and that may lead to more measures. They think it is possible then eventually we take guns away from citizens competely. They think that once you put one restriction in place before it won't stop there. That is the typical scare tactics for ya.

 

[GoIrish41]

1. So you believe it is impossible for someone with a mentally unstable relative to safely own a firearm? You are going to punish that person for something outside of there control?
2. I could be wrong but if Im not mistaken you are already responsible for your firearm if you didn't do anything to protect it from somebody. The only question I have is where do you draw the line? I have a nice fire safe for my guns. Still if I had 30 min and an angle grinder I could be in it. 30 mins is not much to ask for when Im at work.
3. There are severe penalties for using a gun in a crime. The problem with a suicide shooter is it won't matter what the penalties are because they know they will never see them.
4. What will a waiting period do? These firearms being used were stolen. Do you think the thief will turn the guns in after stealing them to comply with the proper waiting period? All you are doing is slowing down law abiding citizens.
5. Everyone will call me crazy for recommending this but I believe a big step in the help of these people is to eliminate "gun free" zones. All you are doing is disarming law abiding citizens. The people preforming these shootings see a slaughter zone because they know nobody in the school has the ability to legally carry a firearm. And if you want to tell me that it won't slow or stop a mass shooter look at the Oregon mall shooting. It was stooped by a law abiding concealed carry permit holder. Where is that in the news? Buried.
Oregon Mall Shooting Stopped By Licensed Gun Carrier

1. What you view as a punishment, I look at it as protecting the public. All rights have limits and those limits usually are drawn at the point where personal rights have a negative affect on others. Clearly, when those who shouldn't have access to guns get access, bad things can happen. Every time one of these mass shootings happens, there are discussions surrounding mental illness and limiting the access of weapons to those who don't have the mental capacity to handle them. This is one way of reducing that access.
2. There are likely exceptions to the rule, but I have never heard of a gun owner ever being prosecuted when his/her gun was used in the commission of a crime by someone else. I believe that people would take more care in securing their weapons if they knew this was the outcome of not doing so. I commend you for locking your guns up in a safe, and think that if everyone did something like this, it would help to reduce instances in which the wrong people get their hands on guns.
3. I believe the penalties are not severe enough to deter gun violence. The penalties should serve as a deterent and, right now, the laws don't appear to have that affect. And yes, this would not deter a person who intends to kill and then take his own life.
4. Slow down law abiding citizens from what? There are numerous cases in which guns are purchased and within days used in the commission of crimes. Longer waiting periods might give some of these folks time to think through the consequences of their actions for, lets say, shooting their girlfriend after a breakup, or going into work and opening fire after not getting a promotion.
5. There were security guards at Columbine that didn't seem to do much good.
Columbine High School Had Armed Guard During Massacre In 1999
In 1999, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold killed 15 people and wounded 23 more at Columbine High School. The destruction occurred despite the fact that there was an armed security officer at the school and another one nearby -- exactly what LaPierre argued on Friday was the answer to stopping "a bad guy with a gun."

Deputy Neil Gardner was a 15-year veteran of the Jefferson County, Colo., Sheriff’s Office assigned as the uniformed officer at Columbine. According to an account compiled by the police department, Gardner fired on Harris but was unsuccessful in stopping him:

Gardner, seeing Harris working with his gun, leaned over the top of the car and fired four shots. He was 60 yards from the gunman. Harris spun hard to the right and Gardner momentarily thought he had hit him. Seconds later, Harris began shooting again at the deputy.
After the exchange of gunfire, Harris ran back into the building. Gardner was able to get on the police radio and called for assistance from other Sheriff’s units. "Shots in the building. I need someone in the south lot with me."


The second officer was Deputy Paul Smoker, a motorcycle patrolman who was near the school writing a speeding ticket. When he heard a dispatch of a woman injured at the high school, he responded. He, too, fired at Harris but didn't stop him.

 

[Bogtrotter07]

Some items from a Havard study on firearms
Firearms Research - Harvard Injury Control Research Center - Harvard School of Public Health

Guns in relation to homicides: Get this, they found that guns equalls more homicides. Homicide - Firearms Research - Harvard Injury Control Research Center - Harvard School of Public Health

Guns in relation to sucides: More guns equals more sucides
Suicide - Firearms Research - Harvard Injury Control Research Center - Harvard School of Public Health

Guns in self defense: Guns are more likely to be used to intimidate than in self defense. Those that do own guns are more than likely to be a victim of an accident than to they would be to use the gun in self defense.
Gun Threats and Self-Defense Gun Use - Firearms Research - Harvard Injury Control Research Center - Harvard School of Public Health

Some of us posting on this thread, started with "Bushmaster is owned by Freedom which is owned by Cerberus." We continued with, "The NRA as an organization is a wing of the gun manufacturers marketing department."

As a lobby the NRA has done everything it could to among other things suppress all good research from the CDC and statistics from ATF and the FBI that show high gun ownership attracts death and violence. Because I mistook one posters point for another's; I went back and reread. All I got from the pro gun poster group is the same cynical fatalism (it has all been discovered, or created) that you see in any black and white argument, on any issue, or an attempt to muddle the facts because none of the facts support the pro gun argument.

I own a number of weapons, from my granddaddy, "Wild Bill's" Colt Commander, (two owners, 104 years of service), to my personal carry, a S&W 686+, to weapons I would rather only describe as long guns of the bolt action and semi-automatic variety.

Here is a trivia question for you: What caliber results in the greatest number of gun deaths in the United States?

 

[FLDomer]

Some of us posting on this thread, started with "Bushmaster is owned by Freedom which is owned by Cerberus." We continued with, "The NRA as an organization is a wing of the gun manufacturers marketing department."

As a lobby the NRA has done everything it could to among other things suppress all good research from the CDC and statistics from ATF and the FBI that show high gun ownership attracts death and violence. Because I mistook one posters point for another's; I went back and reread. All I got from the pro gun poster group is the same cynical fatalism (it has all been discovered, or created) that you see in any black and white argument, on any issue, or an attempt to muddle the facts because none of the facts support the pro gun argument.

I own a number of weapons, from my granddaddy, "Wild Bill's" Colt Commander, (two owners, 104 years of service), to my personal carry, a S&W 686+, to weapons I would rather only describe as long guns of the bolt action and semi-automatic variety.

Here is a trivia question for you: What caliber results in the greatest number of gun deaths in the United States?

My guess would be the 22 cal.

 

[Bogtrotter07]

My guess would be the 22 cal.

My personal jailer is the smartest jailer in the country, "Gump, you're a genius!"

 

[FLDomer]

My personal jailer is the smartest jailer in the country, "Gump, you're a genius!"

Thank you kind sir!

 

[brandonnash]

1. What you view as a punishment, I look at it as protecting the public. All rights have limits and those limits usually are drawn at the point where personal rights have a negative affect on others. Clearly, when those who shouldn't have access to guns get access, bad things can happen. Every time one of these mass shootings happens, there are discussions surrounding mental illness and limiting the access of weapons to those who don't have the mental capacity to handle them. This is one way of reducing that access.
2. There are likely exceptions to the rule, but I have never heard of a gun owner ever being prosecuted when his/her gun was used in the commission of a crime by someone else. I believe that people would take more care in securing their weapons if they knew this was the outcome of not doing so. I commend you for locking your guns up in a safe, and think that if everyone did something like this, it would help to reduce instances in which the wrong people get their hands on guns.
3. I believe the penalties are not severe enough to deter gun violence. The penalties should serve as a deterent and, right now, the laws don't appear to have that affect. And yes, this would not deter a person who intends to kill and then take his own life.
4. Slow down law abiding citizens from what? There are numerous cases in which guns are purchased and within days used in the commission of crimes. Longer waiting periods might give some of these folks time to think through the consequences of their actions for, lets say, shooting their girlfriend after a breakup, or going into work and opening fire after not getting a promotion.
5. There were security guards at Columbine that didn't seem to do much good.
Columbine High School Had Armed Guard During Massacre In 1999
In 1999, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold killed 15 people and wounded 23 more at Columbine High School. The destruction occurred despite the fact that there was an armed security officer at the school and another one nearby -- exactly what LaPierre argued on Friday was the answer to stopping "a bad guy with a gun."

Deputy Neil Gardner was a 15-year veteran of the Jefferson County, Colo., Sheriff&#146;s Office assigned as the uniformed officer at Columbine. According to an account compiled by the police department, Gardner fired on Harris but was unsuccessful in stopping him:

Gardner, seeing Harris working with his gun, leaned over the top of the car and fired four shots. He was 60 yards from the gunman. Harris spun hard to the right and Gardner momentarily thought he had hit him. Seconds later, Harris began shooting again at the deputy.
After the exchange of gunfire, Harris ran back into the building. Gardner was able to get on the police radio and called for assistance from other Sheriff&#146;s units. "Shots in the building. I need someone in the south lot with me."


The second officer was Deputy Paul Smoker, a motorcycle patrolman who was near the school writing a speeding ticket. When he heard a dispatch of a woman injured at the high school, he responded. He, too, fired at Harris but didn't stop him.

The officer was not on the campus when the shooting broke out. He was never closer to 60 yards from the shooters when he made it back to the campus. Also when he fired on the shooters they ran back in and promptly killed themselves. I like the way key points are left out. So if they had not been there the shooting probably would have continued and more lives lost.

 

[GoIrish41]

The officer was not on the campus when the shooting broke out. He was never closer to 60 yards from the shooters when he made it back to the campus. Also when he fired on the shooters they ran back in and promptly killed themselves. I like the way key points are left out. So if they had not been there the shooting probably would have continued and more lives lost.

I think the larger point is that he didn't deter the shooting from happening in the first place as the NRA and several posters on here have suggested would happen if an armed security guard was put in every school. We can debate over what actually happened at Columbine that day, and whether the two officers responded to the shooting stopped the violence and saved more lives, but they certainly didn't keep it from happening.

 

[Irish#1]

The officer was not on the campus when the shooting broke out. He was never closer to 60 yards from the shooters when he made it back to the campus. Also when he fired on the shooters they ran back in and promptly killed themselves. I like the way key points are left out. So if they had not been there the shooting probably would have continued and more lives lost.

This is a perfect illustration of why putting armed guards or police in every school won't work. The only way to ensure an intruder to the school is met asap is to have a guard/policeman at every door with an alternate who can relieve the others when they need a break. I don't know of any school district that can afford that.

 

[brandonnash]

I think the larger point is that he didn't deter the shooting from happening in the first place as the NRA and several posters on here have suggested would happen if an armed security guard was put in every school. We can debate over what actually happened at Columbine that day, and whether the two officers responded to the shooting stopped the violence and saved more lives, but they certainly didn't keep it from happening.

No they didn't, but there are some people that are still upright thanks to them that probably wouldn't be.

I never said it would deter every shooting, it would absolutely deter some. And those that it didn't deter would probably end up like this, where some are shot but more would have been if they were not there.

The deputy at my son's school is shared with another school 5 minutes down the road. I can't say for sure why that officer was not on the scene but he could have been covering another school. Some of the officers we have working schools have to take delinquents to juvenile detention. That's another possibility.

Point is lives were saved by armed police on the scene.

 

[BobD]

I don't know what's more depressing, listening to people trying to justify their right to owning instruments of death and destruction or the sad fact that odds are nothing in America will change anyways.

I think some of them really believe their own fantasy of saving the world with their 9mm hidden in the nightstand, like the little boy in "A Christmas Story" or this argument really cracks me up...the answer to less shootings is more guns.

 

[chicago51]

I don't know what's more depressing, listening to people trying to justify their right to owning instruments of death and destruction or the sad fact that odds are nothing in America will change anyways.

I think some of them really believe their own fantasy of saving the world with their 9mm hidden in the nightstand, like the little boy in "A Christmas Story" or this argument really cracks me up...the answer to less shootings is more guns.

What is crazy is that they way we are headed it is going to be harder to vote than it will be to get a gun.

 

[GoIrish41]

I don't know what's more depressing, listening to people trying to justify their right to owning instruments of death and destruction or the sad fact that odds are nothing in America will change anyways.

I think some of them really believe their own fantasy of saving the world with their 9mm hidden in the nightstand, like the little boy in "A Christmas Story" or this argument really cracks me up...the answer to less shootings is more guns.

I agree BobD. The sad fact is that we probably can't unbake this cake. Aweful laws and questionable constitutional interpretations havefor years put excessively powerful weapons in the hands of almost anyone who wants them. The time to do something about this was probably 30 years ago. Now there are just too many of these guns out there to do anything really meaningful.

That said, it is a dispicable thought to me that this country should throw its collective hands in the air and say "there is nothing we can do about it." I think there are things that could be done that might help. I don't think the problem can ever be completely solved, but every life that might be saved is worth the effort. This country's excessive enthusiasm about guns is deeply troubling -- from the movies we watch, to the games our kids play, to the horrific news reports we must watch all too often about these tragic events. There are a great many wonderful things about this country -- this problem is a cancer in our society.

 

[chicago51]

I agree BobD. The sad fact is that we probably can't unbake this cake. Aweful laws and questionable constitutional interpretations havefor years put excessively powerful weapons in the hands of almost anyone who wants them. The time to do something about this was probably 30 years ago. Now there are just too many of these guns out there to do anything really meaningful.

That said, it is a dispicable thought to me that this country should throw its collective hands in the air and say "there is nothing we can do about it." I think there are things that could be done that might help. I don't think the problem can ever be completely solved, but every life that might be saved is worth the effort. This country's excessive enthusiasm about guns is deeply troubling -- from the movies we watch, to the games our kids play, to the horrific news reports we must watch all too often about these tragic events. There are a great many wonderful things about this country -- this problem is a cancer in our society.

That is what we have been trying to say to all the folks that keep saying "welll that is not going stop people". No we can't stop everyone but we can make it harder. Right now it is so easy for crazies and the baddies to get to whatever they want in terms of guns and ammunittion.

We do need to take action and not bury our heads in the sand. Some measures may not be overly successful but even if it saves just one life it is worth it.

I think some realistic things are background checks for guns period, no more purchases without them even at gun shows. Reinstate the assault weapons ban with some team. Outlaw high capacity magazines.

As I said earlier I think some folks are afraid that the ideas I mentioned above will actually be at least partially successful. They are afraid that the government is then going to go further and to take all their guns away. It is typical scare tactics that are used not just with guns but on many polictical issues.

 

[chicago51]

My thoughts on arming folks at schools:

Schools are having a tough time as it is giving students and teachers the propper resources because of funding. Now we won't to spend more government funds to either arm teachers and school adminstrators or to have armed officers at the school? Now heaven forbid we raise anybody's taxes even millionares so that means more money and resources being taken away from the kids.

You really want to solve gun violence solve inequality and education. Inequality in society and violence have a positively corrallating linear realationship. Public education is supposed to be the great equalizer. Impoverished areas don't the funds or the resources to make public education that equalizer. I was fortunate enough to have parents that could afford to send me to Catholic school and then move out to the subburbs when I started high school. Some folks though don't have it very good. Better education and more equality in society will lead to less violence.

 

[Irish#1]

My thoughts on arming folks at schools:

Schools are having a tough time as it is giving students and teachers the propper resources because of funding. Now we won't to spend more government funds to either arm teachers and school adminstrators or to have armed officers at the school? Now heaven forbid we raise anybody's taxes even millionares so that means more money and resources being taken away from the kids.

You really want to solve gun violence solve inequality and education. Inequality in society and violence have a positively corrallating linear realationship. Public education is supposed to be the great equalizer. Impoverished areas don't the funds or the resources to make public education that equalizer. I was fortunate enough to have parents that could afford to send me to Catholic school and then move out to the subburbs when I started high school. Some folks though don't have it very good. Better education and more equality in society will lead to less violence.

We can't allow prayer in school anymore, but we can put more guns in them! How sad.

 

[Opus]

I don't know what's more depressing, listening to people trying to justify their right to owning instruments of death and destruction or the sad fact that odds are nothing in America will change anyways.

I think some of them really believe their own fantasy of saving the world with their 9mm hidden in the nightstand, like the little boy in "A Christmas Story" or this argument really cracks me up...the answer to less shootings is more guns.

What's depressing to me is that many of the gun control crowd actually believe that I must justify my right to own a gun. I don't need to justify to anyone why I choose to own a gun or how many guns I choose to own. In the United States of America it is legal to own guns. Everyone has the right to choose for themselves if they want to own guns or not. Just because "you" choose not to does not give "you" the right to interfere with my right to own them.

I don't live in a fantasy world where I believe that my owning guns will save the world. I certainly hope that I will never need to use any of my guns in a self defense situation. However I will continue to purchase any gun, that is legal, that I decide I want to own.

I believe that there are many things that can be done to help control gun violence and I'm in favor of strengthening the current laws/regulations regarding the purchasing/owning of guns as I've stated many times in this thread. I will never be in favor of a new law banning guns that are currently legal. I know the gun control people believe that banning semiautomatic weapons will make it harder for "crazies" to obtain one, I don't believe that is the case. In my opinion banning guns that are currently legal will only hurt the law abiding citizen who may have wanted to purchase that weapon.

 

[NankerPhelge]

I guess nobody is really interested in having a conversation any deeper than "let's ban guns" or "let's not ban guns" (or a million different variations on that same theme) in attempting to address the issue of why we have an ever increasing number of lunatics running around in our society hell-bent on killing people. Oh, well. Carry on with what makes you feel good, and forget about a conversation about any real changes in this sick culture that might actually make a real difference in addressing the real problems.

Having said that, if armed security guards at schools are such a "crazy" idea, I suppose everyone that thinks so would demand that the Sidwell Friends School where our illustrious President sends his kids, along with a number of others of the "elite" class, would get rid of the eleven (soon to be twelve) armed security guards that regularly patrol the school. They must think its a pretty good idea, or they wouldn't be doing it. I guess their kids must be more valuable than ours.

 

[chicago51]

What's depressing to me is that many of the gun control crowd actually believe that I must justify my right to own a gun. I don't need to justify to anyone why I choose to own a gun or how many guns I choose to own. In the United States of America it is legal to own guns. Everyone has the right to choose for themselves if they want to own guns or not. Just because "you" choose not to does not give "you" the right to interfere with my right to own them.

I don't live in a fantasy world where I believe that my owning guns will save the world. I certainly hope that I will never need to use any of my guns in a self defense situation. However I will continue to purchase any gun, that is legal, that I decide I want to own.

I believe that there are many things that can be done to help control gun violence and I'm in favor of strengthening the current laws/regulations regarding the purchasing/owning of guns as I've stated many times in this thread. I will never be in favor of a new law banning guns that are currently legal. I know the gun control people believe that banning semiautomatic weapons will make it harder for "crazies" to obtain one, I don't believe that is the case. In my opinion banning guns that are currently legal will only hurt the law abiding citizen who may have wanted to purchase that weapon.

I'm not talking about taking away all guns.

Why wouldn't it be harder? It is not like these back alley channels for illegal guns are common knowledge among the general population. Will some of the baddies and crazies know and/or will find out about illegal gun outlets? Yes. The key word there being some. There are some who won't be able to access illegal gun sellers. We can argue all day about how much "some" is. You can't tell though 100% of crazies that got guns legally before will be able to get them illegally after we instituted a ban on semi-automatics and high capacity magazines. No we can not stop gun violence but if we can curb just a little I will consider that success. Now if you don't think saving just one innoccent child's life is worth you needing to have a gun that allows you pretend that you are with the special forces taking down ***** Bin ***** then I can't help you.

 

[chicago51]

I guess nobody is really interested in having a conversation any deeper than "let's ban guns" or "let's not ban guns" (or a million different variations on that same theme) in attempting to address the issue of why we have an ever increasing number of lunatics running around in our society hell-bent on killing people. Oh, well. Carry on with what makes you feel good, and forget about a conversation about any real changes in this sick culture that might actually make a real difference in addressing the real problems.

Having said that, if armed security guards at schools are such a "crazy" idea, I suppose everyone that thinks so would demand that the Sidwell Friends School where our illustrious President sends his kids, along with a number of others of the "elite" class, would get rid of the eleven (soon to be twelve) armed security guards that regularly patrol the school. They must think its a pretty good idea, or they wouldn't be doing it. I guess their kids must be more valuable than ours.

Sidwell is a private school that is free to spend the money how they choose. Based on budget limitations in having armed officers in every school is not practical based on limited funds. Especially when it is a tragedy for millionares to have their taxes raised one dime.

Now as far as Sidwell and the elite class goes. I am all for equalizing the public school system (again Obama's kids goes to a private school which puts them outside the realm of state funds). In fact as I mentioned in an earlier post of mine equalizing the public schools will help to with future gun violence. Equality and gun violence do have a linear relationship. Better education leads to better socio economic equality which will help lower gun violence.

 

[GoIrish41]

I guess nobody is really interested in having a conversation any deeper than "let's ban guns" or "let's not ban guns" (or a million different variations on that same theme) in attempting to address the issue of why we have an ever increasing number of lunatics running around in our society hell-bent on killing people. Oh, well. Carry on with what makes you feel good, and forget about a conversation about any real changes in this sick culture that might actually make a real difference in addressing the real problems.

Having said that, if armed security guards at schools are such a "crazy" idea, I suppose everyone that thinks so would demand that the Sidwell Friends School where our illustrious President sends his kids, along with a number of others of the "elite" class, would get rid of the eleven (soon to be twelve) armed security guards that regularly patrol the school. They must think its a pretty good idea, or they wouldn't be doing it. I guess their kids must be more valuable than ours.

Perhaps you haven't read back through this thread. There have been discussions about entertainment media depicting violence through TV, video games and movies. There have been discussions on increasing mental illness awareness and treatment. There have been, as Chicago just pointed out, discussions on socio economic influences on gun violence. I'm sure everyone joins me in welcoming your participation in this thread, but being a johnny come lately and chastising everyone for their narrow perspective is a bit over the top.