Log In | Register
LORDFLUFFY
A relative absolutist, principaled miscreant, fervent moderate and opinionated idealist.
Articles Posted: 20; Links Seeded: 11
Member Since: 9/2008Last Seen: 11/06/2009
Member Since: 9/2008Last Seen: 11/06/2009
180 Comments
PrintHey, Idiots with Guns... Knock it Off!
News Type: Opinion — Wed Apr 8, 2009 10:40 AM EDT
advertisement
After the past couple of weeks, being pro-second amendment is a hard sell.
Six dead at a nursing home in North Carolina. Three dead police officers in Pennsylvania. A mother kills her son, and then herself. A man kills his estranged wife and their children. Another shoots his five kids. One dead, four wounded at a church camp. Fourteen dead in Binghamton, New York.
Questions follow, as they always do. "Why?", "How could this be prevented?" And of course, "Do we still need to have guns?".
The question of second amendment rights is not just a wedge issue, it's almost a matter of faith. The minute you take a stand on the subject, you are either a cowardly, gun grabbing fool or a shotgun toting, militia wingnut. It seems a topic for which there are no soft positions, no convenient middle ground.
To believe, in the light of all the recent tragedies, that the issue can be simply boiled down to "guns don't kill people, people do" is to ignore the fact that the gun really helps. A person with just their fists, with a knife, with a sword, with a chainsaw or with a bow is certainly able to spread death and mayhem. But ask anyone if they would prefer to go to war with anything in that list or a firearm and the answer is obvious.
But does this alone stand as proof that we need to curtail, rewrite or end the right to keep and bear arms? In a word, no.
You see, to believe that we shouldn't be allowed to keep guns is to ignore another fact: people with guns are shooting other people. The cat is out of the bag, both Adam and Eve have had their apple dippers and there is no regaining our virginity. Or in other less metaphorical terms, unless you can remove guns completely from the earth, take them from the hands of civilians, police officers and the military, death by firearm will occur and probably to someone who didn't deserve it. Removing some of them only dictates who will be shot and who will do the shooting.
Guns are part of America in a way few other artifacts are. In the US, we pride ourselves on self reliance and independence. At our best, we make our livings honestly and are able to say that what we have, we got ourselves. We also value the ability to defend our property, lives and livelihoods. Much of that is done by voting and through the due process of law. But in the rare and extreme case, that must be done with the force of arms.
Removing the means to defend ourselves effectively is saying that we no longer feel that we are in no way able to do so and must delegate our safety to others. It is a subtle surrender, a white flag held over our personal responsibility.
But certainly, we can't go on like this.
As long as one man thinks he has cause to do harm to another, people will kill other people. They will do it to with the most effective means at their disposal and they will do it to the unsuspecting and innocent. This is something that cannot be avoided in any society where you allow people to be free.
For every person shot in a bar, there's an old woman who kept herself from getting robbed or worse by pulling a gun on her assailant. For every Seung-Hui Cho, who shot 32 people at Virginia Tech, there is a Suzanna Hupp, a staunch advocate of concealed carry whose parents were killed in a mass shooting while she had left her handgun, in accordance with state law, in her car. No tragedy is insignificant and every time someone dies in a shooting like those described above, the incident fuels the arguments of both those who feel guns are the problem and those who feel guns are the solution.
To give my own pedigree, I'm a gun owner. I keep pistols and at least one long arm and I intend to expand my collection. I've also seen what they can do. My father was shot to death in my living room when I was six. I had a friend who accidentally shot himself in the head in front me, with an "unloaded" gun no less, and lived to talk about it later (he used to wear the bullet around his neck for luck). I was less than a mile away from the VT shooting and spent that day in horror watching the numbers go up. I've spent an inordinate amount of time familiarizing myself with the workings of weapons that I will never own.
When I talk about guns, I know from whence I speak.
The only way that this can be dealt with maturely is to admit that both sides have a point and to work out a compromise. The laws in place are not being enforced effectively. The pro gun crowd must give the government leeway to make sure that happens. The gun control crowd needs to recognize that this isn't a simple or black and white issue and should educate themselves before stating what guns should or shouldn't be available. Both sides need to understand how deep the emotions on this run and try to see it from the other guy's perspective.
The ironic part of this whole argument is that both sides want the same thing: For our streets to be safer. For no one to needlessly die. The motives involved are, for the most part, pure.
But for the matter of second amendment rights in America to be resolved, we have to stop letting it be such a partisan, quarrelsome issue. We have to put away the slogans and rhetoric. We have to speak to each other like we're neighbors. We have to respect that each American has the right to his opinion and to work towards shaping society into something better than it is now. We have the right, so long as we hurt no one in the process, to live as we choose and we have the right to choose how we live, but only for ourselves.
So to the anti-gun crowd I say, study and listen. To the gun toting crowd I say to respect the concerns of your fellow Americans. And most importantly, I implore the people who have most contributed to this debate, the idiots who could only speak with the report of a gun, if you are going to do something stupid... please leave your weapons at home.
41 Votes- Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.
Published to:
- LordFluffy's Column, All of Newsvine
- Groups: Free Thinkers, Guns and gun control
- Regions: none
 | Licensed to kill? Gunmen in killings had permits | Wed Apr 8 | 10 |
- Public Discussion (180)
- Public Discussion (0)
- Free Thinkers
- Guns and gun control
What's this?
Who's leading the conversation?
This visualization below allows you to see the impact that each user
has on the current conversation.
The top row contains the group of users who have had the most impact, the 2nd
row the group of users who have had the 2nd most impact (et cetera).
Users with similar impact are grouped together, and the average score of the group
is shown to the left of the group. The author of the article is also shown on the
left, in their corresponding group.
Each user's score is based on the number of comments the user has made plus the
number of votes their comments have received. The scores are calculated relative
one another, so while their absolute value is not particularly important, their
relative difference does indicate a larger difference in impact on the conversation.
117
55
17
5.6
{"commentId":6375216,"authorDomain":"enigmaobscura"}
Nice article. Unfortunately, the political right in this country doesn't understand what a compromise is, so the debate never even gets off the ground.
{"commentId":6375216,"threadId":"549101","contentId":"2655636","authorDomain":"enigmaobscura"}
- 12 votes
#1 - Wed Apr 8, 2009 11:10 AM EDT{"commentId":6378045,"authorDomain":"dreamer"}
Enigma:
It isn't just the "right" that will not listen. The "left" will not listen as well. Also, this isn't about what party you belong to-it is about how we need to protect our constitutional rights.
I don't understand why everything has to fall in these "party" lines. I am an American-neither left nor right. I believe that I should have the right to own a gun. I believe that persons should be able to choose who they have a relationship with (glbt rights), I am pro-choice. Huh-tell me where I fit in? That is right-AMERICAN. Just because I think differently doesn't mean I should always be classified in a certain way. We all think differently on different issues. This country needs to get past "party" lines as a whole and get back to America as a united country.
{"commentId":6378045,"threadId":"549101","contentId":"2655636","authorDomain":"dreamer"}
- 9 votes
{"commentId":6379442,"authorDomain":"greengrowtheganji"}
This country needs to get past "party" lines as a whole and get back to America as a united country.
i think the hardest thing about this is that it requires people to look outside of what theyve been told and study what they are concerned with ( speaking generally )
one of my favorite quotes from a movie ( Catch Me If You Can ) is "people only know what you tell them "
people today are too lazy and absorbed into what they think is right that they let others dictate what they think and they dont consider anything beyond that
it is in itself, an enigma that (personally) most people arent able to decipher
{"commentId":6379442,"threadId":"549101","contentId":"2655636","authorDomain":"greengrowtheganji"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":6380548,"authorDomain":"wmolaw"}
Lord:
It is a partisan issue. But more importantly, it is a constitutional issue.
Tell me, should we water down the 4th amendment, or the 13th amendment, or the 14th amendment?
This is really the issue. If an alteration in the constitutional right set forth in the Second Amendment is to be altered, then let's alter the second amendment. Hell, there's two ways to do that.
The problem is that once you begin to seriously alter the rights reserved to the people under the Bill of Rights, any amendment, then the creep and slippery slope begins and in no time you have no right left at all under that amendment.
Know what, I would have absolutely no problem with a constitutional amendment which says that all gun owners must have permits, and that to get a permit you must show that you are not a felon, and have no history of mental illness, and have taken a safety class.
But let's make it an amendment because any other way would be an "infringement" on the right granted us under the second amendment and the amendment expressly says,
"shall not be infringed!"
If people begin to review this as a constitutional issue, like slavery, like due process, instead of trying to destroy the amendment through other means, I suspect there might actually be better support and less partisanship.
{"commentId":6380548,"threadId":"549101","contentId":"2655636","authorDomain":"wmolaw"}
- 5 votes
{"commentId":6381469,"authorDomain":"xoxchi"}
wmolaw:
But let's make it an amendment because any other way would be an "infringement" on the right
Maybe I'm misunderstanding the process, but I thought that the Amendment's purpose was to denote the broad objectives, and then the individual laws define the specifics as to how it can be administered, with the Courts determining whether the individual legislation meets the Constitutional authority.
That being said, I agree that some of the Amendments need to be clarified due to the massives social and technological changes that have occured since 1787. Unfortunately, with the current degree of hyper-partisanship on so many issues, I see it unlikely that such Amendments could be passed; we seem to be in an era of gridlock.
{"commentId":6381469,"threadId":"549101","contentId":"2655636","authorDomain":"xoxchi"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":6381642,"authorDomain":"wmolaw"}
Uthaclena:
Uh, no. The bill of rights is not a law to be administered. It is a restriction on what the government can or cannot do.
What happens is that laws are passed and if they impinge on one or more constitutional pronouncements, then we must have a court decide if they are unconstitutional.
The reason I say address it this way is that the issue will be able to be decided in such a way that it will be clear that the majority of the people in this Country agree with it.
And clarity in the amendment could well prevent future depredations upon it. Right now, the second amendment is at the whim of courts, or even A court.
{"commentId":6381642,"threadId":"549101","contentId":"2655636","authorDomain":"wmolaw"}
- 3 votes
{"commentId":6386276,"authorDomain":"geejay"}
"shall not be infringed!"
No rights enumerated are absolute--there are even limits on the First Amendment (libel/slander, inciting violence).
And to get to the "shall not be infringed" bit you have to first define "militia." And I have a feeling militias don't mean private individuals can build an arsenal.
{"commentId":6386276,"threadId":"549101","contentId":"2655636","authorDomain":"geejay"}
- 3 votes
{"commentId":6387865,"authorDomain":"LordFluffy"}
{"commentId":6387915,"authorDomain":"ulicnyp001"}
A large part of the so-called problem is perception. The media only reports on events which support an anti-gun agenda. The times when people use guns to prevent death or injury to themselves, or others, are almost never reported by MSM.
The American Rifleman, the NRA magazine, has an entire page of every issue dedicated to articles in local newspapers when people have defended themselves with privately owned firearms.
{"commentId":6387915,"threadId":"549101","contentId":"2655636","authorDomain":"ulicnyp001"}
- 4 votes
{"commentId":6388261,"authorDomain":"RETLAW"}
LF--thanks for an interesting article. I'm a Life NRA member. I agree that it is difficult to get the 'right' and the 'left' to discuss rationally. Problem also is that gun control seems to have become politicized; with pro-left and con-right. I would suggest to you, though, that such groups as NRA and Center to Prevent Handgun Violence, will both produce statistics to support their positions. And, then produce statistics to show that the other's numbers are not correct (or showing the 'whole picture'). I have been following this controversy for couple of decades now. When the 'left' tried to propose legislation in 1996, the people spoke, and many were voted out. Four years later, when more gun control legislation was proposed, the people spoke, and more 'left' were voted out. Now with the 'left' in power, many of us who know that gun-control has never worked, are concerned that the CPHV will work on them to reconsider and re-propose anti-gun legislation. Would there then be a rational discussion in the halls of congress??? We can hope.
{"commentId":6388261,"threadId":"549101","contentId":"2655636","authorDomain":"RETLAW"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":6389430,"authorDomain":"arleta"}
you're partially correct enigma...i'm not willing to compromise anything when it comes to my 2nd amendment or any other amendments for that matter. The whole country should be shouting how they will not compromise jack anything when it comes to the constitution, but i guess thats how the patriot act was passed....
the reason why you aren't 100% is that im a liberal and unwilling to compromise my rights.
{"commentId":6389430,"threadId":"549101","contentId":"2655636","authorDomain":"arleta"}
{"commentId":6392692,"authorDomain":"Freedomcorp"}
Anytime a compromise involves the Feds, it's off the table. As the saying goes, you give them an inch, and they take your foot and leg.
{"commentId":6392692,"threadId":"549101","contentId":"2655636","authorDomain":"Freedomcorp"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":6393069,"authorDomain":"bbullion"}
I am confused about the amendment/constitutional law change thing then. How come there have been additions and amendments made to the constitution since its inception? If there has been, then, there is a precident to also be able to amend the 2nd one.
I find it hilarious that there are so many people screaming for the 2nd amendment to be left alone, yet, most of those same people have no problem with the prior administration basically using the entire constitution as toilet tissue.
That fact that the "left" and "right" can't come to a compromise means nothing. Put the damn thing to a vote by the PEOPLE. I totally agree with everyones right to protect themselves and their families and properties -- I just dont agree that you need an AK47 to do it. Semi-automatic machine weapons are NOT hunting weapons and are NOT personal safety weapons. These weapons are made for one thing only -- KILLING HUMANS. So I could find it in my heart to amend a constitutional law that says that every Tom, Dick & Harry can have one if they want!! I dont think so.
My 11 year old son wants a REAL police badge, to play cops and robbers with, but, guess what he cant have one -- cause only real police officers can have one. It is a felony to even use a fake one and tell someone its real. Soooo in that vein -- unless you are a soldier with a wartime mission somewhere on the soil of good ol' US of A, then I believe that you should not be allowed to have the SEMI-AUTO or FULLY-AUTO weapons that seems to be the nix of the crisis here. Just my opinion, but, I think it should be put to the people, not some group of nuckleheads in DC that cant seem to do anything recently anyway!!!
Just think -- there might be a couple more of those immigrants in NJ still alive if the kid didnt have a auto weapon and had to reload, maybe some more people might have escaped with thier lives.
If you break into my home and I have a gun -- I might just shoot you -- however, I dont need to cut your body in half and tear up half my house 'cuz you want to steal my TV/DVD player for drugs.
I think if everyone actually used common sense instead of anger -- they might come to a compromise --- but, I am not holding my breath!!!
{"commentId":6393069,"threadId":"549101","contentId":"2655636","authorDomain":"bbullion"}
{"commentId":6393273,"authorDomain":"wmolaw"}
Bethany:
Of course there is the ability and the right to amend or even repeal the second amendment. Read the constitution, there are actually two ways to do so.
The problem is that those who want to abrogate the limitations on government set forth in the second amendment cannot garner the necessary support to undertake to have it amended or deleted.
So, they try to do it in other ways.
And, please, don't give me the deprivation of rights under George Bush crap. Tell me, have you seen Obama rescind any such actions by W? Noooooooooo. A purposefully ignored fact.
Semi automatic weapns ARE hunting weapons. You have absolutely no clue whereof you speak, seriously.
{"commentId":6393273,"threadId":"549101","contentId":"2655636","authorDomain":"wmolaw"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":6393799,"authorDomain":"bbullion"}
wmolaw--
OK--so you like your meat to taste like bullets and gun powder and what exactly is left after you use an AK47 to shoot a deer?
Give me a break -- if you need an auto or semi-auto weapon for hunting - you are not a hunter but a GUN person.
As for President Obame rescinding W's last acts -- he has. I will take the time to find them because I dont have that info at my fingertips.
I believe that there are people out there that dont need a semi or fully auto weapon to hunt or protect and your need to have one "just 'cuz you can" is a step closer to more and more Virginia Techs and NJ acts.
And yes - I do have many clues whereof I speak -- seriously!
{"commentId":6393799,"threadId":"549101","contentId":"2655636","authorDomain":"bbullion"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":6394807,"authorDomain":"wmolaw"}
Bethany:
Ah, again, knowledge would assist you. More is left of the deer after shooting it with a 7.62x39 than almost any other deer rifle.
Please, you just don't know anything about this issue, or what people do or do not hunt with.
And yes - I do have many clues whereof I speak -- seriously!
No, really, you don't.
Look, if you would educate yourself it might help. Again, listen, fully auto weapons are almost impossible to attain in most states and even if you can attain them the tags that go with such an event are unbelievable stringent.
So let's put aside the fully auto crap, eh? Fully auto weapons are NOT the issue. Even the current draconian law that is being considered by congress does not address fully auto weapons, know why, because they ain't a problem!
Have you ever shot a semi auto? Have you ever shot a pump? A bolt? A lever action?
I have competed against semi autos in trap with a pump, you can shoot a pump and get back on target as quickly as you can with a semi auto shot gun.
What is the difference between a revolver and a semi auto pistol? The major difference is that the semi auto jams. When you pull the trigger of a semi auto pistol, to shoot the next shot you have to release the trigger and pull it again. Guess what, that is exactly what you have to do with a revolver!
So, no, you really don't know whereof you speak. You just wish to allow our government to take away a constitutional right.
Why not attack this issue in a more rational way, severly increase the penalties for crimes committed with a firearm? That is the way to address gun crime, go after the criminals who use them.
But, for some reason, you wish to penalize law abiding citizens? I just don't get it.
Let's do away with the 4th, 6th amendmenets, hell they result in numerous murders/rapes/brutality each year. You okay with that?
{"commentId":6394807,"threadId":"549101","contentId":"2655636","authorDomain":"wmolaw"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":6395717,"authorDomain":"bbullion"}
wmolaw--so you are telling me what I think now,huh? You are the "all knowing" of what I understand. Yet where in my comments did I say
You just wish to allow our government to take away a constitutional right.
I was trying to have a discussion as to why we couldnt amend for the semi and / or fully auto weapons. I did not in anyway attack your intellegence or you personally, yet, out come your claws and your venom in response.
Then you wonder why people just dont want to try to understand your point of view.
Try stating it with out attacks or venomous remarks and it might go further.
IMHPersonalO---you dont need a semi or auto weapon for hunting or protection. Again -- that is my opinion and I am not trying to force it upon anyone else.
And where exactly did I say anything about the 4th, or 6th? Are you just trying to be nasty and get a personal response? I have learned my lesson yesterday. I am only commenting on the issue - I am not being personal or beligerent!! You -- on the other hand -- seem to want to go there!
{"commentId":6395717,"threadId":"549101","contentId":"2655636","authorDomain":"bbullion"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":6396406,"authorDomain":"wmolaw"}
Bethany:
Please, stop being passive/aggressive.
You ARE trying to "force" you opinion on others when you say that semi auto weapons should be banned because they are not, in your opinion, needed for hunting.
Look, here is one of your posts:
OK--so you like your meat to taste like bullets and gun powder and what exactly is left after you use an AK47 to shoot a deer?
As I noted before, this shows your ignorance re: what an AK 47 shoots and how it would affect a deer. Yet, you deny ignorance in this area?
Give me a break -- if you need an auto or semi-auto weapon for hunting - you are not a hunter but a GUN person.
Really, who says YOU? Clearly again, by your own statement you are condemning and categorizing people who engage in a past time of which you have no knowledge. Why are you doing that?
As for President Obame rescinding W's last acts -- he has. I will take the time to find them because I dont have that info at my fingertips.
I await your response in this area. To be specific, I am discussing all of the alleged "violations of the constitution" which W put in place to fight terrorism, which would include the Patriot Act.
From my review, to date, the answer is none. But will certainly review any credible evidence showing otherwise.
I believe that there are people out there that dont need a semi or fully auto weapon to hunt or protect and your need to have one "just 'cuz you can" is a step closer to more and more Virginia Techs and NJ acts.
So, because I have a semi auto weapon I am contributing to more VT's and NJ's? Frankly, I believe that if more people were legally armed at those locations there would have been fewer deaths.
So, it seems clearly that you wish to attack, but don't want to have someone call you on your posts.
As I have said to others, physician, heal thyself.
{"commentId":6396406,"threadId":"549101","contentId":"2655636","authorDomain":"wmolaw"}
- 5 votes
{"commentId":6396904,"authorDomain":"waynester"}
you dont need a semi or auto weapon for hunting or protection.
Absolute BS and it isn't up to you to determine what anyone needs, anyway. Semi-autos come in very handy in the areas of both self defense and hunting. You don't have the slightest clue what you are talking about.
{"commentId":6396904,"threadId":"549101","contentId":"2655636","authorDomain":"waynester"}
- 4 votes
{"commentId":6402695,"authorDomain":"bbullion"}
Waynester & wmolaw
Nowhere did I IMPOSE my opinion on anyone -- and infact, said,
that I wish it were up to the PEOPLE to make the decision not the legislature. I would like to see it put to the people to decide. If they make the decision to ban them then so be it. But again if they dont -- then so be it! I am a passive person, I am a liberal and a socialist and personally feel that the semi and fully auto weapons are not needed for hunting or protection, PERSONALLY.
Do you understand personal opinion? There is no FORCE in a personal opinion. There is no right or wrong in a personal opinion!
So -- please -- get off your high horses -- it is you who are forcing the issue that semi and fully auto weapons are useful tools and insinuating that others are unintelligent when their opinions differ from yours.
and Waynester
it isn't up to you to determine what anyone needs
nor, is it up to you!!!
{"commentId":6402695,"threadId":"549101","contentId":"2655636","authorDomain":"bbullion"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":6402791,"authorDomain":"waynester"}
{"commentId":6402823,"authorDomain":"bbullion"}
wmolaw--
THE PATRIOT ACT is a farce and will expire in time. And with it the warrantless wiretapping of American citizens on American soil! Even service men and women have had their calls listened to and taped for further evaluation for crying out loud!
And OK -- I'll bite. So say for instance 5 people of the 12 in NJ also had semi auto weapons and used them in response to the obviously deranged individual who opened fire on them -- how many would have died in the crossfire or accidently or from "friendly" fire? Just asking cuz there are so many people who die from their own weapons it is unnerving.
and yes -- just cuz you can doesnt mean you should!!! That phrase sort of fits in with all sorts of lifes little situations. And again IMHO it fits with the semi/fully auto weapon discussion.
{"commentId":6402823,"threadId":"549101","contentId":"2655636","authorDomain":"bbullion"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":6402943,"authorDomain":"bbullion"}
Waynester--
I preface my comments by saying it is my opinion -- I said it should be allowed to be voted on --- I distrust decisions made by only a few people "for the good of us all" cuz it usually ends up being only for the "good of the few".
I would point out the 2000 debacle when 5 people decided who was going to be president but, that would probably only inflame you and I DO NOT want to start that one again!!!
{"commentId":6402943,"threadId":"549101","contentId":"2655636","authorDomain":"bbullion"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":6402944,"authorDomain":"wmolaw"}
Bethany:
It is up to the people. There are two ways to amend the Constitution, why have those who wish to see it amended not pursued either of these alternatives?
Answer, because they know the PEOPLE do not want it amended.
So, there is your answer.
Note you have misstated positions, no one is saying fully auto weapons should be able to be bought at Sears. That's an example of overheated and erroneous rhetoric.
{"commentId":6402944,"threadId":"549101","contentId":"2655636","authorDomain":"wmolaw"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":6403588,"authorDomain":"bbullion"}
wmolaw--but that was what I was discussing -- the semi and fully auto weapons are the "bone of contention" right now due to the overwhelming amount of gun deaths lately.
Who made the decision that the PEOPLE do not want it amended? The few up the in DC? Cuz no one asked for my "official" vote on it.
Note you have misstated positions
Please explain?...
{"commentId":6403588,"threadId":"549101","contentId":"2655636","authorDomain":"bbullion"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":6406885,"authorDomain":"LordFluffy"}
{"commentId":6413023,"authorDomain":"wmolaw"}
Bethany:
What Lord Fluffy said.
I sincerely believe that much of this argument is fueled by ignorance on the part of many as relates to weaponry.
Lord Fluffy mentions the Mini-30, which is a semi auto rifle which fires the 7.62x39 round. Note, the Mini 30 can be fit with Hi cap mags, and it fires EXACTLY the same round as the AK-47.
There is no functional difference between the 2.
But the Mini 30 is seen as a hunter's weapon, while the AK is seen as the terrorist weapon. This is all because of the media's ignorance and the manner in which they present gun violence to the public.
{"commentId":6413023,"threadId":"549101","contentId":"2655636","authorDomain":"wmolaw"}
- 4 votes
{"commentId":6414229,"authorDomain":"bbullion"}
Lordfluffy--I do believe I have been civil and have asked real questions regarding what I dont understand. I will concur that I have been using the incorrect terminology regarding the weapons.
wmolaw
Lord Fluffy mentions the Mini-30, which is a semi auto rifle which fires the 7.62x39 round. Note, the Mini 30 can be fit with Hi cap mags, and it fires EXACTLY the same round as the AK-47.
There is no functional difference between the 2.
Hence, my confusion--if AK-47s are illegal, but, there are legal weapons that can be outfitted to become just as deadly, isnt there a way that the ownership of these weapons can be at least listed. Instead, you get to buy these weapons at a GUN FAIR and little if any background check goes into it.
I guess in the long run -- if the laws on the books made sense and were enforced then that will be the best we can do.
I have no problem with hunting or self-defense, but, I think that gun ownership should be a priviledge not a right, just as drivers license is.
As for the few making the decision for the many--I guess I have been living a lie my whole life--I always thought that USA was a democracy! Am I completely stupid or what? Yes we vote for the few, however, as you pointed out many many times those few seem to be able to allow laws to pass that benefit only the few. And as numerous as the NRA is in members, why shouldnt some of this stuff be put to a vote?? Jusk asking? 'cuz I really am not that all knowing in that department.
{"commentId":6414229,"threadId":"549101","contentId":"2655636","authorDomain":"bbullion"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":6415339,"authorDomain":"wmolaw"}
Bethany:
Ak's ain't illegal. A mini 30 is no more deadly than a 30-06, actually less so. ALL guns are deadly, each and every one. Even a .22 short (very, very small and low powered round) is deadly in the correct circumstances.
See, this is what I mean by disinformation. Somehow, the media has hyped an AK to more deadly than other firearms of the same caliber. It is not.
Background checks at gun fairs (at least in Georgia) are the same as at a retail store, just as comprehensive. Another "myth" that goes around and around.
The USA is not a "democracy," per se. It is a representative democracy, for good reason.
As to putting things to a vote, that would be a referendum, which some states allow but the Federal Constitution does not.
But, if there was, there would be no doubt but that the "gun nuts" (including myself) would win. Which is why those who wish to limit the right to bear arms will not seek to have the Constitution amended because the methods to amend the Constitution do, in many ways, require more of a democratic consensus than other laws or judicially made law.
{"commentId":6415339,"threadId":"549101","contentId":"2655636","authorDomain":"wmolaw"}
- 3 votes
{"commentId":6415413,"authorDomain":"LordFluffy"}
{"commentId":6375970,"authorDomain":"mojocali70"}
The same could be said for the political Left too. Thus the problem that was stated in the posting. Lordfluffy is correct that their is no black and white answer to this issue. You have people on both sides spouting off unfounded facts slanted toward their side of the issue and have no intention of debete to the validity of any arguement/opinion that isn't theirs.
{"commentId":6375970,"threadId":"549101","contentId":"2655636","authorDomain":"mojocali70"}
- 3 votes
#2 - Wed Apr 8, 2009 11:46 AM EDT{"commentId":6376017,"authorDomain":"Anjillina"}
Very well written article!! You do a terrific job of presenting both sides.
{"commentId":6376017,"threadId":"549101","contentId":"2655636","authorDomain":"Anjillina"}
- 3 votes
#3 - Wed Apr 8, 2009 11:48 AM EDT{"commentId":6376640,"authorDomain":"Rigbee"}
An apt description of the current climate. Thank you for this. Hopefully, the thread will continue in such a civilized vein.
{"commentId":6376640,"threadId":"549101","contentId":"2655636","authorDomain":"Rigbee"}
- 2 votes
#4 - Wed Apr 8, 2009 12:16 PM EDT{"commentId":6376682,"authorDomain":"LordFluffy"}
{"commentId":6376979,"authorDomain":"Griff69"}
Excellent article!
{"commentId":6376979,"threadId":"549101","contentId":"2655636","authorDomain":"Griff69"}
- 3 votes
#5 - Wed Apr 8, 2009 12:30 PM EDT{"commentId":6391827,"authorDomain":"wallemalemon"}
I'm kinna going...thinking for myself here...
How is England doing with its little project?? How's about some perspective from good ole England.....Imagine, surviving without guns....how DID they manage??? Are they just more civilized???
{"commentId":6391827,"threadId":"549101","contentId":"2655636","authorDomain":"wallemalemon"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":6391938,"authorDomain":"waynester"}
Actually, the criminals in England still have guns. It seems they don't obey the law.
{"commentId":6391938,"threadId":"549101","contentId":"2655636","authorDomain":"waynester"}
- 3 votes
{"commentId":6392997,"authorDomain":"Freedomcorp"}
The largest demonstration in English history occurred about a year ago. Everyone from old ladies to bus drivers wants these rights returned. Thet were sold on the Hunting and No firearms Ban due to the usual false crime concerns. They now "Street Search" everyone for knives in London because of all the knife deaths. Even ambulance drivers wear bullet prove vests now because the amount of criminals with guns seems to have exploded with the new Black Market. They gave a guy 10 years for shooting a convict who had a gun when they broke into his house. The EU is slowly removing the rights of the people for the usual reasons. Control. You can't trust the people y'know, they'll screw everything up. The fact is Citizens with Guns DO keep gov't from going overboard. Janet Reno learned that lesson, regardless of how incorrect the defendants might have been at the time.
{"commentId":6392997,"threadId":"549101","contentId":"2655636","authorDomain":"Freedomcorp"}
{"commentId":6393338,"authorDomain":"wmolaw"}
lovetrust:
Interesting issue. Fact is that since the horrendous limitation of law abiding citizens to own guns in the UK, violent crime with a weapon has gone up.
Gee, how do you explain that?
Same, by the way in Australia?
Now, where states have passed right to carry laws and "castle" laws, guess what, gun violence goes down.
A little research may assist folks before they make such statements.
Finally, please note that the UK does not have the second amendment. You are so cavalier about getting rid of constitutional rights.
Are you in favor of rescinding the 4th, 5th, 6th, or even the 13th amendments?
{"commentId":6393338,"threadId":"549101","contentId":"2655636","authorDomain":"wmolaw"}
- 3 votes
{"commentId":6377541,"authorDomain":"silentviewer123"}
You make a very valid point that these are terrible acts. I know that I am going to get flack for this. But how much news happens everyday that is just as horrific but no one dies at the hand of a gun. In the paper there are people beaten to death by baseball bats or by physcial means or a rape were the victim was held at knife point and than stabbed mutiple times or young criminals who break into homes and find and ederly couple physical beat the husband with in an inch of his life than tie him up and repeatedly rape his wife for three or four hours before they leave the home as he is made to watch. Yes this did happen in the town I live in and no they did not catch these three young man. These kind of things happens everyday. But it is not front page news. At least these people could be stopped if we as Americans would not have been taught do not fight back. If they had been some sort of sucide bomber like people in the Middle east had to deal with on very daily basis I would be more mordified. This by no means changes that fact people are going to kill people. Sad thing is that is a terrible part of human nature. I believe whether or not I like it that the 2nd admendent is a necessary evil.
{"commentId":6377541,"threadId":"549101","contentId":"2655636","authorDomain":"silentviewer123"}
- 2 votes
#6 - Wed Apr 8, 2009 12:54 PM EDT{"commentId":6381792,"authorDomain":"xoxchi"}
tired of carrying everyone
In the paper there are people beaten to death by baseball bats or by physcial means or a rape were the victim was held at knife point and than stabbed mutiple times or young criminals who break into homes and find and ederly couple physical beat the husband with in an inch of his life than tie him up and repeatedly rape his wife for three or four hours before they leave the home as he is made to watch.
Well, as LordFluffy noted in his article:
A person with just their fists, with a knife, with a sword, with a chainsaw or with a bow is certainly able to spread death and mayhem. But ask anyone if they would prefer to go to war with anything in that list or a firearm and the answer is obvious.
I certainly would prefer to take my chances against a knife or baseball bat than against a loaded gun.
One comparative statistic I'd like to see is how many legally-armed people actually successfully defend themselves and their families vs. how many legal gun-owners accidently kill innocent people such as their children hiding in a closet, immigrants who speak poor English, or repo-men doing their jobs (actual events that I remember from the papers), or innocents killed in the crossfire. Can anyone cite a source for this?
{"commentId":6381792,"threadId":"549101","contentId":"2655636","authorDomain":"xoxchi"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":6382194,"authorDomain":"wmolaw"}
Utha:
A good place to get some of the information you wish is John Lott's site.
By the way, there are very, very, very few incidents where legally armed accidentally kill innocent people.
Lott and others state that there may be almost two million incidents per year where criminals are prevented from committing crimes just by the display of a weapon by the citizen.
I certainly would prefer to take my chances against a knife or baseball bat than against a loaded gun.
Quite true. But the real issue is whether you would like to be armed with a weapon when your attacker comes at you with a knife, bat, or gun?
{"commentId":6382194,"threadId":"549101","contentId":"2655636","authorDomain":"wmolaw"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":6386328,"authorDomain":"geejay"}
One comparative statistic I'd like to see is how many legally-armed people actually successfully defend themselves and their families vs. how many legal gun-owners accidently kill innocent people such as their children hiding in a closet, immigrants who speak poor English, or repo-men doing their jobs (actual events that I remember from the papers), or innocents killed in the crossfire. Can anyone cite a source for this?
I would like to see the stat of the number of mass shootings stopped by a well-meaning interloper with a gun.
By the way, there are very, very, very few incidents where legally armed accidentally kill innocent people.
Every last one of the mass shooters in the past month obtained their guns legally, wmo. I know, you gun rights types don't want that stat getting out, but it is the truth.
Groups such as Vogel's, and the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, say existing laws are already too weak — just look at the men who received gun permits, legally bought high-powered weapons, and then mowed down family, friends and total strangers in these past few weeks, they say.
Joining their outrage was the U.S. Conference of Mayors. "How many more gun-related acts of violence must we experience before the nation's leaders will decide that it is time to act?" asked president Manuel Diaz, mayor of Miami.
Despite eight rampages that have claimed 57 lives since March 10, "it hasn't sparked any national goal to deal with this epidemic. In fact, it's going the other way," said Scott Vogel of the Freedom States Alliance, a gun control activist group.
{"commentId":6386328,"threadId":"549101","contentId":"2655636","authorDomain":"geejay"}
- 3 votes
{"commentId":6387893,"authorDomain":"LordFluffy"}
{"commentId":6388861,"authorDomain":"iarnuocon"}
The shooters your are refering to were shooting no one by accident.
Additionally, attempting to conflate these criminals with law-abiding citizens is a bit suspect, isn't it? I'm willing to bet that some criminals follow the speed limit; but should we conclude that because they then go on to commit crimes using a vehicle, all vehicle owners are somehow "criminal"?
Lott's figure was closer to 2.5 million, but there are nearly a dozen studies that place defensive gun uses annually at somewhere between 800,000 and a million. Whatever the true number, it far outstrips gun control activists grudging claim that the number "perhaps" approaches 100,000.
It also far outstrips the number of persons killed by firearms, annually.
The purpose of a gun is to be a force equalizer which allows the weak and the frail to defend themselves against the strong and criminally determined. It's no guarantee of success at such defense, but it sure as hell is better than the alternative-- hoping that an assailant will, through the goodness of his heart, allow you to continue breathing.
The one time in recent history that I can think of that the media highlighted nationally a story in which gun use figured positively was Jeanne Assam's defense of parishioners of the New Life Church in Colorado Springs in 2007. Other than that, any positive stories you may hear are primarily local.
{"commentId":6388861,"threadId":"549101","contentId":"2655636","authorDomain":"iarnuocon"}
- 4 votes
{"commentId":6392184,"authorDomain":"cavicore"}
...but it sure as hell is better than the alternative-- hoping that an assailant will, through the goodness of his heart, allow you to continue breathing.
A woman lying dead in an alley, strangled with her pantyhose, is NOT morally superior to one standing over here would-be attacker reloading her firearm.
{"commentId":6392184,"threadId":"549101","contentId":"2655636","authorDomain":"cavicore"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":6392340,"authorDomain":"geejay"}
Additionally, attempting to conflate these criminals with law-abiding citizens is a bit suspect, isn't it? I
They weren't criminals when they bought the guns they used to kill dozens, were they? Not admitting this is a bit suspect, isn't it?
The one time in recent history that I can think of that the media highlighted nationally a story in which gun use figured positively
Iar, I am suprised to see you pretty much blaming the media. Next up, will you rant about the "liberal media?"
{"commentId":6392340,"threadId":"549101","contentId":"2655636","authorDomain":"geejay"}
{"commentId":6392392,"authorDomain":"silentviewer123"}
Uthaclena
I cannot give you the figures but I know of two here in the area. One was a woman in her 60's. She had just lost her husband and was in the process of going through her husband things to give away. He happened to be a bird hunter. He had a Shotgun. She happen to hear some noises called the police as she was on the phone she heard her back door be busted while on the phone with the dispatcher she let the dispatcher know they had entered the premise but she said she had a shotgun in her bedroom but their was no shells for it. The dispatch asked her if she could rack it to make the noise of what it sounds like when you are putting a round in the chamber she said she thought she could being her husband had taught her how to do that and the sound is something unforgettable. Also the dispatcher said the police was almost there. She did exactly that and the two invaders stopped and ran out. Just as the hit the end of this lady's property the Police had just pulled up. The policemen Identified themselves before they entered and because of what her husband had done to teach and the dispatch person told her to do is at least kept her from being seriously injured.
The other news story is a young woman was moving into a house she was going to rent. Her boyfriend was over to help it was very late at night after 12. The happened to be in the back of the house when there was a commotion. Called their cellphone the emergency just as the boyfriend was on the phone with dispatch one of the criminals opened the door and the young man had a Hand gun. He fired it he did kill that criminal but also that criminal had one also. The other three fleed the scene. The police that were arriving saw the three exit the premise. and chased two down the other got away. The young man had a carry conceal permit and it was something his father told him he should have. There again between the history of the one dead and the two that had been caught were very violent offenders.
I hope I never ever have to make that decision but as I had a local officer tell me he would like to be there 24 hours seven days a week but because he is not able to be that every person should be able to protect themselves. We live in a world that has made every excuse for why it is ok for these people to be criminal. It still comes down to their choice(the criminal). These two incidents that they would have been prayed on would have been Victims if they had not taken the actions they did.
But this would not be national news.
iarnuocon
Glad that you brought up the incident in Colorado Springs. You are very correct most of that only makes local news.
{"commentId":6392392,"threadId":"549101","contentId":"2655636","authorDomain":"silentviewer123"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":6392495,"authorDomain":"waynester"}
They weren't criminals when they bought the guns they used to kill dozens, were they?
No, they weren't but it's irrelevant. They would have become criminals if they bought the guns illegally as well, assuming that guns had become outlawed. Merely shifting the point at which crazy people become criminals is silly and needlessly restricts the rights of everyone else.
{"commentId":6392495,"threadId":"549101","contentId":"2655636","authorDomain":"waynester"}
- 4 votes
{"commentId":6393181,"authorDomain":"Freedomcorp"}
The Media ALWAYS highlights gun crime, while expertly leaving out positive gun details. of 167 news articles tested, only two mentioned that the teenage shooter in Pearl, MS was stopped by a teacher with a gun. Remember the Omaha Mall shooting? The woman that shot the killer was NOT a security guard there (or anywhere), she had a Conceal Carry Permit. God forbid the public should find that out! Total disinformation for the consumption of people who believe everything they hear on TV Entertainment that masquarades as Real News.
{"commentId":6393181,"threadId":"549101","contentId":"2655636","authorDomain":"Freedomcorp"}
- 3 votes
{"commentId":6393398,"authorDomain":"wmolaw"}
Ferrari:
Got that right. The press is venal and lie regading this issue day in day out.
{"commentId":6393398,"threadId":"549101","contentId":"2655636","authorDomain":"wmolaw"}
- 3 votes
{"commentId":6420334,"authorDomain":"iarnuocon"}
They weren't criminals when they bought the guns they used to kill dozens, were they? Not admitting this is a bit suspect, isn't it?
Who "isn't admitting" this? I've no problem with accepting that they purchased their weapons legally. I hold them and only them fully accountable for the choice they made to use their firearms against innocent human beings. I think whether they purchased the guns legally is, as Waynester mentioned, completely irrelevant.
Iar, I am suprised to see you pretty much blaming the media. Next up, will you rant about the "liberal media?"
Not at all. I think the media is overwhelmingly "corporate." They don't vilify guns because they're liberal. They vilify guns because a disarmed populace would be more compliant to the depredations of oligarchy. It's an historical truth, that.
But I can't say I'm shocked that you failed to engage the argument, and went right for the attempted ad hominem in suggesting that I'm somehow an uber-conservative. My credentials as a "liberal" or "conservative" are irrelevant to the discussion. Let's stick to the topic. Or do you think I should be allowed to dismiss any argument you make simply by noting that you're a Birkenstock-wearing tree-hugger?
We can go down that road if you think it'll lead somewhere fruitful. I'm pretty sure it won't, but if you're the type of person who learns only by experience, we can certainly give it a shot.
{"commentId":6420334,"threadId":"549101","contentId":"2655636","authorDomain":"iarnuocon"}
- 3 votes
{"commentId":6456701,"authorDomain":"Griff69"}
...and went right for the attempted ad hominem in suggesting that I'm somehow an uber-conservative.
Trying to picture you as the uber-conservative just sends me into fits of laughter...
{"commentId":6456701,"threadId":"549101","contentId":"2655636","authorDomain":"Griff69"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":6377975,"authorDomain":"greengrowtheganji"}
well done lordfluffy, id consider myself a moderate when it comes to this topic, i grew up with guns and enjoyed them my whole life, but at the same time i feel that sometimes it gets down right rediculous, why some people ( and why does it always seem to be the unstable people ) feel the need to amass weapons that are designed for tactical attack on people, such as fully automatic and such, maybe im speaking a little out of ignorace but shouldnt some guns be harder to obtain than others? granted even a .22 can be used to kill someone, but you wouldnt lead an assault with a .22 either
ive never wanted a ban on fire arms of any kind, but i do think more red tape should be put up for certain ones, also my other concern is the mexican mafia and how they get their guns, wich i read is mostly from the US. But thats kind of a different subject because i believe we should legalize and end this "war"
I do want to find a middle ground that the majority of us feel safe with, without having to give away our rights to someone else like we continue to do.
anyways i really just wanted to say good article, thanks for not being the typical wingnut :D
{"commentId":6377975,"threadId":"549101","contentId":"2655636","authorDomain":"greengrowtheganji"}
- 3 votes
#7 - Wed Apr 8, 2009 1:12 PM EDT{"commentId":6378259,"authorDomain":"waynester"}
wich i read is mostly from the US.
Actually that turned out not to be true.
maybe im speaking a little out of ignorace but shouldnt some guns be harder to obtain than others?
They are, for instance you have to have a Federal permit to own a fully automatic weapon. (Very expensive and not easily obtained)
{"commentId":6378259,"threadId":"549101","contentId":"2655636","authorDomain":"waynester"}
- 8 votes
{"commentId":6379745,"authorDomain":"greengrowtheganji"}
it clears up a lot indeed, thanks for the reply.
{"commentId":6379745,"threadId":"549101","contentId":"2655636","authorDomain":"greengrowtheganji"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":6380626,"authorDomain":"wmolaw"}
Lord:
Have to say, it is very, very refreshing to post on this subject in an article where the author actually knows what the hell he is talking about!
Kudos.
{"commentId":6380626,"threadId":"549101","contentId":"2655636","authorDomain":"wmolaw"}
- 9 votes
{"commentId":6388914,"authorDomain":"iarnuocon"}
The refutation is that it's not 90% of the seized weapons, but 90% of what they have traced.
It's not even 90% of what they have traced. It's 90% of the small subsection of weapons that Mexican authorities feel may have originated in America and have sent here for verification.
It's like saying that 90% of Fords which Mexico sent to America for identification turned out to be made by Ford.
Mexican authorities don't bother sending U.S. officials guns that were obviously manufactured elsewhere (generally guns that lack a U.S. serial number, or don't show signs of once having had one).
{"commentId":6388914,"threadId":"549101","contentId":"2655636","authorDomain":"iarnuocon"}
- 4 votes
{"commentId":6389401,"authorDomain":"arleta"}
thank you iarnuocon for the 90% seized weapons tidbit!!!! its too bad others choose the more exciting figure to base their information on...(tis the life of newsvine)
{"commentId":6389401,"threadId":"549101","contentId":"2655636","authorDomain":"arleta"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":6393542,"authorDomain":"Freedomcorp"}
I watched the Senate Hearings on CSPAN regarding The Border Patrol, ICE, Homeland Sercurity, etc. All agreed that the assault weapons being smuggled into Mexico came from other countries. Watch what you hear because "All these weapons originated in America" is a true statement as They were MADE here, not smuggled into Mexico from here. You are being fooled. The Federal Govt provides m-16s and M-4s to Mexican Military and these are sold to Drug Cartels by corrupt govt officials. Most of the 997 guns last month taken at our Border were hunting and pistol type, not assault type. Mexicans want to defend themselves too, y'know. The innocents are dying because they are not allowed to defend themselves. Is that what you people want here? Don't forget, Crack is illegal and it's the number one reason for gun Deaths in the USA. Get rid of crack gangs, and the money associtaed with it and our problems diminish Big-Time. The Crack problem seems it is unstoppable because there is no real commitment from govt to stop it as it would mean adding Border Security along the whole border. All Homeland Security did last week or so to slow down smuggling into Mexico is take people from the In-Bound side. They added no "New" people or Resources.
{"commentId":6393542,"threadId":"549101","contentId":"2655636","authorDomain":"Freedomcorp"}
{"commentId":6378897,"authorDomain":"conniekamak"}
{"commentId":6379633,"authorDomain":"t-bourlon"}
I actually think the HATE is a part of the problem, not to mention the economy. I understand fist fights are breaking out in Michigan, but I guess they're not as newsworthy as a mass shooting. The people who kill their families are either going through a divorce or they're upset about providing for them (okay, that's a guess). The people who open fire on total strangers are just angry and want to hurt someone. Targets of convenience. There are things we can do besides walk all over our constitutional right to own a gun. On the nursing home, one question was what kind of security do nursing homes normally have? I wonder if you could rig up a metal detector that would sound an alarm if someone came in with a gun? And the people in Israel, who have to live with this sort of thing every day, are just more aware and pro-active than we are out of necessity. You can be sure THEY aren't talking about a gun ban for security!
Now I am going to throw something out there for people to consider. About that lady that had to leave her gun in the car. Let's say you have a gun, and you're in a shopping center or something, and someone just opens fire on people. People will be running all over the place. Yes, you could stop the killing, IF you can 1. correctly identify the shooter, 2. are a good enough aim to actually hit the shooter, and 3. don't have a panicked bystander cross your line of fire. I fully support yours and my right to keep a gun at home (I have 2) to defend my home if necessary (though mostly for target shooting). However, I would never rely on my gun or aim in such a situation. Run away, get behind something, use your cellphone, that's what I'd do.
But yesterday there was this lady who kept asking "how many guns do you need? Why do you need a semi-automatic?" In her mind, I should be happy with a revolver. My handgun is a Ruger .22 semi-auto, in that it has a clip and I don't have to cock a hammer before firing. In her mind, I would have to give that gun up. I wonder if she knows that a .357 is a revolver that could do alot more damage than my little .22 could? Part of the reason I have that particular gun is because it fits my small hands, and I can control it better. My husband has a 9mm that I can barely pull the trigger on, and that gun would be waiving all over the place. No control. So like the author said, there are legitimate reasons for why some of us own what we own, just like some people use those big-ass SUV's in their business and not as a status symbol. I don't have a problem with the fact that the M-16 isn't available to the general public, it is after all a MILITARY weapon. No, of course we shouldn't have access to everything out there, but the problem with the so-called "assault-weapons ban" is the fact that, depending on the definitions used, my little handgun could be taken away from me for being an "assault weapon." So, when crafting such a piece of legislation, you need to be very cautious and, dare I say it, conservative in your approach.
{"commentId":6379633,"threadId":"549101","contentId":"2655636","authorDomain":"t-bourlon"}
- 2 votes
#9 - Wed Apr 8, 2009 2:25 PM EDT{"commentId":6380621,"authorDomain":"suzannepollock1"}
Excellent Article: I as a moderate independent have never claimed that the 2nd amendment be violated and people not be allowed to own and bear arms. However I am also tired of hearing guns dont kill people, people kill people. People with guns even legally do kill and this has moved beyond tragic. It s becoming down right scary as of recent days!
do not own a gun by choice. I have hunted in the past I did not like it so I stopped. I have had a shotgun pulled on me by a drunk individual at someones home years ago and feel quite lucky to have been able to escape without harm. Therefore, I too have had my experiences with guns.
I also have dealt with violence among teens due to guns as a high risk counselor and something has to change. The individual that killed 32 people at V-tech had been involuntarily committed prior to hs rampage. From my understanding the Gun store owner in VA would not had sold him the guns had he known about the individual MH commitment.
I do not know the solution, I do believe a more thorough background check is needed and strict laws need to be applied. I as a therapist am required on a annual basis to have a minimum of three background checks by the state, county, and FBI as well as dept of welfare just to maintain a job. This for my job!!! So why not more strict background checks for future legal gun owners. This is not a political issue for me it is an issue of being tired of having dealt with the families of dead kids due to guns year after year and having dealt with the aftermath of the death of a principle of a school in PA due to a teen with a gun.
This is real to me and must stop, untl we all stop fighting about legalities and amnedments people wll continue to use volence as a means of acting out very long held feelings of anger and frustraton. I am open to others thoughts as I think people need to come toghether rather than argue. These recent months have indcated how serious a problem this is becoming n our country.
{"commentId":6380621,"threadId":"549101","contentId":"2655636","authorDomain":"suzannepollock1"}
- 2 votes
#10 - Wed Apr 8, 2009 3:09 PM EDT{"commentId":6381618,"authorDomain":"xoxchi"}
suz47:
I do believe a more thorough background check is needed and strict laws need to be applied. I as a therapist am required on a annual basis to have a minimum of three background checks by the state, county, and FBI as well as dept of welfare just to maintain a job. This for my job!!! So why not more strict background checks for future legal gun owners.
Part of the problem, on the end of some gun-owners, is that a certain number of Second Amendment proponents do indeed seem to advocate for anarchy, apparently feeling that any requirements or regulations are the first steps toward confiscation. Therefore, it's don't ask, don't tell, trust that I'm a responsible gun-owner, and if some innocents get killed along the way, that's the price of freedom. Or, to be even more cynical, those fanatics seem to feel that their Second Amendment Right to Bear Arms is more important than our Right to Life and Liberty.
Mind you, I certainly do not think that most gun-owners are that extreme, but there is definitely a strong lobby for that position, and they worry me.
{"commentId":6381618,"threadId":"549101","contentId":"2655636","authorDomain":"xoxchi"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":6389495,"authorDomain":"arleta"}
Therefore, it's don't ask, don't tell, trust that I'm a responsible gun-owner, and if some innocents get killed along the way, that's the price of freedom.
Or, to be even more cynical, those fanatics seem to feel that their Second Amendment Right to Bear Arms is more important than our Right to Life and Liberty.
guilt-tripping responsible, law-abiding gun owners solves nothing. Why should they be implicated when innocents are killed by a madman? there are approximately 1-2 million deterred crimes each year due to firearms; so much for the deprivation of life and liberty comment...
Mind you, I certainly do not think that most gun-owners are that extreme, but there is definitely a strong lobby for that position, and they worry me.
They worry me no more than the anti-gun sentiment in this country and the strong lobby to outright ban firearms...remember that firearms are a constitutional amendment....
{"commentId":6389495,"threadId":"549101","contentId":"2655636","authorDomain":"arleta"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":6381083,"authorDomain":"xoxchi"}
LordFluffy:
Guns are part of America in a way few other artifacts are.
Well... guns are right up there, too. I'm not sure what Americans would choose if they could only have one of 'em.
{"commentId":6381083,"threadId":"549101","contentId":"2655636","authorDomain":"xoxchi"}
#11 - Wed Apr 8, 2009 3:28 PM EDT{"commentId":6381866,"authorDomain":"LordFluffy"}
{"commentId":6382067,"authorDomain":"xoxchi"}
LordFluffy:
Ghahh... this is what I get for taking a break at work!! ;-) I meant:
Well... cars are right up there, too. I'm not sure what Americans would choose if they could only have one of 'em.
{"commentId":6382067,"threadId":"549101","contentId":"2655636","authorDomain":"xoxchi"}
{"commentId":6381534,"authorDomain":"conservativevoice5000"}
Great article!!! As the wife of a police officer, I am thankful that he is able to carry a gun 24/7, and thanks to President Bush, he is allowed to carry that weapon in any one of the 50 states.
That being said, he has to wear a bullet proof vest to work every day. Why? Because the bad guys have guns too, often times, more powerful (and incredibly illegal) than that which he is allowed to carry. Gun control only works on law abiding citizens. When gun restrictions are passed, the "bad guys" could care less. It doesn't effect them, as they don't generally follow the law when they acquire theirs, it just make the rest of us easier targets.
{"commentId":6381534,"threadId":"549101","contentId":"2655636","authorDomain":"conservativevoice5000"}
- 11 votes
#12 - Wed Apr 8, 2009 3:48 PM EDT{"commentId":6381675,"authorDomain":"lazaruslong"}
It seems to me that arguing about guns is beside the point; guns have been our possession for hundreds of years. We need to be figuring out why all of the sudden so many disturbed people are committing spree-killing suicides. This is, of course, assuming that this is a new phenomenon - I have no data on this, does anyone else?
{"commentId":6381675,"threadId":"549101","contentId":"2655636","authorDomain":"lazaruslong"}
- 1 vote
#13 - Wed Apr 8, 2009 3:54 PM EDT{"commentId":6382002,"authorDomain":"xoxchi"}
Lazarus Long:
I t seems to me that arguing about guns is beside the point; guns have been our possession for hundreds of years.
Well, we're no longer talking about single-shot muzzle-loaders using black powder; pretty much all of our technology has gotten significantly more powerful since the 18th century.
Regarding, what is driving "spree-killings?" Hard to say; maybe, like other deviances such as serial-killing, child-molestation, etc., it's always been there, but there was no media to report it. Could be over-population; at some point overcrowded rats start eating each other. Or, it could be a result of the massive cultural collisions that have swept the globe since the mass-transit, mass-communication, and mass-production of the 20th century. Old, conservative, but stable patterns of living have broken down around the world; we may all be a bit crazy.
{"commentId":6382002,"threadId":"549101","contentId":"2655636","authorDomain":"xoxchi"}
{"commentId":6382860,"authorDomain":"lazaruslong"}
Well, we're no longer talking about single-shot muzzle-loaders using black powder; pretty much all of our technology has gotten significantly more powerful since the 18th century.
True, but still. We're talking about attacking the unarmed and undefended; any firepower is plenty, and we've had weapons of enormous firepower for generations - how long has the repeating rifle been around? This ability to wreck havoc has been available for a long time; why are toons suddenly doing this? Or is it even something new?
{"commentId":6382860,"threadId":"549101","contentId":"2655636","authorDomain":"lazaruslong"}
{"commentId":6382929,"authorDomain":"wmolaw"}
Lazarus:
I actually looked that up the other day. The first "repeating" rifle was actually made in the 1600's, if you can believe that. Of course, not the same as today's repeaters, but it is and was considered a "repeating" rifle.
{"commentId":6382929,"threadId":"549101","contentId":"2655636","authorDomain":"wmolaw"}
- 3 votes
{"commentId":6384790,"authorDomain":"lazaruslong"}
wmolaw:
I believe it. Are there records of 17th century psychopaths climbing the village cathedral and shooting at peasants to get their jollies before offing themselves?
{"commentId":6384790,"threadId":"549101","contentId":"2655636","authorDomain":"lazaruslong"}
{"commentId":6389042,"authorDomain":"iarnuocon"}
It's a fallacy of misleading vividness. Spree killings aren't occurring more often, they're simply reported immediately, in living color, the instant they happen, nationally. This makes people feel as though there's suddenly an epidemic of such shootings.
In reality, deaths by gunfire have dropped down from an all-time high in the mid 90s to levels that we had in the 60s, despite more gun ownership than ever.
{"commentId":6389042,"threadId":"549101","contentId":"2655636","authorDomain":"iarnuocon"}
- 7 votes
{"commentId":6391711,"authorDomain":"leaseall"}
iarnuocon:
I agree with you fully. With the advancement of technology and the ability of the Media to report almost immediately (and then continue doing so simultaneously) these incidents seem to be increasing in their occurrence when in reality they are not. Compare videos available in many archives showing news reports from Vietnam to those from Iraq. The Vietnam videos were usually 24 hours or more old, the Iraq videos were minutes old if not live. We are now seeing the news as it happens making it stand out in our minds much more intensely.
{"commentId":6391711,"threadId":"549101","contentId":"2655636","authorDomain":"leaseall"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":6383199,"authorDomain":"iloveamerica59"}
The reason that this is a partisan issue is that the libs can't see beyond their partisan attitude and admit that this country would be much safer if everyone starting with age 16 had guns. What do they say about teaching old dogs new tricks?
{"commentId":6383199,"threadId":"549101","contentId":"2655636","authorDomain":"iloveamerica59"}
#14 - Wed Apr 8, 2009 5:05 PM EDT{"commentId":6383449,"authorDomain":"LordFluffy"}
{"commentId":6383912,"authorDomain":"donstahoe"}
I got to say SPANK SPANK!! and FLUFFY you do it so kindly to its just fun
{"commentId":6383912,"threadId":"549101","contentId":"2655636","authorDomain":"donstahoe"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":6393783,"authorDomain":"Freedomcorp"}
I think ILUV was referring that violent crime has dropped in the States that began allowing Conceal Carry in the 1990s, meaning that criminals are stopped prior to the crime committed. We had two seperate incident here where Multiple Ciminals (more than one assailant) with guns were killed by another citizen in a single week, no charges were filed in either case. A criminal no longer can walk into a crowded store and yell "Everyone stick'em up" with the confidence he won't immediately be riddled with bullets.
{"commentId":6393783,"threadId":"549101","contentId":"2655636","authorDomain":"Freedomcorp"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":6384041,"authorDomain":"Dashy"}
Nice article. Here's to hoping that someday everyone can compromise.
{"commentId":6384041,"threadId":"549101","contentId":"2655636","authorDomain":"Dashy"}
- 1 vote
#15 - Wed Apr 8, 2009 5:52 PM EDT{"commentId":6385836,"authorDomain":"king-of-messico"}
Well said Lordfluffy.
{"commentId":6385836,"threadId":"549101","contentId":"2655636","authorDomain":"king-of-messico"}
- 1 vote
#16 - Wed Apr 8, 2009 7:54 PM EDT{"commentId":6387031,"authorDomain":"smokie453"}
I liked the article and we do have a big problem with weapons in general. Keeping guns from the public will not help if people want a gun they will get one just like the criminals. I think everyone needs to step back for a minute and think what has changed. The laws haven't changed much so we need to look at the people.
Now this is a big problem and very hard to control but think how we got to this point. If you back to the standards we lived by say the 1950's is completely different than they are today. I'm a baby boomer and I have a couple of grand-kids and I can not believe what is available to them on the Internet or any TV programing. We as a society have changed more than the laws. How do you correct people or any population?
In the Middle East they are still living like they are still in times of the Old Testament. This is a hard subject to talk about but how can you live by the Old Testament and at the same time do all you can to get your hands on a nuclear bomb. No disrespect intended for anyone but we all know what guns can do in every culture on this planet.
Where do we start? I damn sure don't think that any one person on this earth can get us to square one again.
{"commentId":6387031,"threadId":"549101","contentId":"2655636","authorDomain":"smokie453"}
- 1 vote
#17 - Wed Apr 8, 2009 9:34 PM EDT{"commentId":6388526,"authorDomain":"QuestionEveryone"}
I bought a box of shells for my 38 today. Tried to buy blanks (I use it to desensitize my horses for Extreme Cowboy racing) but the guy said since Obama has been elected he can't keep blanks in stock and barely keeping shells in stock.
I was dumb struck and asked why buy blanks? His answer was "go figure". He just started laughing. What this means to me is people are buying guns and ammo and don't have a clue. He said some of the things people told him that were reasons they were buying guns and ammo were just bazaar.
I'm really worried that if moderates, democrates and liberals don't buy guns and ammo pretty soon the only people who will have guns and ammo are rightwing repubs and neocon's.
If guns and ammo keep everyone free and save - everyone should have guns and ammo. Sure there will be accidental deaths but it's better to be free and safe than control guns and ammo. I do advocate gun safety training, trigger locks and gun safes. At least you will know the difference between blanks and bullets.
Buy guns and ammo. At least one part of the economy will be growing.
{"commentId":6388526,"threadId":"549101","contentId":"2655636","authorDomain":"QuestionEveryone"}
- 2 votes
#18 - Wed Apr 8, 2009 11:57 PM EDT{"commentId":6391091,"authorDomain":"waynester"}
I'm really worried that if moderates, democrates and liberals don't buy guns and ammo pretty soon the only people who will have guns and ammo are rightwing repubs and neocon's.
Not to worry, we'll gladly extend our protection from the savages to our disimilarly disposed fellow Americans (chuckle)
{"commentId":6391091,"threadId":"549101","contentId":"2655636","authorDomain":"waynester"}
- 5 votes
{"commentId":6392104,"authorDomain":"QuestionEveryone"}
Thank you for making my point. Most of those who say guns and ammo keep them free aren't worried about anyone elses freedom.
Again if guns provide freedom and protection everyone should have guns and ammo.
Remember moderates, liberals and democrates buy your guns now.
{"commentId":6392104,"threadId":"549101","contentId":"2655636","authorDomain":"QuestionEveryone"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":6394174,"authorDomain":"Freedomcorp"}
I've found that Most people who want very tight gun control, or guns abolished completely have never shot a pistol or rifle at the range. I've taken more than a dozen people who didn't even know how to operated a handgun, thought they hated them, to the range. Everyone of them, while not wanting criminals to have a gun, realized that these are just instruments that are made dangerous by the people using them. A few of these guys (one girl) now own a gun or two. Once they got over the "Scary Noise" and kick, they learned to "respect" the gun and the Right to own one. Interesting observation - Most people, even macho male types, who have never been trained in gun operation can't figure out how to use a regular Semi-auto handgun. They seem to figure out a revolver within a few minutes though. This surprised me because of all the hype about how dangerous a weapon is, as if normal people run around the streets just blowing off rounds in public. Do the math, guns are less dangerous than many things. Cars kill two to three times as many only because Americans aren't trained correctly and we allow anyone to operate a vehicle, no one screams we need stiffer requirements to drive, like harder tests or reading signs in English..
{"commentId":6394174,"threadId":"549101","contentId":"2655636","authorDomain":"Freedomcorp"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":6394935,"authorDomain":"wmolaw"}
Ferrari:
Ignorance is rampant. The major difference between a semi auto handgun and a revolver is that the semi jams most of the time, especially with folks that don't know the springs actually weaken after a period of time. This is especially true on hi cap mags.
Ah well, they have no desire to actually learn, they have their political position and that's it, damnit. You can lead a horse ....
{"commentId":6394935,"threadId":"549101","contentId":"2655636","authorDomain":"wmolaw"}
- 3 votes
{"commentId":6397745,"authorDomain":"Freedomcorp"}
It sounds like you're making assumptions based on what a guy told you. You;ve got to remember: Ammo and guns never lose value and never go bad so we might as well stock up now, and they're a great investment. The Media has been planting seeds and floating Assault (sic) weapons legislation talk, along with states are trying to enact ammo tagging legislation. That scares The Freedom Lobby. Why do Libs always try and convince everyone you must restrict Middle America's Rights to improve America, just because some small percentage or minority population is misbehaving?
{"commentId":6397745,"threadId":"549101","contentId":"2655636","authorDomain":"Freedomcorp"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":6389145,"authorDomain":"DailyCat"}
LL you raise an interesting question. I'm still pretty sore at the slant of the national media coverage this story is receiving today and ESPECIALLY since it is a day when the piracy story is drawing more viewers than usual.
I don't buy the slant that Americans are buying more guns now because they are being told that Obama is going to take their guns away. Furthermore, I wouldn't be surprised if those soapboxers haven't spotted the trend and usurped the data to build their own audience/ratings. Talk about weaponizing the data! Maybe we should be talking about legislation to regulate the use of the microphone to serve an individual ego!
It's my perception that there was a certain amount of defensiveness (on both sides of the issue) that arose from our political situation prior to the Presidential election. It really started with the shock of hearing that our banking system might fail across the country. That started the trend, whether fear-based or pragmatic in nature.
Since then, the economic realities have struck City Halls across the country and budget conditions are forcing the metropolitan areas to reduce their law enforcement personnel. In our county, our citizens were advised before the end of last year that police would no longer respond to 911 calls for housebreakings with losses amounting to less than $10,000 worth of goods. This during a period when violent housebreakings are rising acutely due to increased unemployment combined with worse things like meth addiction.
Of COURSE honest citizens are going to make arrangements to protect themselves under such conditions. Even if police protection wasn't being reduced, people were beginning to realize that the protections offered were not actually reducing the criminal activities.
And the one thing the media hasn't covered in this brewhaha is the simple fact that the quickest way to lose your individual gun rights is to commit a crime!!!!
I don't know what is driving the mass shooting trend. I wonder if its really rising or if we are just hearing more about such incidents. What caused the freeway shootings in SoCal? Similar trend there, now subdued.
It's an excellent post, LF, and I appreciate your articulate and rational arguments. I agree, we have to drop the posturing and find a middle ground that provides a 21st century awareness of the responsibilities incumbent upon those who choose to exercise their 2nd Amendment rights.
How is it wrong to require a citizen to step up to the responsibilities of ownership: i.e., keeping your weapons secured, managing loads appropriately, maintaining your skills and your awareness of local laws and conditions? etc. It's not an ipod, it's a lethal weapon.
{"commentId":6389145,"threadId":"549101","contentId":"2655636","authorDomain":"DailyCat"}
#19 - Thu Apr 9, 2009 1:04 AM EDT{"commentId":6398438,"authorDomain":"t-bourlon"}
"How is it wrong to require a citizen to step up to the responsibilities of ownership: i.e., keeping your weapons secured, managing loads appropriately, maintaining your skills and your awareness of local laws and conditions? etc. It's not an ipod, it's a lethal weapon."
Oh, if only that was the type of "control" they were talking about. No, instead they want to control the type and amount of guns we own, to heck with whether we know how to use them or not. And don't get me started on that HR45 bill, that ambitiously wants to track every single gun in America! We can't even track 12 million illegal immigrants, and how many millions of guns are in this country? And how many responsible gun owners like myself will REFUSE to register my legal weapons?
{"commentId":6398438,"threadId":"549101","contentId":"2655636","authorDomain":"t-bourlon"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":6391738,"authorDomain":"leaseall"}
LORDFLUFFY:
Very well written article addressing both sides of the issure. Kudos to you!
{"commentId":6391738,"threadId":"549101","contentId":"2655636","authorDomain":"leaseall"}
- 3 votes
#20 - Thu Apr 9, 2009 8:58 AM EDT{"commentId":6392130,"authorDomain":"gamerk2"}
Good article.
Any full auto should be banned; there is no reason why people need to be armed that badly, and odds are, its the criminals that would end up with the bulk of the banned weapons. Anything that can pierce standard police body armor (guns or ammo) should also be banned, for fairly obvious reasons. Hunting rifles and Pistols are exempt from any outright bans.
Next, everyone who buys a gun needs to register. This makes it easier to track down owners of guns used in violent crimes, which acts as a deterrent from using guns in a violent crime.
How anyone can find my thinking unreasonable is beyond me. We see it in almost every country with little to no gun control: See Mexico, the Middle East, ect; where the criminals have better weapons then the military does.
{"commentId":6392130,"threadId":"549101","contentId":"2655636","authorDomain":"gamerk2"}
- 1 vote
#21 - Thu Apr 9, 2009 9:20 AM EDT{"commentId":6392540,"authorDomain":"LordFluffy"}
{"commentId":6392622,"authorDomain":"Rigbee"}
Any full auto should be banned; there is no reason why people need to be armed that badly, and odds are, its the criminals that would end up with the bulk of the banned weapons.
That is the perfect argument against gun bans. Banning guns only takes them out of the hands of law-abiding citizens. Those who mean to do you harm will pay no attention to your ban.
{"commentId":6392622,"threadId":"549101","contentId":"2655636","authorDomain":"Rigbee"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":6393625,"authorDomain":"gamerk2"}
About the Mexico point, its been more or less proven that most of the guns that the cartels use are brought from the US, to get around Mexican gun control laws. Hence, if the US did its part and stopped selling those weapons to the people, they would be cut off from the weapons that give them the advantage.
For the body armor point, let me re-itterate: If it can pierce police body armor with consistency, it should be banned. This exlcused most pistols and light semi-automatics, and as before, I did include an exclusion for hunters rifles.
To Rigbee, if all 50 states refuse to sell the weapons to the general public (Police can use whatever they want as far as I'm concerned), the only way to get them into the hands of criminals is to smuggle them in, which is far more expensive to them. Its no coincidence, that during the depression, most gangs used the widly avaliable Tompson, and once restrictions on ownership of automiatic weapons took place, the number of crimes performed with that type of weapon dropped noticably. Your arguement seems to be if everybody is armed with full-auto weapons, no one will perform a crime.
I point to the priates in Somalia as evidence this line of thinking does not work; if you are desperate enough, and have the means, you will perform viloent crimes in order to ensure for your own well being.
The idea with gun control is simple: Give everyone the right to own light weaponry (up to light semi-automatics), which should be plenty to deal with any intruders that you may encounter. At the same time, know who is in possesion of said weaponry (less likely to be used if you know the gun can be tracked back to you), and take the deadliest weapons off the streets as much as possible.
{"commentId":6393625,"threadId":"549101","contentId":"2655636","authorDomain":"gamerk2"}
{"commentId":6396879,"authorDomain":"Rigbee"}
To Rigbee, if all 50 states refuse to sell the weapons to the general public (Police can use whatever they want as far as I'm concerned), the only way to get them into the hands of criminals is to smuggle them in, which is far more expensive to them.
All 50 states refuse to sell heroin to the general public. Are any states free of illegal drugs?
{"commentId":6396879,"threadId":"549101","contentId":"2655636","authorDomain":"Rigbee"}
- 3 votes
{"commentId":6397011,"authorDomain":"wmolaw"}
Rigbee:
Wow, that was flipping perfect! Hit it right on the head and in one sentence. Great going.
{"commentId":6397011,"threadId":"549101","contentId":"2655636","authorDomain":"wmolaw"}
- 4 votes
{"commentId":6397173,"authorDomain":"RCRGroup"}
About the Mexico point, its been more or less proven that most of the guns that the cartels use are brought from the US, to get around Mexican gun control laws. Hence, if the US did its part and stopped selling those weapons to the people, they would be cut off from the weapons that give them the advantage.
Their are multiple sources where the guns in Mexico came from. Yes the US did supply weapons to the Mexican military and police. Quite a few of those Mexican military/police faced with either cash or threat of death from the drug cartels switch sides and the weapons with them, good old fashion corruption, etc.
Their is evidence that the Russians, Koreas and well as other South American countries have also played a role in the supply of weapons to Mexico. In a nutshell, any automatic weapon, pure military grade weapon, grenade launchers, bazookas, large caliber, etc... are NOT coming from "Little Joe's Gun and Pawn Shop" in the good old USA
{"commentId":6397173,"threadId":"549101","contentId":"2655636","authorDomain":"RCRGroup"}
{"commentId":6397661,"authorDomain":"wmolaw"}
game:
That's just not true, it's a fricking lie. Look, if you believe all the lies put out by our government then I am afraid there is just nowhere to go.
Our own government put out the 90% stat, and it was just a HUGE lie. There are other threads on this and if you wish to learn how your government is given to lie, I suggest you go to them and learn.
{"commentId":6397661,"threadId":"549101","contentId":"2655636","authorDomain":"wmolaw"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":6398616,"authorDomain":"t-bourlon"}
"The idea with gun control is simple: Give everyone the right to own light weaponry (up to light semi-automatics), which should be plenty to deal with any intruders that you may encounter. At the same time, know who is in possesion of said weaponry (less likely to be used if you know the gun can be tracked back to you), and take the deadliest weapons off the streets as much as possible."
And all the more reason for me to NOT register my guns - honestly, do you think I'm THAT stupid???
{"commentId":6398616,"threadId":"549101","contentId":"2655636","authorDomain":"t-bourlon"}
{"commentId":6400790,"authorDomain":"RCRGroup"}
About my recent post, to clarify...
Statement of David Ogden, Deputy Attorney General, United States Department of Justice
"According to ATF’s Tracing Center, 90 percent of the firearms about which ATF receives information are traceable to the United States."
The sentence quoted and the PORTION - "about which ATF receives information..." is part of a 20 page statement made before the US Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs - 25 March 2009.
The media and unfortunately, our government , took the statement and quoted ad naseau giving you a false impression. This is actually 90% of a much, much smaller sample. Mexico has not been forthcoming about the weapons, partially because they have to clean their own house.
An example would be that if the guns seized in a 90 day period totaled 100,000 (that number really only know to the Mexicans), and they ask the US to trace 1000 weapons and indeed 900 were from the US, then the statement is technically correct but the total percentage would be 0.9%. Context is so important.
As I said before most military grade weapons are procured by the drugs cartels by buying them on the black market, stealing them from the Mexican Army and weapons depots as well as the significant number of deserters bringing weapons with them. They weapons are illegal for the cartels to own and use.
" Big Joe's Gun and Pawn" in Texas, NM, Arizona and Cali are not the source for the weapons you see on TV.
The correct information, or at least in context, is out there. It does take a little time and work to get and stay ahead of the spin. Again, my apologies for my previous post, though not wrong, it was lazy and reactionary.
{"commentId":6400790,"threadId":"549101","contentId":"2655636","authorDomain":"RCRGroup"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":6401755,"authorDomain":"gamerk2"}
But heres the problem: Most of what you are arguing disagrees with the facts: Countries with tighter gun control laws have less gun violence (Japan, the Balkan states, Western Europe) overall.
As for the Herorine point, i did say:
and take the deadliest weapons off the streets as much as possible.
As for the 90% statistic, I got that one wrong; I haven't had the chance to read through the actual report yet, and I missed the clearification. Still. I question how many of those 100,000 guns would be traced to the US; they only traced 1,000, and 900 were from the US, so what about the other 99,000?
{"commentId":6401755,"threadId":"549101","contentId":"2655636","authorDomain":"gamerk2"}
{"commentId":6402027,"authorDomain":"wmolaw"}
Game:
The other 99,000 were not possibly from the USA. There are many ways to determine this, including serial numbers. Every gun in the USA has to have an identifying serial number on it. So, it is easy to tell.
{"commentId":6402027,"threadId":"549101","contentId":"2655636","authorDomain":"wmolaw"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":6402324,"authorDomain":"cavicore"}
Next, everyone who buys a gun needs to register. This makes it easier to track down owners of guns used in violent crimes, .
It also makes it possible to track you down when you dare to use your freedom of speech to question thier decisions. No thanks.
{"commentId":6402324,"threadId":"549101","contentId":"2655636","authorDomain":"cavicore"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":6403453,"authorDomain":"RCRGroup"}
Whoa, Whoa....
As for the 90% statistic, I got that one wrong; I haven't had the chance to read through the actual report yet, and I missed the clearification. Still. I question how many of those 100,000 guns would be traced to the US; they only traced 1,000, and 900 were from the US, so what about the other 99,000?
When I used the figure - 100, 000 - it was only to use simple math. I and no one else on this board, has a clue as to the exact number of illegal weapons used by the cartels in Mexico. The real number, as I said, requires the Mexicans to be more forthcoming. So that we are clear, the number is made up for the purpose of example only to illustrate how a 90% figure can be misconstrued and misused.
Wow, slow down people... I know numbers makes a great talking point... my bad...
{"commentId":6403453,"threadId":"549101","contentId":"2655636","authorDomain":"RCRGroup"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":6392602,"authorDomain":"2tailpuppy"}
Big deal. Freedom has a price.
There are about 2,000 people killed and seriously injured in car accidents every week in the US (about 925 killed). Then there about 25,000 people die from cancer and heart disease weekly.
{"commentId":6392602,"threadId":"549101","contentId":"2655636","authorDomain":"2tailpuppy"}
- 4 votes
#22 - Thu Apr 9, 2009 9:42 AM EDT{"commentId":6392618,"authorDomain":"Freedomcorp"}
Face facts. These spree killings only garnish attention because people love to hear about it. The actual deaths are insignificant as it's a very small percentage of deaths from guns. No on seems to care about the fact that 75% of guns deaths are caused by gangs selling crack. Thats over a hundred (100!) per week nationwide. Why the disconnect?
Freedom lovers better concentrate on this fact and voice their concern about disinformation as both the Media and the Feds try and mislead the public that all these deaths are occurring outside of the gangland crack world by law abiding citizens who carry permits..
{"commentId":6392618,"threadId":"549101","contentId":"2655636","authorDomain":"Freedomcorp"}
#23 - Thu Apr 9, 2009 9:43 AM EDT{"commentId":6393106,"authorDomain":"crustyfliss"}
Where do you get the 75% stat from? I'd like to see that proven and validated.
{"commentId":6393106,"threadId":"549101","contentId":"2655636","authorDomain":"crustyfliss"}
{"commentId":6398001,"authorDomain":"Freedomcorp"}
Start with The FBI UCRs, making sure that you realize that the FBI now counts "Hispanics" in the "White" Column, then research daily Police Blotters in the 8 largest cities. Or, just look at the LA time Crime Blog for a general idea. Also, if you watch CSPAN 6 hrs aday, ,like some of us at work have to, you'd hear the FBI continue to speak about Inner City Gang violence. Why don't you tell us where you believe 12,000 deaths occurred last year?
{"commentId":6398001,"threadId":"549101","contentId":"2655636","authorDomain":"Freedomcorp"}
{"commentId":6392662,"authorDomain":"earthmonkey"}
Good piece and some good points. What's scary is, there's a 20/20 show comming up and part of the footage that Dianne Sawyer let out early in the week, shows a revolver on a table in a kindergarten class and some "undercover" footage where the crew put a handgun, in a dresser drawer, in a garage. Ok, what responsible gun owner would put a gun in a dresser drawer in a dresser in a garage with access to anyone? Who in their right mind would say "Oh, I think I'll just out my S&W .357 revolver on this table in a room with 5 year olds and leave them and the gun alone for a while? Ok, maybe the morons that work with Dianne Sawyer (and Sawyer herself). That's like dropping Elliot Spitzer into a strip club with $1 mil in cash!
As for gun control, it seems that the places with the tightest and most strict laws (including the un-Constitutional ones....DC you paying attention??) have the most gun related crime. Guns are like pit bulls. We hear the stories of how a pit bull attacked, yadda yadda yadda but we never hear about the german sheppard or chihuahua (note - before you laugh, watch The Dog Whisperer - PLENTY of chihuahuas were shown that were more aggressive than pit bulls. Nunu is the most famous). Guns are the same. Protests about guns, pushes for more gun control...what about knives? Baseball bats? Heck, cars kill more people in the US than guns do in gun related crimes (I added the crimes bit because someone could nitpick and point out how guns are used in combat zones, etc..you gget the point)
{"commentId":6392662,"threadId":"549101","contentId":"2655636","authorDomain":"earthmonkey"}
- 1 vote
#24 - Thu Apr 9, 2009 9:45 AM EDT{"commentId":6392906,"authorDomain":"Rigbee"}
What's scary is, there's a 20/20 show comming up and part of the footage that Dianne Sawyer let out early in the week, shows a revolver on a table in a kindergarten class and some "undercover" footage where the crew put a handgun, in a dresser drawer, in a garage.
I'm sure this will be followed by Sawyer saying, "And this is why we need to teach our children firearm safety at the earliest possible age." ;-)
{"commentId":6392906,"threadId":"549101","contentId":"2655636","authorDomain":"Rigbee"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":6393631,"authorDomain":"wmolaw"}
Jon:
A little story. When my son was in 7th grade, the teachers in his school sent out a petition that was to be signed by all the kids and their parents saying they would never own a gun, would never touch a gun, etc., etc. If all the kids in the class got it signed, there would be free pizza and soda.
Pissed me off. Went to the principal and told her I wasn't signing and my wife felt the same way. My son was upset, he would be the cause of no pizza and soda (other parents caved even though I knew that many owned guns). Principal was all huffy, so I told her that I would pay for the pizza.
Then I asked her why she liked ignorance. Why they taught the kids birth control, but not how to make sure a firearm was not loaded. That all kids, sooner or later, would be exposed to a firearm and wasn't it their responsibility to teach those kids how to make sure it was safe!
The NRA has a child safety program, and I told her I had called the NRA and they would be glad to come in and give safety lessons.
And then I told her that I had three friends on the local newspaper who felt the way I did.
Needless to say, the petition was scrapped, and the kids got pizza and soda.
What a bunch of idiots. KNOWLEDGE is good, ignorance bad. You would think that a principal of a school would understand that.
{"commentId":6393631,"threadId":"549101","contentId":"2655636","authorDomain":"wmolaw"}
- 3 votes
{"commentId":6393735,"authorDomain":"gamerk2"}
I disagree about the strict gun control laws leading to higher crime. Taking NY for example, its been shown 70% of all weapons (banned or otherwise) that are used in viloent crimes are from out of state. In short, its not NY's gun control laws which cause the problem, its the lack of gun control elsewhere.
You do see the falicy in statistics though; unless all the states have a unified standard, one can buy an AK from Texas (its an example, don't get jumpy people...) and take it with them to NY, which is legal. If that gun is used in a crime in NY though, its NY which gets the statistic hit.
This is why at the very least, all guns need to be traced to their owner, and what state they were purchased from.
{"commentId":6393735,"threadId":"549101","contentId":"2655636","authorDomain":"gamerk2"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":6395048,"authorDomain":"wmolaw"}
Game:
Do you mean NYC, or NY state? They are quite different.
Look, here is NY's gun laws. A review of them may assist you.
{"commentId":6395048,"threadId":"549101","contentId":"2655636","authorDomain":"wmolaw"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":6396938,"authorDomain":"Rigbee"}
This is why at the very least, all guns need to be traced to their owner, and what state they were purchased from.
Of course, if a gun is stolen, or brought from across the border, this won't help one bit. Again, you limit law-abiding citizens and have no effect on criminals.
{"commentId":6396938,"threadId":"549101","contentId":"2655636","authorDomain":"Rigbee"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":6403730,"authorDomain":"Freedomcorp"}
Unlike DC,LA, and Chicago, NY made a decision to prosecute to the max all persons that used a weapon during the commision of a crime. This also means drug possesion, which most states don't prosecute the Federal Gun Charge that goes with the drug charge. NYC is the only place that the Gun crime rate has dropped because this was done 15-20 years ago. Most of us ex-New Yorkers left there for many reasons, but not being able to own a gun was one of them. If everyone Prosecuted as they should, crime would drop dramatically and we wouldn't be having this conversation. We gun owners have always argued that the existing gun laws must be enforced before you add new ones. This is still not being done as the govt's big wish is just to ban all weapons to make their job a little easier.
Gun crime has not dropped at all in DC, LA, and Chicago, all of which most people can't own a gun. It has dropped in every state that has enacted Right to Carry. Trying to explain why people should be denied their Rights because 3% of the population acts like animals isn't a convincing argument. If we proved just a certain population was responsible, would Americans want to deny that specific population segment their rights? What about immigrants? How far do want to go?
{"commentId":6403730,"threadId":"549101","contentId":"2655636","authorDomain":"Freedomcorp"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":6413143,"authorDomain":"wmolaw"}
Ferrari
Exactly. When you actually prosecute gun related crimes, such as illegal possession, guess what, you start to get somewhere.
This is what I mean by so many of these people who advocate stringent "gun control" really aren't interested in actually reducing gun violence, they are merely interested in disemboweling the second amendment.
{"commentId":6413143,"threadId":"549101","contentId":"2655636","authorDomain":"wmolaw"}
- 3 votes
{"commentId":6393980,"authorDomain":"plcombs"}
{"commentId":6398080,"authorDomain":"Freedomcorp"}
Thank You, Clear thinking Man. Very good.
{"commentId":6398080,"threadId":"549101","contentId":"2655636","authorDomain":"Freedomcorp"}
- 2 votes
#26 - Thu Apr 9, 2009 1:16 PM EDT{"commentId":6404358,"authorDomain":"Freedomcorp"}
Demograhics play a major role, until you review these, there is no pattern except possibly, the weather. Because we Americans like to analyze a problem to isolate the problem, the FBI has determined the Inner City Crack problem is the main cause for gun violence in America. Needless to say, too bad because we have a chance to wipe out at least half the deaths and save some lives, either by changing the drug laws, or treating addiction. Our Politically Correct countrymen would rather ignore the facts and see people die than admit there's a problem with the people.
{"commentId":6404358,"threadId":"549101","contentId":"2655636","authorDomain":"Freedomcorp"}
#27 - Thu Apr 9, 2009 5:50 PM EDT{"commentId":6413160,"authorDomain":"wmolaw"}
Ferrarri:
Exactly. I wonder if it is truly fear which motivates these people to ignore the real issues behind "gun violence?"
{"commentId":6413160,"threadId":"549101","contentId":"2655636","authorDomain":"wmolaw"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":6420198,"authorDomain":"plcombs"}
{"canLink":false,"threadId":"549101","isPrivate":false}
You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |
As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.
Start Tracking
Stop TrackingCOMPANY STUFF:
LEGAL STUFF:
- © 2005-2009 Newsvine, Inc. |
- Newsvine® is a registered trademark of Newsvine, Inc. |
- Newsvine is a property of
