Some facts about guns in the US

[Write4U]

Yessir. Anytime someone wants to bring a weapon out for comment or question, the very first thing is to "make it safe" so that everyone can see that it is. Even 'empty' weapons are indexed, and the muzzles are never swept across anyone visible.

And still more... How many years do you need to grow up? (Not you, but the casual reader) You need training in that as well a responsible management of weapons, whatever they may be, to be responsible in life.

As a gun owner myself, I totally agree with you. What would you consider as reasonable and practical regulation to insure the safe and responsible gun ownership that you and I (but not everyone) are voluntarily applying?

 

[kx000]

Delete

 

[pjdude1219]

Indeed - assume it is loaded ANY time you are picking it up, even if it was only out of sight for a moment. First thing to do is point the gun in a safe direction (read, away from ANYONE or ANYTHING you even REMOTELY care about), engage the safety, then remove the magazine/clip (depending on weapon), rack the slide twice - if a bullet comes out, it wasn't empty. If two come out, you are an idiot and forgot to remove the mag/clip Rack the slide a third time and lock it open and visually inspect the chamber. If it is clear, congratulation, you now have a safe firearm.

I've been around people that don't do this when handling a gun that's been sitting because "they made sure it was empty when they put it away"... my response is always the same - I tell them I don't care, and to come get me when they're done screwing around with a lethal weapon, at which point I put at least two walls between me and them.

Generally, people get the point.

that's well and good but i'm willing to bet most "responsible" gunowners don't do that. people tend to be lazy and look for the easy the way. not to mention the whole teaching guns as a right helps breed a sloppy attitude that comes with familarity cause their is no cost to being lazy. same rules in my mind apply to guns as with dealing with dangerous animals, explosives, and the like. you don't get be to be lazy. your don't get to forgetful. you get to be perfect. anything else is unacceptable. because all it takes is to screw up once and a life is gone.

 

[Write4U]

A weapon is a tool. Some folks treat tools with respect and reverence, take good care of them and are careful in their use. These folks have my respect. Some folks really should stick to something else. Assume the weapon is loaded, assume the circuit is live, assume the saw is plugged into a live circuit etc... assume that rust on a tool is a sign that the tool needs maintenance etc ... .
Be responsible in all things.

Does it get any simpler than that?

Actually it gets more complicated. If you are a careless user of your personal tools in your workshop, you will eventually get hurt and learn a lesson.
As you say a gun is also a tool but it is a tool for killing things at a distance (outside), one mistake and not only you but someone else may die. Obviously there is an additional problem with the destructive potential of any gun over a considerable range. A 308 has an effective range of 900 meters.
Careless handling of such a weapon would endanger everyone in a radius of 900 meters. IMO, this is a complicating factor over say the careless handling of a skill saw.

 

[sculptor]

complicated?
it has to do with respect
The bullet i prefer from rifle i use stays supersonic for 1500 meters or so, and deadly a tad more.
I am constantly aware of that power, and act accordingly.
...

Some folks are responsible some ain't.

how could one regulate responsibility?

 

[Kittamaru]

That, ultimately, is the question, isn't it sculptor.

The answer to that is simple... I don't know. I DO know that we can help prevent stolen weapons landing in the wrong peoples hands; one way, which would admittedly cost a pretty penny, would be to require a bio-metric lock on all handguns, similar to what some police departments have. This means that only the owner or a registered user can fire it. Obviously it isn't foolproof, but it goes a long way to stopping random Joe Homebreaker from grabbing it off the counter and using it to rob another house.

 

[Truck Captain Stumpy]

that's well and good but i'm willing to bet most "responsible" gunowners don't do that.

then they are NOT RESPONSIBLE GUN OWNERS

people tend to be lazy and look for the easy the way.

True, but this is NOT AN EXCUSE FOR ANYONE
and NEVER for anyone RESPONSIBLE

responsibility is not just a word... it is proven by ACTIONS

not to mention the whole teaching guns as a right helps breed a sloppy attitude that comes with familarity cause their is no cost to being lazy.

Broken logic and personal conjecture.

this is an OPINION. I do NOT EVER take chances with a gun, and I am even LESS likely when TEACHING SOMEONE with a firearm. My grandkids know that all it takes is them demonstrating that they are irresponsible and THEY DO NOT GET TO TOUCH THE WEAPON.

this is WHY my 2nd youngest is NOT allowed to touch ANY firearms, real or not. No BB guns, no DART guns, no AIRSOFT guns. (I use AIrsoft to begin teaching Grandkids about safety and gun rules as it can be done INSIDE as well as outside, and the rules STILL apply to even that)

same rules in my mind apply to guns as with dealing with dangerous animals, explosives, and the like. you don't get be to be lazy. your don't get to forgetful.

This is prety much how I think as well. AND I TAKE IT SERIOUSLY.
One grandson can't keep still and pay attention... do you think I allow him the chance to put hands on a GUN or RIFLE?

NO

you get to be perfect. anything else is unacceptable. because all it takes is to screw up once and a life is gone.

I see where you are coming from but no one is PERFECT.
and it is a fallacy to assume that ANYONE is.

there are RULES you can make and abide by, and I have those.
When I TEACH or even just SHOOT around the grandchildren, I take a clipboard and we follow the checklist to get them in the habit of always having a list to follow and make SURE none of the points are missed, whether CLEANING, SHOOTING, or even just WATCHING... they are INVOLVED and the SAFETY PROTOCOLS are STRICTLY ADHERED TO.

There is NO ROOM for immaturity or irresponsible behaviour with a gun, and I am teaching them this with ACTIONS as well as words. THAT IS THE ONLY WAY - IMHO

....

Basically, your argument thus far is that NO ONE in your opinion is capable of handling a weapon safely (at least, that is how I am seeing it). but this is not true. And you are mistaking honest "responsible gun owners" for dishonest ones. The honest ones will not CREATE a situation that is lethal and then try to excuse their actions: and when they make mistakes, they will accept the consequences, whatever they may be.

I would like to point out a perfect example of what I consider RESPONSIBLE... it is a MINDSET... and reflected here

complicated?
it has to do with respect
The bullet i prefer from rifle i use stays supersonic for 1500 meters or so, and deadly a tad more.
I am constantly aware of that power, and act accordingly.
...

Some folks are responsible some ain't.

how could one regulate responsibility?

this is how I think. CONSTANTLY... even when I am not carrying MY WEAPON

I am ALWAYS AWARE of its power and the responsibility of handling it and respecting it.
and any time I TOUCH it, I am even MORE aware

 

[Truck Captain Stumpy]

That, ultimately, is the question, isn't it sculptor.

The answer to that is simple... I don't know. I DO know that we can help prevent stolen weapons landing in the wrong peoples hands; one way, which would admittedly cost a pretty penny, would be to require a bio-metric lock on all handguns, similar to what some police departments have. This means that only the owner or a registered user can fire it. Obviously it isn't foolproof, but it goes a long way to stopping random Joe Homebreaker from grabbing it off the counter and using it to rob another house.

those Bio-metric devices had better be more improved than some of the fingerprint scanners that I have seen out on the market...

but you bring up a GREAT POINT...
how to PROMOTE SAFETY while KEEPING FREEDOM as well as SECURITY... and I really think Bio-metric locks are ONE WAY of doing this! I AM ALL FOR THEM

it isn't foolproof, like you said, but it is DEFINITELY a start in the right direction!

should be strictly the OWNER on a privately owned weapon though... with perhaps only certain ways of selling and changing owners (a procedure that allows the Bio-metric device to be cleared of the previous owner and allows the NEW owner to use it...)

perhaps if this (as in the changing of owners/users) were restricted to Law Enforcement and specialized Instructors with deep background checks?

I don't know... but it is a good start! (the biometrics)

EDIT:
addition - HOW do we allow weapons that will be shared by families?
rifles that will be used by family members to put food on the table etc, like around MY house?
the biometrics will have to be programmed with multiple users or possibly with an OWNER OVERRIDE?

 

[Truck Captain Stumpy]

Not TRYING to flood the thread... but I would like to make a couple comments about certain things

Here's the thing, Kitt, and to use Iceaura and TCS as examples: They could very well be ideal "responsible gun owners", and for that I wouldn't knock them; I would thank them. My note to TCS is that it is not that Fraggle is trying to offend gun owners specifically, but that he is offended enough by the state of the societal discourse in some sectors that he is willing to sometimes skip the diplomacy political correctness.

Thank you, Tiassa. I am trying hard to be open to you and communicate better. I think that you and I believe in certain core problems as being the issue that should be addressed, like violence, homicide and lack of responsibility.

SPECIFICALLY About Fraggle though... there is a difference between being politically correct and hostile/vicious, and certain comments were designed to inflame the pro-gun posters.
Personally, I hate PC... if I stink, tell me I stink. I might get upset, but I can get over that... I would rather know that I stink and get something done about it... this is how I see things.

but there was no need to lump all pro-gun people as reprobates and to say that we were using guns to bolster fragile ego's or as a substitute for our lack of manhood, etc. Here is part of one post:

I accept the risk of living in a civilization full of motor vehicles because motor vehicles have a legitimate, useful purpose. Guns don't. Except for a handful of reprobates who get their jollies by shooting non-human animals (leaving many of them wounded and suffering for days), the only purposes of guns are:

• To escalate a disagreement into a murder
• To make a pathetic loser feel like a real man.

He is trying to say that I like killing people and hurting animals -part of the Macdonald triad (also known as the triad of sociopathy or the homicidal triad). He doesn't know me. Nor does he know my past. And to think that my "purpose" is to escalate disagreements into a murder is ridiculous. Especially considering my past.

The INTENT of that paragraph is to PISS SOMEONE OFF... and there is no other way it can be taken than a deliberate attempt to troll, flame and bait someone into a war... it is NOT an attempt to talk sensibly or communicate between people.

I think that YOU and I have gotten better at that, Tiassa. And I think we are working towards a better COMMUNICATION between us, and maybe this will help between others as well. But those posts by Fraggle were NOT about communication, IMHO.

I think it can be proven, too. Would Fraggle even TRY to say that kind of BS to my face? I doubt it. I still see people cross the road to avoid walking near me and I know bikers who avoid having to deal with me. My friends say I look more like a criminal than a retired Truck Captain, So...

Now, I actually appreciate that TCS and I have struck a better tone for this round of engagement, and we do have an issue we can explore together. And I say it quite bluntly in my own right, that it isn't about the right to keep and bear arms—that is to say, it's not so much about the guns themselves—as it is about killing other people.

Thus I would ask you directly: Do you believe that you, as a responsible gun owner, have the right to "responsibly" shoot the wrong person and be shielded from legal consequence?

Is the right to keep and bear arms also the right to shoot people to death for reasons of accident, negligence, or other mere mistake?

Thank you for being open to communication. I think we are getting along better than our first encounter. I will try to keep it thus.

I left this all together because it is all relevant to each other. You and I do NOT disagree on this here. The CORE PROBLEM is the violence, homicide and lack of responsibility and to this I am wholeheartedly in agreement!

Just like an automobile, we should be responsible for the actions we take as well as accepting of the punishment for said actions. IF we mistakenly kill another due to our own negligence (like an "unloaded weapon" *) then we deserve to be punished BY LAW for said actions.

Case in point: the father that shot his boy. Now, if this were ME investigating the scene, or prosecuting it, then I would have pushed for manslaughter due to reckless or negligent behavior. Here is one quote from a law enforcement official

“It’s obviously negligent and reckless to some degree,” a law enforcement official said.

No... not "to some degree" at all... it was NEGLIGENT and RECKLESS PERIOD.

now, that law enforcement official goes no to say it was an accident and he will likely not face charges because this is a grey area...

HORSE HOCKEY !! this grey area comment is CRAP

Here is why: If you will look at Dr. Toad and Kittamaru's comments, you will see that (like me) safety comes FIRST and FOREMOST... and (here is something VERY IMPORTANT to remember) THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS AN UNLOADED WEAPON.

That father was negligent and reckless. I would like to think NO FATHER would ever shoot their own kid on purpose, but I know better. I have investigated some who HAVE shot their kids... but that is not the point... the point is: HE NEVER MADE SURE THE WEAPON WAS CLEARED AND UNLOADED AND HE ALLOWED THE WEAPON TO BE POINTED AT HIS SON.

he was TRULY NEGLIGENT in this manner, and I feel should be punished under the LAW... as there are LAWS to govern this behavior and these circumstances. It didn't happen by chance... if there is already case law as well as laws written, then the situation has come up before.

Some will see me as being a prick for being so hard nosed... get over it. I have trained and lead firefighters into situations where we should have died... and brought everyone out alive again as well as unharmed...
YOU TRAIN FOR REAL LIFE
there are NO HALF ASSED MEASURES IN TRAINING. just like there are NO UNLOADED WEAPONS... that guy NOT ONLY DIDN'T CLEAR AND EMPTY THE WEAPON, but he allowed it to be POINTED AT HIS SON! Never point a gun at ANYTHING you remotely like! EVER!

end of soliloquy

And consider, please, a recent discussion I recall you having an opinion in. That a guy who killed his own seven year-old son through negligent handling of an illegally possessed firearm has been punished enough, and shouldn't be prosecuted? I get the compassionate argument, but I've also lived through decades where a black man who would otherwise be legitimately defending himself but for the fact that the firearm is illegally possessed goes up for gang violence. There's a reason why it seems the question isn't really about firearms but, instead, the right to kill other people.

Maybe I should have put this further up?
It contained the father/son shooting I talk about above ... and again, I believe that father should be prosecuted.

Now, I know a lot of pro-gun people who are every bit as fervent in their desire for safety and security regarding guns. The rules like "there is no such thing as an unloaded gun" is shared by all of them, and everyone I know around me (as well as the gun owners that live near me) are all of the same mindset regarding homicide, death and such things. We have seen enough for several lifetimes... the LAST thing any of us want is to have to use lethal violence. It is a truly last resort for almost everyone I know (and I use the word almost because I cannot honestly say for certain about some individuals because I just met them... however, from what I can discern thus far, they are NOT the sociopathic homicidal type)

No one knows everything... but a RESPONSIBLE gun owner would NOT have let his kid get shot by an unloaded weapon. The whole point being that responsible gun owners take safety seriously and we try to always be consistent. People make mistakes... yes... but you cannot be considered "responsible" for failing the most BASIC and well known rules of gun safety and transportation.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

* the "unloaded weapon" excuse
first and foremost... THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS AN UNLOADED WEAPON.
So not only is this NOT AN EXCUSE, but it is the WORST excuse that could ever be tried. The first and foremost basic rule is THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS AN UNLOADED WEAPON... the second is NEVER POINT YOUR WEAPON AT ANYONE OR ANYTHING THAT YOU REMOTELY LIKE

given BOTH those rules... then the ACT of pointing the "unloaded gun" at someone and then killing them is NOT an accident... because... that's right... THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS AN UNLOADED WEAPON

 

[Bells]

Just a few things. I think you have to consider Fraggle's history and what he has witnessed first hand before you also pass judgement on him.

Secondly, I cannot fault Fraggle for his strong opinions about guns. Mine are pretty much the same. I see no need or reason for people to own guns for reasons like personal safety, etc. Unlike Fraggle, I do not live in America, so when I look at the obsession with guns, it is something that I simply cannot fathom. Australia had suffered several mass shootings in a very small space of time. Guns were much more freely available back then and owning a gun was not that uncommon. Sadly, mass shootings were all too common. My cousin's husband was nearly involved in one, in an Australia Post building many years ago, and as the news broke that there was a shooting happening in the building, his wife was desperately trying to reach him. He was 2 floors up, watching the reflection in the neighbouring building and looking at the shooter killing people 2 floors below, before getting in the elevator and moving up.. He was hiding under his desk, along with everyone else on his floor.. That was just one of them. We had several before and after that. The last one and the one that put the nail in the coffin regarding private gun ownership here was the Port Arthur massacre. By that point, Australians had had enough and we demanded change. And the conservative Government of the day listened and implemented laws and gun buyback schemes. We paid more tax from our Medicare Levy, but no one complained. We had had enough and seen enough death. When a man can buy guns and go to a tourist destination at lunchtime on a sunny day and gun down people in a restaurant and then hunt others down as they tried to escape the carnage, then really, enough was enough for us. So gun restrictions came into place. No one was allowed to own a gun for personal protection. Farmers could own guns and it is restricted in that you have to undergo all sorts of checks. Sports shooters are in the same boats, as are hunters. But people could no longer just walk into a gun store and buy whatever they wanted. And we have yet to have a mass shooting since then. And that was nearly 20 years ago. We don't see it as a right. We see it as an absolute privileged if you happen to need a gun.

So I understand Fraggle's rage. I would feel rage too because mass shootings are all too common and familiar in the US. But even without mass shootings, gun violence is too prevalent in your country. And yet, instead of implementing laws, regulations and restrictions on gun ownership, people protest against this. One's rights to own any type of gun one desires is more important than the general safety of all. And perhaps that is the issue. Gun ownership is not seen as a privilege, but as an absolute right. The right to own one is in case the populace has to rise up against a tyrannical Government. That does not and should not mean that you can just go out and buy whatever ones you want. And really, do you really see yourself arming yourself and going against the State?

A friend of mine recently married an American woman. Last year, they gave her 8 year old daughter a shotgun for Christmas. Apparently it was even pink.. Her favourite colour. He was deeply offended when I asked him if they had moved to Afghanistan, because why else would you give an 8 year old a shotgun? And he couldn't answer. His wife declares it's her daughter's rights to have one. The kid apparently walks around the house with it. And when she goes out to her grandparents, she slings it over her back like her brothers and her grandfather does and that's what they do... Walk around everywhere with it. She even sleeps with it by her beside, just in case someone "forces entry into the property".. Because you know, that's what kids do? The mother fully supports all teachers and older students taking guns to school to prevent mass shooters.. Ermm perhaps if there were gun restrictions, there would be less mass shootings...? Happened here in Australia. But this is the level of madness of some people. I mean, would you want your 13 year old taking guns to school just in case there was a mass shooter? Because you know, a kid with hormones rushing through his body and having to deal with all the bad stuff kids have to put up with is the one you want taking guns to school?

Right does not always equal reason.

Certainly, there are many responsible gun owners out there. Sadly, there are more irresponsible ones who are arming themselves to the teeth just because it is their right. And they completely stop looking at the privilege and the rights of others around them in the process. They stop looking at reason. The irony is that Americans react with horror when they see little kids holding guns under the ISIS flags. But they don't see anything wrong with guns being sold and marketed to little kids in the US.

And that is the issue. The voices of the ones who refuse to look at reason, but only at their "rights" have dominated gun politics for far too long.

I mean what has to happen for there to be a desire for even some gun restrictions? If some guy shooting up a room full of 6 and 7 year olds was not enough, what will it be?

 

[Truck Captain Stumpy]

First, let me say that I am rushed while typing this... I hope it does not come out too aggressive. Or that it is taken wrong.

I can appreciate logic and feedback... but I see things differently than others based upon experience and history.

Just a few things. I think you have to consider Fraggle's history and what he has witnessed first hand before you also pass judgement on him.

Normally, I would agree with you. However, he posted a comment that was designed to denigrate anyone who owned a weapon and did not take time to consider ANYTHING about those people at all, other than his own personal opinions.

There is a time and place for everything. He CHOSE to call ME names, not the other way around. If his past is marked with pain, then I feel sorry for him, but that is what Psychologists are for. There is no need to take it out on ME considering he also knows SQUAT about me.

My whole point was that he CHOSE to fire off a flame riddled comment that was designed to get a rise out of someone and start a war. This is essentially the definition of TROLLING, correct? He would NOT have made those remarks to me in public face-to-face, so it is also a mark of anonymous freedom.

He has his belief, like everyone has their own. To each their own, I say. There is no need to vilify or denigrate a person because they have a differing opinion. If I had chosen to say something obviously WRONG or factually incorrect, I would accept that I made a mistake. He has stated something FACTUALLY INCORRECT, and should also.

Secondly, I cannot fault Fraggle for his strong opinions about guns. Mine are pretty much the same. I see no need or reason for people to own guns for reasons like personal safety, etc.

That is your personal belief, and everyone has a set of them. It is good to have diversity in conversation. You, however, are not calling me names.

And I happen to disagree with you. As a matter of discourse, I would state that guns are the great equalizer and allow an 80 year old woman an EQUAL chance to defend herself against a younger criminal.

Some people disagree with that, thinking that there is no need for firearms for personal protection, but most have also never been in the situation where it is life or death, and the criminal wants them DEAD as well as their stuff. Given the same situation, most people would likely change their minds.

And the ones that say they will not are deluding themselves. UNTIL THEY HAVE BEEN IN THAT SITUATION, there is NO WAY for them to accurately say what they would do or feel. And I learned this lesson the hard way in the military. You can guess what you will do, and talk a mean and well spoken argument... but it is different than being put into a situation and actually experiencing it.

Unlike Fraggle, I do not live in America, so when I look at the obsession with guns, it is something that I simply cannot fathom. Australia had suffered several mass shootings in a very small space of time. Guns were much more freely available back then and owning a gun was not that uncommon. Sadly, mass shootings were all too common. My cousin's husband was nearly involved in one, in an Australia Post building many years ago, and as the news broke that there was a shooting happening in the building, his wife was desperately trying to reach him. He was 2 floors up, watching the reflection in the neighbouring building and looking at the shooter killing people 2 floors below, before getting in the elevator and moving up.. He was hiding under his desk, along with everyone else on his floor.. That was just one of them. We had several before and after that. The last one and the one that put the nail in the coffin regarding private gun ownership here was the Port Arthur massacre. By that point, Australians had had enough and we demanded change. And the conservative Government of the day listened and implemented laws and gun buyback schemes. We paid more tax from our Medicare Levy, but no one complained. We had had enough and seen enough death. When a man can buy guns and go to a tourist destination at lunchtime on a sunny day and gun down people in a restaurant and then hunt others down as they tried to escape the carnage, then really, enough was enough for us. So gun restrictions came into place. No one was allowed to own a gun for personal protection. Farmers could own guns and it is restricted in that you have to undergo all sorts of checks. Sports shooters are in the same boats, as are hunters. But people could no longer just walk into a gun store and buy whatever they wanted.

The core problem is VIOLENCE... not GUNS.

And we have yet to have a mass shooting since then. And that was nearly 20 years ago. We don't see it as a right. We see it as an absolute privileged if you happen to need a gun.

I beg to differ. You should check your facts before commenting.

there HAVE been mass shootings since then.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monash_University_shooting
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Hectorville_siege

and some mass killers have CHOSEN to use fire, instead... and being a retired Truck Captain Paramedic Firefighter, I can say this is honestly FAR WORSE than shooting someone. What is the difference between the mass killer using fire and one using a gun? NOTHING

and that is MY POINT! if there is a will, there is a way, and the mass killer mentality is just one of MANY violent personalities that must be dealt with... NOT THE TOOL which is the gun. Everyone likes to blame the GUN for the crime and they seem to forget that there was a PERSON that USED the gun... the GUN IS AN INANIMATE piece of metal and can also be used as a hammer, to crush coffee beans, beat things into place and pry open boxes (all which were done pre-1980 from the time guns were invented till more recently, so I am NOT reaching here... see the Mountain Men of the US/Canada).

The GUN is a tool... the WEAPON is the Human that chooses to wield it in a deadly manner because of cowardice, stupidity and mental deviations.

THE POINT OF THE DEBATE SHOULD FOCUS UPON THE CORE PROBLEMS, NOT THE TOOL USED IN THE PROBLEMS. If mass murders suddenly shift to fire, automobiles, hammers, screwdrivers or Extension cords, are we going to ban THOSE as well?

The core problem is VIOLENCE. The core problem has not gone away in Australia or Britain either... it only shifted to using other tools, therefore my assertion of the core problem as being VIOLENCE is reinforced by the crime rate.

So I understand Fraggle's rage. I would feel rage too because mass shootings are all too common and familiar in the US. But even without mass shootings, gun violence is too prevalent in your country. And yet, instead of implementing laws, regulations and restrictions on gun ownership, people protest against this. One's rights to own any type of gun one desires is more important than the general safety of all. And perhaps that is the issue.

that is not the issue. And you make grand assumptions without evidence. Which is nice if you are being facetious or farcical, but not when you are debating.

SOME people who protest gun laws are simply protecting others by not allowing the elite in power ever greater controls due to the nefarious nature of their proven history, historical comments and beliefs. hillary would not hesitate to insert some kind of gun confiscation program if she thought she could. Others have said as much as well (obummer, bloomberg). One particularly outspoken anti-gun female congressperson (who's name i cannot remember, but I can look up later) is also a concealed carry owner/gun user, and has armed security. This is unacceptable as well as hypocritical.

There is also the basic problem of people not wanting to pay for law enforcement. People always want to complain that there are no cops when you need them... but no one wants to back up their words with actions and help PAY to keep more cops on the street.

the CORE ISSUE, again, is NOT THE GUN, but the VIOLENCE.

and I will preach this till the day I die. IT IS THE VIOLENCE that is the issue! As well as the CRIMINAL MENTALITY. You can take away guns all you want... that is NOT going to make a difference as long as there are criminals willing to get them by any means possible. EVEN IN AUSTRALIA where you've done your gun confiscations, there are still criminals with guns, so please don't argue that point. When the CORE PROBLEMS are addressed, there will be more people willing to give up their firearms... until then, it is an invalid argument to to say guns are the problem.

It is like saying that Lighters are the reason for fires because they are easy to use, can be lit multiple times without reloading and are distributed to just about anyone who can reach them EVERYONE can see that this is NOT the case... there are matches and other means of creating fires... the problem is the PERSON lighting fires, NOT THE TOOL USED TO LIGHT THE FIRES...

and that example directly correlates to the GUN/VIOLENCE/HOMICIDE problem. It is NOT THE TOOL but the PERSON.

Gun ownership is not seen as a privilege, but as an absolute right. The right to own one is in case the populace has to rise up against a tyrannical Government. That does not and should not mean that you can just go out and buy whatever ones you want. And really, do you really see yourself arming yourself and going against the State?

First of all, it is seen as a right because it IS a right in the US. And even in America, you cannot just go out and buy "whatever you want". We HAVE LAWS that are EXCELLENT... the problem is that a LOT of those laws are NOT ENFORCED. Which is another shortcoming to gun laws here... and to the gov't here. HOW many people were prosecuted for submitting false applications when denied for a gun? There are PLENTY of felons that were prevented from getting a gun in this manner... how many of those were prosecuted for TRYING, which is a FELONY in itself given that they are already FELONS and cannot own a firearm in the US?

Secondly... throwing out the comment "do you really see yourself arming yourself and going against the State" is not addressing anything and irrelevant (and emotionally charged). There are MANY who would stand against the state if it was violating peoples rights. That is how the US was formed, or did you forget?

A friend of mine recently married an American woman. Last year, they gave her 8 year old daughter a shotgun for Christmas. Apparently it was even pink.. Her favourite colour. He was deeply offended when I asked him if they had moved to Afghanistan, because why else would you give an 8 year old a shotgun? And he couldn't answer. His wife declares it's her daughter's rights to have one. The kid apparently walks around the house with it. And when she goes out to her grandparents, she slings it over her back like her brothers and her grandfather does and that's what they do... Walk around everywhere with it. She even sleeps with it by her beside, just in case someone "forces entry into the property".. Because you know, that's what kids do? The mother fully supports all teachers and older students taking guns to school to prevent mass shooters.. Ermm perhaps if there were gun restrictions, there would be less mass shootings...? Happened here in Australia. But this is the level of madness of some people. I mean, would you want your 13 year old taking guns to school just in case there was a mass shooter? Because you know, a kid with hormones rushing through his body and having to deal with all the bad stuff kids have to put up with is the one you want taking guns to school?

My grandchildren have an armed cop at school at all times. If there are school sponsored functions or there is school in session, there is an armed cop there. PERIOD. The cop is also a teacher and gives classes. If ANYONE comes to that school armed intent on doing damage, they know that they will be met with ARMED RESISTANCE and dealt with accordingly. And I believe that all schools should abide by this program as well... it would solve a lot of problems.

AND I am NOT going to address your "friends" because I have already stated my opinions regarding irresponsible behavior.

Right does not always equal reason.

Certainly, there are many responsible gun owners out there. Sadly, there are more irresponsible ones who are arming themselves to the teeth just because it is their right. And they completely stop looking at the privilege and the rights of others around them in the process. They stop looking at reason.

It takes time to weed out those who are irresponsible. We should not flush the baby down with the bath water just because it will get dirty again, or because it was dirty once...

The irony is that Americans react with horror when they see little kids holding guns under the ISIS flags. But they don't see anything wrong with guns being sold and marketed to little kids in the US.

Nice emotionally charged picture you paint... I don't react with horror... but I have also BEEN there and watched these kids fight in a war they are brainwashed to believe in from a religion that is controlling and full of HATE and VIOLENCE (the key words). And I don't think ALL muslims are full of hate and violence... like I also don't think all christians are... only the FANATICAL ones without reason and looking for justifications for their actions... which are centered around HATE and VIOLENCE.

If guns are being used properly and under proper supervision, then there is no problem with it. You are failing to address the REAL problem and concentrating on the TOOL... a common mistake and one far too overused in the anti-gun group.

And that is the issue. The voices of the ones who refuse to look at reason, but only at their "rights" have dominated gun politics for far too long.

I mean what has to happen for there to be a desire for even some gun restrictions? If some guy shooting up a room full of 6 and 7 year olds was not enough, what will it be?

No, that is NOT THE ISSUE. and your emotional cries at the end are great for drama and display, but irrelevant. You don't know how most people feel about this issue, so...

the issue, and the CORE PROBLEM is the VIOLENCE and lack of responsibility. BECAUSE we have people that WILL shoot up a room full of 6 and 7 year old kids... we have a problem... but this is a WORLD PROBLEM and one for the ENTIRE RACE, because EVERY POINT ON THE GLOBE HAS THIS TYPE OF COWARD POS I THEIR MIDST.

Again, I caution you to avoid dramatic appeals heavily draped with the dead bodies of the children... you have never had to clean up or investigate something like that, and I have picked up FAR TOO MANY children's bodies and investigated FAR TOO MANY criminal acts perpetuated on children. I can see this issue FAR more clearly than most because I have been on the front lines.

and I will emphatically state again, for the record... THE CORE PROBLEM IS NOT ABOUT THE GUN, BUT ABOUT THE VIOLENCE
AND THE LACK OF RESPONSIBILITY

 

[kx000]

We don't need guns to be safe, we need to guns drive fear into one another. Only knowledge will prevail in our salvation.

 

[iceaura]

how could one regulate responsibility?

By firmly establishing formal, unarguable, legal consequences for specific failures of standard procedure - regardless of consequences. As the Navy does with nuclear power reactor management in submarines, as the legal and accounting professions set down for due diligence, as we have seen in many venues of human management of hazardous materials or foreseen conflicts of interest that have impact on the public welfare, this is possible and without abrogation of civil rights in the slightest.

Here's one: if a firearm being carried or handled in the presence of other human beings not immediately posing a serious threat is observed to have, or have had, a round in the chamber, that gun and any others possessed by that person is confiscated by the police and the procedure for regaining possession is onerous and expensive. Sound reasonable?

But the other matter visible, my limited interest:

Here's the thing, Kitt, and to use Iceaura and TCS as examples: They could very well be ideal "responsible gun owners", and for that I wouldn't knock them; I would thank them. My note to TCS is that it is not that Fraggle is trying to offend gun owners specifically, but that he is offended enough by the state of the societal discourse in some sectors that he is willing to sometimes skip the diplomacy political correctness.

Once again: There is absolutely no chance that I am a responsible gun owner, no chance that I am an example of whatever you have chosen as your vendetta target here, because as a matter of physical fact I do not own a gun and never have. And this has been pointed out to you several times.

And you are basing your argument on that kind of characterization. Look: In my opinion most of the reasons put forward here for owning guns are at best dubious - defense against attacking wild animals possibly the least reasonable, based on my experience with wild animals, but as a general observation by me none of them are very often solid. I disapprove of carrying guns around without specific purpose, just in case of whatever. I would carry a gun in the same kinds of circumstantial expectation of needing one as I would carry a sledgehammer - and my life is such that I do carry a sledgehammer, actually a splitting maul, fairly often, but never (so far) a gun.

Why is it that the advocates of serious gun restrictions have such a difficult time registering, and arguing from, physical reality? Fraggle's arguments from bogus statistics are garbage, obviously garbage; pj's reading of the second amendment is goofy; and so forth an so on - repetitively, regardless of response, obsessively wrong. And this kind of thing characterizes the actual public debate. That is a poisonous situation. It should not be abetted.

Fraggle is not simply "skipping diplomacy and political correctness", he's completely full of shit here, in this matter. Why is that not obvious to anyone interested in reasonable gun control? How does the lunatic should be fringe get a central position in these debates? Because what you get from this is a gridlock of competing menaces - the common interest and preference of almost everybody gets no voice, and the choices available are between evils.

I mean what has to happen for there to be a desire for even some gun restrictions?

What has to happen for the self described gun control advocates to recognize that there is, in fact, almost universal desire for serious gun restrictions? That when the reasonable desires of other people are dismissed and denied, and those people disparaged and mischaracterized, because they don't trust you, that mistrust is validated?

 

[Kittamaru]

We don't need guns to be safe, we need to guns drive fear into one another. Only knowledge will prevail in our salvation.

If the battle for civilization comes down to the wimps versus the barbarians, the barbarians are going to win.
-Thomas Sowell

If you disarm everyone... then who is left to fight back when one small group comes in with weapons? If someone is going to commit a mass-murder, or a robbery, do you think they care that it is "illegal" to own a firearm? Of course not...

I'm not saying you NEED a gun to be safe... but if you try to get rid of them entirely, especially in a place like the US, where more firearms and drugs cross the border every day... well, it isn't going to end well. There are just far too many ILLEGAL or back-water avenues to obtain these weapons... a blanket ban wont' work.

Hell, look at how well prohibition worked...

I agree... SOMETHING needs to be done. A blanket ban... is not that "thing". To be honest, I don't know what "thing" would really, truly help... better education, better opportunity, et al might do it... but that costs money... money too many people simply don't seem to want to part with.

 

[kx000]

Duplicate post

 

[kx000]

If the battle for civilization comes down to the wimps versus the barbarians, the barbarians are going to win.
-Thomas Sowell

If you disarm everyone... then who is left to fight back when one small group comes in with weapons? If someone is going to commit a mass-murder, or a robbery, do you think they care that it is "illegal" to own a firearm? Of course not...

I'm not saying you NEED a gun to be safe... but if you try to get rid of them entirely, especially in a place like the US, where more firearms and drugs cross the border every day... well, it isn't going to end well. There are just far too many ILLEGAL or back-water avenues to obtain these weapons... a blanket ban wont' work.

Hell, look at how well prohibition worked...

I agree... SOMETHING needs to be done. A blanket ban... is not that "thing". To be honest, I don't know what "thing" would really, truly help... better education, better opportunity, et al might do it... but that costs money... money too many people simply don't seem to want to part with.

Armageddon will be fought with reason and compassion. Our only arm is knowledge never put it down. We are safe guns do nothing but arm the dim witted. All things can be rationalized we don't need the threat of violence in our arsenal.

 

[Kittamaru]

Armageddon will be fought with reason and compassion. Our only arm is knowledge never put it down. We are safe guns do nothing but arm the dim witted. All things can be rationalized we don't need the threat of violence in our arsenal.

So if someone busts into your house with a crowbar or baseball bat, what will you do to defend your wife and kids? Shout trivia at them?

I understand what you are saying... but unfortunately, we don't live in a civilized world.

 

[Truck Captain Stumpy]

Hell, look at how well prohibition worked...

ABSOLUTELY... and considering the long and historical ties that many in the US have to guns....

Look: In my opinion most of the reasons put forward here for owning guns are at best dubious - defense against attacking wild animals possibly the least reasonable, based on my experience with wild animals, but as a general observation by me none of them are very often solid.

If you are referring to MY argument for needing a weapon: It's not like I hang out at zoo's and climb through the lion or tiger enclosure's. That would be stupid.

And YES... the mind/common sense is the best defense... but it cannot be the only defense out here.

Just sayin'

Armageddon will be fought with reason and compassion. Our only arm is knowledge never put it down. We are safe

well... I am not sure where you are coming from... but the "we are safe" part is not true. Not at this particular day and age, IMHO

Until the Criminal mentality and the VIOLENCE are dealt with, then we will continue to have problems with people interacting with one another. This includes the LACK OF RESPONSIBILITY as well... When you forget to accept the repercussions of your actions, and you try to absolve yourself of responsibility through whatever means... then this is the beginning of a slippery slope and CAN lead you into the ugly areas of criminal behaviour... it is, after all, one of the most COMMON features of the CRIMINAL: Lack of responsibility.

guns do nothing but arm the dim witted.

Personal conjecture not supported by evidence. this is an ASSUMPTION based upon your personal fears as well as ignorance.

All things can be rationalized

I disagree with this as well. All things can be EXPLAINED, maybe, but that does NOT make them rational, or the acts rational.

Spend time in ANY large police force/Fire department/Ambulance service/Emergency Room or Hospital and you will see what I mean... when you have to pick up the bodies of dead children over and over due to the stupidity, hostility and negligent criminal acts of the parents, then it tends to leave a lasting scar.

we don't need the threat of violence in our arsenal.

This is essentially the CORE problem that I talked about above.

it is NOT the gun... it is the VIOLENCE inherent in the system


****

I understand what you are saying... but unfortunately, we don't live in a civilized world.

Which kind of drives home the point, right?

You are right, Kitt... we DON'T live in a civilized world!

Thanks for pointing that out, Kittamaru!

 

[iceaura]

I agree... SOMETHING needs to be done. A blanket ban... is not that "thing". To be honest, I don't know what "thing" would really, truly help..

Suppose you trusted your local government to make and enforce the law reasonably and sensibly. Then what would help - a little, only, maybe, but really and truly.

If you are referring to MY argument for needing a weapon: It's not like I hang out at zoo's and climb through the lion or tiger enclosure's.

The guys I work with carry handguns when they go walking in the woods, in case of bears, wolves, or moose with violent agendas.

I have seen - been camping with - people who carried 9 millimeter handguns on portage canoe trips, with that as their reason.

This did not worry me (on the other hand, if they had insisted on bringing a hand axe, I would have declined to accompany them), but they would have got more use, more net safety, and as much beneficial exercise, packing a couple of bricks.

 

[kx000]

So if someone busts into your house with a crowbar or baseball bat, what will you do to defend your wife and kids? Shout trivia at them?

I understand what you are saying... but unfortunately, we don't live in a civilized world.

With reason there are no intruders