WTF Is Wrong With America And Gun Control?
- Thread starter CarolKing
- Start date
- Status
I hope that young mother keeps her gun locked up safe so her little ones won't have acces. I really do believe in freedom in our country.
vapirtoo
Well-Known Member
Hey folks
It's in our culture and it is deeply ingrained.
A gun is a tool and the operator should know how to use their tool. ( store it, clean it )
We had a deranged man hitting Asian ladies in the head with a hammer (NYC).
He was using his tool improperly .
Will they pass a bill for a waiting period to buy hammers.
We need to find out why we are killing each other and how that can be changed.
Take away all the guns and we will improvise
It's in our culture and it is deeply ingrained.
A gun is a tool and the operator should know how to use their tool. ( store it, clean it )
We had a deranged man hitting Asian ladies in the head with a hammer (NYC).
He was using his tool improperly .
Will they pass a bill for a waiting period to buy hammers.
We need to find out why we are killing each other and how that can be changed.
Take away all the guns and we will improvise
t-dub
Vapor Sloth
Subjects like this one are really made for reading books, not discussions on Internet forums. The book @OF recommends (More Guns Less Crime) is spot on. The statistical analysis supports the good guys having the means of self defense. Criminals look for the softest targets possible.
Here is some more "math" that comes from another good book on the subject if you have the stomach to read it, it is "Death By Gun Control" from the JPFO (Jews for the Protection of Firearms Ownership).
Here's the Formula: Hatred + Government + Disarmed Civilians = Genocide (See Genocide Chart below)
What makes the argument so powerful? Two factors. First, it makes common sense: unarmed defenseless people have no hope against armed aggressors. Second, it states the historical truth: evil governments did wipe out 170,000,000 innocent non-military lives in the 20th Century alone.
In the 20th Century:
• Governments murdered four times as many civilians as were killed in all the international and domestic wars combined.
• Governments murdered millions more people than were killed by common criminals.
How could governments kill so many people? The governments had the power - and the people, the victims, were unable to resist. The victims were unarmed.
This list is fairly complete but not exhaustive. After reading the details of all of these massacres I was sickened and enlightened as to who the real criminals are. Chairman Mao for instance murdered an estimated 40 to 70 million of his own people, during peace time. Hell of a guy that Mao. Stalin liked to take away the food his people had worked to raise and let them starve to death while he sold it on the international market. The Tutsi people, after being disarmed, were all hacked to death by machetes. Everyone. Men, women, children, even the livestock. Nothing survived. Remember Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge? They killed 25% of the population of Cambodia.
If you disarm the good guys only criminals, and the goverment (most time one in the same) will have the guns. The possibilities are very clear and the body count of history does not lie. Its part of what the second amendment is about and is what makes our constitution unique in the world for no other has this right attached. The right of self defense, the freedom to try to defend your life, or not if that is your choice, is preserved here.
Last edited:
flotntoke
thoroughly vaped
Yes, but Lott and his analysis still leave a lot to be desired, not to mention the fact that he leaves out most of those who die from handguns in this country (if not worldwide). The first group are those who turn the gun on themselves. Granted there are many more ways to kill yourself than with a bullet, but suicide rates are higher in the same "free zones" Lott extols as "safer". Many articles are available on this, but I'll post the link to FoxNews because I'm still surprised they did it. Risk of suicide in gun owning homes is 2 to 3 times as high as in non-gun owning homes. Also, you'll find in the same article that risk of homicide is almost double in gun owning homes - with the possibility of women being killed even higher (often by the same men that insist on having a gun in the house for her protection).
Another place where his argument falls short is in his analysis of high crime areas in inner cities. IIRC, Lott states that these areas typically have more restrictive gun laws, yet many more gun homicides. What he chooses to avoid is that in most of these areas the more restrictive gun laws were put in place because of escalating gun violence in these areas. Don't think this is as much of a which came first the chicken or the egg issue, as much as reversed causality. Lott is no dummy - though possibly tainted emotionally and with his penchant for sometimes backwards statistical analysis (that being form your conclusion first, then go find the data) - and still leaves this out. He didn't notice it? Doubtful. He chose not to include it because it doesn't match up with his pre-determined conclusions? Sure seems like it.
Which brings me to why I think Lott is truly full of it, and many or his proponents are caught up in the same emotionally charged, and less than factual assumptions. If his theories are true, and those brandishing weapons are often able to turn away bad guys, how come so many of the gun caused deaths he cites in non "free zones" are young gang members who themselves are carrying weapons? And, are known to be carrying weapons by their murderers. He also brushes aside the many innocent victims that get hit with wild crossfire or instances where gang shooters target the wrong house or individual. I'll agree that these guys are the least likely to have proper gun training and are probably the most likely to pull the trigger. But, they are also the ones who like to shoot from around a corner - where they don't have eyes on the target, let alone even try to aim - as if they knew how to anyway.
Surely you don't expect the grandmother who was killed on her own front porch on a Tuesday at 3 in the afternoon when she dove on to her 4 year old granddaughter after hearing gunfire, to leave the child unprotected while she draws and fires blindly back in the direction of the shots? I'm not making this up. She was the aunt of a close friend, killed last fall. Fortunately I guess, she clung to life for a couple days so her family had a chance for final good-byes. Those shots came from a teenage punk who saw what he thought was the car of a guy that stole his girlfriend. Turns out it wasn't even the right car, but that poor woman is just as dead and her family still grieves! Yeah... more guns will fix this problem!
For much more about Mr. Lott and his inaccuracies and suppositions, check out this peer reviewed paper from other serious statisticians who find many errors is his methodology and conclusions.
Don't want to open another can of worms in this already close to dicey thread, but there are many who stand behind the 2 -3% of climatologists and meteorologists who say there is no such thing as global warming in the face of the 97 - 98% who do. That doesn't mean they're right!
And it is exactly this kind of thing that really brings it down to that ridiculous level that just makes it silly argumentative bullshit instead of an adult discussion. No one is suggesting a bill for a waiting period for hammers. Horrible that this lunatic was doing this, but what's the point here if not to belittle others who have a different perspective? The reason why no one is going to ask for "hammer laws" as the vast majority of our country has for stricter gun regulations is that tens of thousands of people aren't being killed every year with hammers. As a matter of fact, none of these 4 victims, nor the 4 of May's hammer wielding lunatic (diagnosed some time ago with paranoia and schizophrenia - and probably the inspiration for this one) were seriously injured.
There is no improvisation to shoot and kill innocent people in the blink of an eye. Not from a hammer, not from a knife, not from anything other than firearms and explosives. Nor, is there anything so instant. It usually takes a few good shots to the head to kill someone with a hammer, and a good bit of nerve to continue swinging while witnessing it. And, the victim or others have time and a chance to slow or stop the attack.
I will leave you with one additional comment on the whole mess though..... Imagine how dangerous our roads would be if it was as easy to get a driver's license as it is to get a handgun and a concealed carry permit in most states. Doesn't that strike anyone pushing the "freedom of gun ownership" as just a bit odd? Shouldn't training, testing and more comprehensive record keeping be done with weapons - especially handguns? If not, why not? Why should it be easier for me to be allowed to get a tool designed only for killing, and a legal way to hide it from others than it is to be able to get certified to drive back and forth to work?
Yeah... said I was done but couldn't resist. Know it isn't quite this simple, but what are you going to pull out of your gun cabinet to fight back when your government sends an M1 Abrams tank down your street? What are you going to use against the Apache Attack Helo? Hell, what about your local PD's armored SWAT vehicle? Maybe I'm just reading more into your post than you are trying to say, but if so what is the point of these facts in this discussion?
Last edited:
frostyrod
Well-Known Member
Maybe not the complete story..... Here's a little balanced reading on this "SERIOUS Statistician" : http://www.armedwithreason.com/shooting-down-the-gun-lobbys-favorite-academic-a-lott-of-liesk
I'm just saying how other scientists and statisticians view this guy, isn't overly favorable. He's not exactly picking the winning horse. It's kind of like backing the Scientist that skewed his data to make it look like Vaccines cause autism...Not the best of voices to listen to, on either subject.
OF
Well-Known Member
I get it you don't like the message, but you really should read the book? In it he points out that places (like Florida.....) that 'weaken' their laws to allow law abiding citizens access enjoy a drop in violent crime. It doesn't matter if the restrictive laws caused or are in response to violence, 'taking guns off the streets' (meaning taking them away from good guys, bad guys don't follow laws......) brings more law abiding victims. IMO that's logical. And Lott has the numbers to back it up.
It's also worth noting Lott started out a cool aid drinker. He was anti gun before he looked objectively at the facts. The facts changed his mind, not "his pre-determined conclusions (sic)". Again, his statistics are peer reviewed........they stand up against folks hell bent on tearing him down. And have for a lot of years.
Good guys shoot 7 times more bad guys than cops. Bad guys fear armed prey, not the heat, just ask 'em. Prison surveys also back up Lott.......
OF
t-dub
Vapor Sloth
Not everyone on that list faced tanks, in fact most didn't. The Tutsi only faced machetes. Not all means of defense come from a gun cabinet, resistance takes many forms. Tanks don't like fire for instance. How did the Red Chinese in Korea wreak havoc against us? Superior, overwhelming, numbers. Every offense has a defense and please note I edited my post to say "try and save your life" because there are no guarantees. An armed population makes everyone involved think twice, or more times, before performing this kind of activity. Also, I said this subject is for the reading of books and personal reflection. You will never change anyone's mind on here and I am not trying to do that. I've said what I learned as food for thought, not to start an argument, which seems to be where these threads always go and is why they are, for the most part, a complete waste of time . . .
flotntoke
thoroughly vaped
Kind of feel like I'm getting ganged up on here. Not that I didn't ask for it, but would be nice to have something like an electronic 12 gauge in situations like this. Just kidding, but yes I do own a couple guns, too. Still think something needs to be done in this country about gun control, and sooner rather than later.
Thanks for the link! That's a ton of reading, but will take a look at it.
I hear you, and got the same from your previous post. But, think if you look you'll find most of the serious Lott supporters are people who agree with his what I would still call somewhat subjective analysis. And, please be careful with the kool-aid drinker bit. IMO, he's on the kool-aid now - not then.
I haven't read any of his books in their entirety, though I have read a good many excerpts and many commentaries from those who refute his theories. Maybe not the best perspective to battle him head on, but I think certainly enough for a discussion such as this. Whether some of his points or figures are spot on or not, the conclusion that more guns lead to less gun violence is not. That IMO is illogical. Even if only because of suicides and domestic homicides - though I would certainly say more. And, who said we need to take guns from law abiding citizens - even handguns if they choose to own them? What I'm saying - and have been saying - is that we need more restrictions in place and more responsibility from legal gun owners.
Number crunching aside, let's look at just one instance in Florida where this wasn't the case. Do you think Trayvon Martin would be dead if George Zimmerman wasn't carrying a handgun? I'm not even talking about the fact that he couldn't have shot and killed him (tho agree this is obvious and where it ended up). What I'm getting at is do you think Zimmerman would have tracked him down in backyards in the dark if he didn't have that Kel Tec confidence strapped on? I don't. And there are many similar instances in Florida and elsewhere where having your gun on you, legally, gives confidence and asshole-ishness that wouldn't exist if you were just carrying your Buck knife. How many people do you think are shot in bar parking lot fights that would never have occurred if someone didn't have the same confidence of knowing their snub nose is right under the front seat? I think you'd agree that many more similar instances of this occur daily. Where or how does Lott, or anyone else touting his figures, account for this?
Good guys aren't always the good guys when shooting, though many think they are. And, I think the reason they shoot more "bad guys" than cops is because the vast majority aren't trained other than from movies. There are times when deadly force is truly necessary. I wonder in how many of the 7 times more than cops, it wasn't necessary either. Even if the bad guys are truly bad, I don't think they deserve to die for it - or even be shot - most of the time. In Lott's eyes, none of this seems to matter. Somebody is stealing the gnome out of my garden? Shoot that bad guy in the ass! Seem fair? Not to me, but don't think we have to ponder too long to figure Lott's take on something like this. Or, am I attributing things to him that in your estimation would be reported differently in his statistics?
I hear you about bad guys fearing armed prey. I live pretty far out in the sticks, and know it would take troopers a good 10 - 15 minutes to get to me if they were really trying. That's why I'm armed. Not with a handgun, though. I don't believe in shooting to kill unless it is me or them - and unless you're taking out kneecaps in a gangster movie, or holding up a liquor store, that's about as useful as handguns get - fun though they may be to shoot. And, not like I feel like having a quick draw western style shoot out in my living room. Shoot to scare, shoot to stop, shoot to maim? Hopefully will NEVER come down to that, but if it does I don't want to have to aim. That's why a shotgun is my preferred home protection. And, if it doesn't turn them around and send them running, it will sure as hell slow them down enough to finish the job with the other chamber. Plus, I figure the distinct sound of chambering a load ought to be enough in most situations.
Very true. And, that's why I asked what the relevance was to the discussion at hand. We're talking about what is wrong with AMERICA and gun control. You really think you, me and everyone way more armed to the teeth stands a snowball's chance in Hell if OUR government decides to do anything similar, and at least some - more likely most - in the military (with all the big toys) don't join us? The reason these genocides and other government killing sprees were able to take place with lesser weapons is that the citizenry wasn't as armed as they were - no matter the level of arms. If the government had small arms and the citizenry had small arms, they probably wouldn't even try to do it. And if they did, they wouldn't succeed. First rule of genocide is to have more firepower than your target. Think that's chapter one, page one of the manual.
What I'm saying is that people who claim we need our guns to protect against government tyranny (and not saying this is you at all) are lost in fantasy, be that driven by movies or believing we're still in the late 18th century. You're right, tanks don't like fire. But if you can survive a nearby nuclear attack in an Abrams (and supposedly you can), it's gonna take a Hell of a lot of molotov cocktails to even slow it down. And, don't forget those overwhelming numbers in Korea had some serious firepower behind them, with air support to boot, and still only managed a draw, not a win. There is simply no realistic logic in believing our personal weapons - especially handguns of all things - will be much more effective than rocks if shit goes down this way.
I'm not saying there isn't a place for handguns or that people shouldn't be able to own them. What I am saying is that there are solid, reliable things that can be done to mitigate the violence that comes from them. 3 days is not enough time to properly process a background check on handgun purchases. This has become obvious again with the Charleston shooting. The kid shouldn't have legally been able to buy a handgun, but snafus in the process, and having to complete the background check in 3 days, allowed him to get one. And, even if time limit is extended no gun should be sold until it is cleared by FBI (or whoever is doing the check). It shouldn't be a matter of, "If you don't hear back from us in 3 days, you're fine to sell it."
There is no legitimate reason in Hell someone should need to buy more than 2 weapons in a month, unless a legitimate collector or a licensed reseller. Only registered, very vetted and monitored individuals should be able to do so. And, if they get caught screwing around with it, that privilege should be revoked. If they sell weapons without going through the same process as any gun shop, and that weapon is used in a crime, they should be charged with conspiracy of that crime AND the illegal gun sale. Straw purchasers should be sent to JAIL, no probation, no second chance.
Gun show loopholes should be closed immediately! And, guns shouldn't be able to be transferred between individuals without submitting paperwork and going through a registered gun dealer (similar to what you have to do now for most internet/interstate purchases).
All handguns and rifled arms should have registered ballistic information in a reliable database. One stray bullet, or in most cases one on target, would be able to identify the weapon and who owned it.
A police report and at least cursory investigation should take place anytime a weapon is fired at someone (not on a range or for practice). This information should be in a national database listed by owner, and weapon serial number. You get caught not complying, you lose your right to own firearms - that one and any others.
There are more, but this would be a good start! I know some will complain that this is too restrictive and the government shouldn't be this deep in our personal gun business - but really how much is too much in the face of gun violence today? With so many people being killed and seriously injured by bullets something must be done.
Thanks for the link! That's a ton of reading, but will take a look at it.
I hear you, and got the same from your previous post. But, think if you look you'll find most of the serious Lott supporters are people who agree with his what I would still call somewhat subjective analysis. And, please be careful with the kool-aid drinker bit. IMO, he's on the kool-aid now - not then.
I haven't read any of his books in their entirety, though I have read a good many excerpts and many commentaries from those who refute his theories. Maybe not the best perspective to battle him head on, but I think certainly enough for a discussion such as this. Whether some of his points or figures are spot on or not, the conclusion that more guns lead to less gun violence is not. That IMO is illogical. Even if only because of suicides and domestic homicides - though I would certainly say more. And, who said we need to take guns from law abiding citizens - even handguns if they choose to own them? What I'm saying - and have been saying - is that we need more restrictions in place and more responsibility from legal gun owners.
Number crunching aside, let's look at just one instance in Florida where this wasn't the case. Do you think Trayvon Martin would be dead if George Zimmerman wasn't carrying a handgun? I'm not even talking about the fact that he couldn't have shot and killed him (tho agree this is obvious and where it ended up). What I'm getting at is do you think Zimmerman would have tracked him down in backyards in the dark if he didn't have that Kel Tec confidence strapped on? I don't. And there are many similar instances in Florida and elsewhere where having your gun on you, legally, gives confidence and asshole-ishness that wouldn't exist if you were just carrying your Buck knife. How many people do you think are shot in bar parking lot fights that would never have occurred if someone didn't have the same confidence of knowing their snub nose is right under the front seat? I think you'd agree that many more similar instances of this occur daily. Where or how does Lott, or anyone else touting his figures, account for this?
Good guys aren't always the good guys when shooting, though many think they are. And, I think the reason they shoot more "bad guys" than cops is because the vast majority aren't trained other than from movies. There are times when deadly force is truly necessary. I wonder in how many of the 7 times more than cops, it wasn't necessary either. Even if the bad guys are truly bad, I don't think they deserve to die for it - or even be shot - most of the time. In Lott's eyes, none of this seems to matter. Somebody is stealing the gnome out of my garden? Shoot that bad guy in the ass! Seem fair? Not to me, but don't think we have to ponder too long to figure Lott's take on something like this. Or, am I attributing things to him that in your estimation would be reported differently in his statistics?
I hear you about bad guys fearing armed prey. I live pretty far out in the sticks, and know it would take troopers a good 10 - 15 minutes to get to me if they were really trying. That's why I'm armed. Not with a handgun, though. I don't believe in shooting to kill unless it is me or them - and unless you're taking out kneecaps in a gangster movie, or holding up a liquor store, that's about as useful as handguns get - fun though they may be to shoot. And, not like I feel like having a quick draw western style shoot out in my living room. Shoot to scare, shoot to stop, shoot to maim? Hopefully will NEVER come down to that, but if it does I don't want to have to aim. That's why a shotgun is my preferred home protection. And, if it doesn't turn them around and send them running, it will sure as hell slow them down enough to finish the job with the other chamber. Plus, I figure the distinct sound of chambering a load ought to be enough in most situations.
Very true. And, that's why I asked what the relevance was to the discussion at hand. We're talking about what is wrong with AMERICA and gun control. You really think you, me and everyone way more armed to the teeth stands a snowball's chance in Hell if OUR government decides to do anything similar, and at least some - more likely most - in the military (with all the big toys) don't join us? The reason these genocides and other government killing sprees were able to take place with lesser weapons is that the citizenry wasn't as armed as they were - no matter the level of arms. If the government had small arms and the citizenry had small arms, they probably wouldn't even try to do it. And if they did, they wouldn't succeed. First rule of genocide is to have more firepower than your target. Think that's chapter one, page one of the manual.
What I'm saying is that people who claim we need our guns to protect against government tyranny (and not saying this is you at all) are lost in fantasy, be that driven by movies or believing we're still in the late 18th century. You're right, tanks don't like fire. But if you can survive a nearby nuclear attack in an Abrams (and supposedly you can), it's gonna take a Hell of a lot of molotov cocktails to even slow it down. And, don't forget those overwhelming numbers in Korea had some serious firepower behind them, with air support to boot, and still only managed a draw, not a win. There is simply no realistic logic in believing our personal weapons - especially handguns of all things - will be much more effective than rocks if shit goes down this way.
I'm not saying there isn't a place for handguns or that people shouldn't be able to own them. What I am saying is that there are solid, reliable things that can be done to mitigate the violence that comes from them. 3 days is not enough time to properly process a background check on handgun purchases. This has become obvious again with the Charleston shooting. The kid shouldn't have legally been able to buy a handgun, but snafus in the process, and having to complete the background check in 3 days, allowed him to get one. And, even if time limit is extended no gun should be sold until it is cleared by FBI (or whoever is doing the check). It shouldn't be a matter of, "If you don't hear back from us in 3 days, you're fine to sell it."
There is no legitimate reason in Hell someone should need to buy more than 2 weapons in a month, unless a legitimate collector or a licensed reseller. Only registered, very vetted and monitored individuals should be able to do so. And, if they get caught screwing around with it, that privilege should be revoked. If they sell weapons without going through the same process as any gun shop, and that weapon is used in a crime, they should be charged with conspiracy of that crime AND the illegal gun sale. Straw purchasers should be sent to JAIL, no probation, no second chance.
Gun show loopholes should be closed immediately! And, guns shouldn't be able to be transferred between individuals without submitting paperwork and going through a registered gun dealer (similar to what you have to do now for most internet/interstate purchases).
All handguns and rifled arms should have registered ballistic information in a reliable database. One stray bullet, or in most cases one on target, would be able to identify the weapon and who owned it.
A police report and at least cursory investigation should take place anytime a weapon is fired at someone (not on a range or for practice). This information should be in a national database listed by owner, and weapon serial number. You get caught not complying, you lose your right to own firearms - that one and any others.
There are more, but this would be a good start! I know some will complain that this is too restrictive and the government shouldn't be this deep in our personal gun business - but really how much is too much in the face of gun violence today? With so many people being killed and seriously injured by bullets something must be done.
thread title: wtf is wrong with america and gun control...
I ASK: WTF is wrong with HUMANS and SELF CONTROL!?
wouldnt it be nice if the government just controlled everything for us?
maybe they can stop those stupid hippies from smoking pot! prohibit that shit! there should be a law that keeps certain people from consumption of cannabis while other are allowed it...
maybe they should prohibit alcohol too... alcohol kills people and people kill people because of alcohol....
If you ask the keeper to tighten the leash make no mistake they will do exactly what you ask... ask the keeper to loosen the noose and I doubt they will listen.
I ASK: WTF is wrong with HUMANS and SELF CONTROL!?
wouldnt it be nice if the government just controlled everything for us?
maybe they can stop those stupid hippies from smoking pot! prohibit that shit! there should be a law that keeps certain people from consumption of cannabis while other are allowed it...
maybe they should prohibit alcohol too... alcohol kills people and people kill people because of alcohol....
If you ask the keeper to tighten the leash make no mistake they will do exactly what you ask... ask the keeper to loosen the noose and I doubt they will listen.
Just some guy13
Active Member
As with an divise issue in the US, there is a partisan divide. As far as prescribing to one of the major parties ideology regarding gun control, Democrats have a far more reasonable point of view.
But as usual, the best solution most likely lies between the two extremes.
First, we must stop the ridiculous rhetoric, created and propelled by the right, that the term "gun control" means completely restricting gun access and "taking" the weapons of citizens. This could not be more false. Gun control simply means putting in place regulatory, insitutional safe guards, meant to reduce gun violence. As long as these controls are not overly burdensome then I think most reasonable people would agree that is a desirable goal. Lets not forget prior to "gun control" legislation in the in 1994 under the Clinton administration it was perfectly legal for citizens to own assualt weapons and large capacity magazines. That is absolutely ridiculous......and to make matters worse the right actually opposed this legislation....WTF.....i can see zero rational basis to argue against that legislation. As if it's crazy to say that semi automatic rifles might be a little much for civilian use. But I digress.
The fact remains the if you look at other country's with comparable size and composition almost all of them have more strict gun control laws than the US and by extension far less violent crime. Per usual the US lags behind the rest of the developed world in terms of common sense legislation because well funded interest groups (NRA) bribe....i mean "lobby" government officials to pursue their interests. The fear mongering "Obama is coming to take your guns" by the NRA and Fox News, is a simple ploy to drive gun and ammunition sales. It works extremely effectively as our largely uneducated masses blindly follow the direction of party elites.
Wanting to restrict access to guns is such a common sense point that any arguement against it is either irrationally motivated by fear, politics, or money....usually a combination of all 3. Before people champion the 2nd amendment as the reason, figure it out. First and foremost the Constitution is a living wnd flexable document meant to grow and change with a changing landscape. What? Should only white males be able to vote because that's how the Constitution was written? Absolutely idiotic to concede that some parts of the Constitution are subject to change but others are not. The Framers could never have envisioned such highly developed weapons never mind in the hands of the public. Had they been aware, they would have most certainly restricted gun access being rather elitist and scared of the masses. But anyway, the 2nd amendment is primarily about the right of citizens
to keep and well regulated militia with the right to bear arms tacted on at the end.
Lastly, the "cars kill more people than guns" arguement is quite literally moronic. First, cars are designed to transport people and are used by millions of people everyday. So first the primary design of a car is for transportation and the higher number of deaths is caused, obviously, by a larger sample size. Saying that "X" number of people die from car accidents while only "X" number of people die from guns is the result of cars being used at a much higher rate. So directly comparing the numbers is stupid and comparing them as a rate (to account for the different sample sizes) is virtually impossible because when a gun is and is not in "use" is far too subjective. Even if I were to buy that ridiculous arguement then you would be proving my point. Cars are regulated MUCH more than gun.....which are designed to kill people. To get a drivers license more institutional safe guards and training is provided than for guns....which are designed to kill people. What an absolute joke.
While I do not mind guns for home defense I do not think they should be carried around in public. We are a nation that riots and sets fires over sporting events.....aka easily swayed by emotion......so allowing people to carry guns is just not a good idea. I've seen so many fights start over stupid things....the last thing we need is people strapped with guns shooting at each other. As far as home defense goes, it is perfectly fine to want to have some security in your house. But....really....is it really that big of a deal for legislation to be passed requiring you to lock it up? Like come on thats such a common sense proposal anyone who opposes it has some other interest than the public good. Secondly, I feel hand guns are perfectly suitable for home defense, I doubt a robber would not be dettered by a hand gun.....it's not like people wont be scared by a hand gun but would be scared by a rifle....guns are guns and they can all kill you.
Lastly, the whole "criminals don't have guns so gun control will just disarm the public" arguement. By that rationale....why have any laws at all? Criminals will just break them so screw it lets have no laws! What's the point of outlawing the theft of cars? Criminals will steal them anyway. Stupid arguement.
While no political party has all the answers this is one issue that Republican's are obviously on the wrong side of. They are simply serving their self interest by appealing to some voters and appeasing wealthy donors. Make no mistake, if the GOP embraced common sense gun control their voters would follow suite. Policy is dictated at the elite level and then filitered down to the masses, it is not generated by the people. It's painfully obvious the GOP won't embrace common sense anytime soon......this is a party that wants go require an ID to vote but not to buy a weapon LMAO. It's fine though, as long as they are beholden to the Tea Party they pose no real threat to win the Presidency anyway
Rant over. I'm sick of seeing innocent people die because our politicans lack common sense.
But as usual, the best solution most likely lies between the two extremes.
First, we must stop the ridiculous rhetoric, created and propelled by the right, that the term "gun control" means completely restricting gun access and "taking" the weapons of citizens. This could not be more false. Gun control simply means putting in place regulatory, insitutional safe guards, meant to reduce gun violence. As long as these controls are not overly burdensome then I think most reasonable people would agree that is a desirable goal. Lets not forget prior to "gun control" legislation in the in 1994 under the Clinton administration it was perfectly legal for citizens to own assualt weapons and large capacity magazines. That is absolutely ridiculous......and to make matters worse the right actually opposed this legislation....WTF.....i can see zero rational basis to argue against that legislation. As if it's crazy to say that semi automatic rifles might be a little much for civilian use. But I digress.
The fact remains the if you look at other country's with comparable size and composition almost all of them have more strict gun control laws than the US and by extension far less violent crime. Per usual the US lags behind the rest of the developed world in terms of common sense legislation because well funded interest groups (NRA) bribe....i mean "lobby" government officials to pursue their interests. The fear mongering "Obama is coming to take your guns" by the NRA and Fox News, is a simple ploy to drive gun and ammunition sales. It works extremely effectively as our largely uneducated masses blindly follow the direction of party elites.
Wanting to restrict access to guns is such a common sense point that any arguement against it is either irrationally motivated by fear, politics, or money....usually a combination of all 3. Before people champion the 2nd amendment as the reason, figure it out. First and foremost the Constitution is a living wnd flexable document meant to grow and change with a changing landscape. What? Should only white males be able to vote because that's how the Constitution was written? Absolutely idiotic to concede that some parts of the Constitution are subject to change but others are not. The Framers could never have envisioned such highly developed weapons never mind in the hands of the public. Had they been aware, they would have most certainly restricted gun access being rather elitist and scared of the masses. But anyway, the 2nd amendment is primarily about the right of citizens
to keep and well regulated militia with the right to bear arms tacted on at the end.
Lastly, the "cars kill more people than guns" arguement is quite literally moronic. First, cars are designed to transport people and are used by millions of people everyday. So first the primary design of a car is for transportation and the higher number of deaths is caused, obviously, by a larger sample size. Saying that "X" number of people die from car accidents while only "X" number of people die from guns is the result of cars being used at a much higher rate. So directly comparing the numbers is stupid and comparing them as a rate (to account for the different sample sizes) is virtually impossible because when a gun is and is not in "use" is far too subjective. Even if I were to buy that ridiculous arguement then you would be proving my point. Cars are regulated MUCH more than gun.....which are designed to kill people. To get a drivers license more institutional safe guards and training is provided than for guns....which are designed to kill people. What an absolute joke.
While I do not mind guns for home defense I do not think they should be carried around in public. We are a nation that riots and sets fires over sporting events.....aka easily swayed by emotion......so allowing people to carry guns is just not a good idea. I've seen so many fights start over stupid things....the last thing we need is people strapped with guns shooting at each other. As far as home defense goes, it is perfectly fine to want to have some security in your house. But....really....is it really that big of a deal for legislation to be passed requiring you to lock it up? Like come on thats such a common sense proposal anyone who opposes it has some other interest than the public good. Secondly, I feel hand guns are perfectly suitable for home defense, I doubt a robber would not be dettered by a hand gun.....it's not like people wont be scared by a hand gun but would be scared by a rifle....guns are guns and they can all kill you.
Lastly, the whole "criminals don't have guns so gun control will just disarm the public" arguement. By that rationale....why have any laws at all? Criminals will just break them so screw it lets have no laws! What's the point of outlawing the theft of cars? Criminals will steal them anyway. Stupid arguement.
While no political party has all the answers this is one issue that Republican's are obviously on the wrong side of. They are simply serving their self interest by appealing to some voters and appeasing wealthy donors. Make no mistake, if the GOP embraced common sense gun control their voters would follow suite. Policy is dictated at the elite level and then filitered down to the masses, it is not generated by the people. It's painfully obvious the GOP won't embrace common sense anytime soon......this is a party that wants go require an ID to vote but not to buy a weapon LMAO. It's fine though, as long as they are beholden to the Tea Party they pose no real threat to win the Presidency anyway
Rant over. I'm sick of seeing innocent people die because our politicans lack common sense.
Last edited:
The recent school shooting here was because the kid had a broken heart over some girl. He lured in his friends and family close at lunch.
I think a lot of kids can not deal with the pressures of being embarrassed or picked on, on sites like Facebook where all of their hundereds-thousands of "friends and family" they know and don't know can see it.
Combine that with the overwelming numbness to violence and some kids and unstable people snap.
Last edited:
many adults cant take being teased on social network sites how can we expect children and teens to be able to...The recent school shooting here was because the kid had a broken heart over some girl. He lured in his friends and family close at lunch.
I think a lot of kids can not deal with the pressures of being embarrassed or picked on, on sites like Facebook where all of their hundereds-thousands of "friends and family" they know and don't know can see it.
Combine that with the overwelming numbness to violence and some kids and unstable people snap.
would it have been diffrent without access to a firearm? playing devils advocate here... but where there is a will there is a way. it wasnt the gun that made the decision to take it to a violent extreme... would the mind still choose violence if the weapon was say a blade or a bomb? would the consequences have been worse? where do we draw a line?
how do you restrict kids from obtaining weapons when they cant even keep weapons and drugs out of the prison system? do we make schools into prisons?
or do we accept the fact a mistake was made and the system ignored a kid who "went dark" maybe if someone had invested some time for the kid it wouldnt have happened?
maybe we as a community need to realize how much pressure we put on the young to grow up and tuffen up for a harsh world and realize our adult bloodlusting and graphic violence does impact youth.... especially when the unbridled violence doesnt come with an explanation of why... or a concern as to whos responsibly it is to explain why.
if you've got kids. talk to them! dont let children be silently torchered to insanity!
is it gun control we need... or emotional control
?.... emotional support? more love
, less hate
?more cannabis?
CarolKing
Singer of songs and a vapor connoisseur
I also was thinking about the guy who was killing folks with the hammer. You are so right. They could even use a bomb, they kill more people that way. It comes down to the unstable folks and the very angry. You put those two together and a firearm or any weapon, you may have a tragedy waiting to happen.
All these idiots in America and Europe who decide to join ISIS.
Again too many crazy people on the streets, many are homeless and drug addicts.
An angry, unstable and unhappy teenager that has been relentlessly teased. Also throw in having access to a gun could possibly be a time bomb waiting to happen. Not a few but a tiny fraction of young folks.
I agree the gun owner should be held responsible if someone gets killed because they didn't keep their gun safely stored and locked away from others.
Some of the laws are state issues. Florida has some whacky firearm laws. Somebody mentioned George Zimmerman. I tend to get really pissed about that one. That precious boy who was murdered.
I cried when the verdict came down.
All these idiots in America and Europe who decide to join ISIS.
Again too many crazy people on the streets, many are homeless and drug addicts.
An angry, unstable and unhappy teenager that has been relentlessly teased. Also throw in having access to a gun could possibly be a time bomb waiting to happen. Not a few but a tiny fraction of young folks.
I agree the gun owner should be held responsible if someone gets killed because they didn't keep their gun safely stored and locked away from others.
Some of the laws are state issues. Florida has some whacky firearm laws. Somebody mentioned George Zimmerman. I tend to get really pissed about that one. That precious boy who was murdered.
I cried when the verdict came down.
Last edited:
frostyrod
Well-Known Member
And feel free to find your own articles. In general I quit playing Devils advocate years ago, though it still is highly enjoyable sometimes, that being said I did not spend a lot of time looking up this guy. However as soon as I saw the post and looked up the book link on Amazon, I had bullshit red flags going off all over. Before even doing the search I assumed 'NRA paid or bought spokesperson' and really all I had to do was look at the first page of the Google search of his name to confirm that suspicion. Two types of results pop up. NRA or gun lobby/supporter recommendations, or websites calling out his bullshit. In general you won't easily run across that crap with legitimate scientists and researchers because nobody cares enough about their work to make s big deal of it. His research was vetted to fit the agenda.
CarolKing
Singer of songs and a vapor connoisseur
The NRA has spent ten times more to lobby Congress than pro-regulation groups, a factor that is largely accredited to their influence over the political dialogue of gun policy.
NRA spokesman Andrew Arunanandam disputes the association between lobbying and policy, citing American attitudes against stricter gun control as a leading factor in the NRA’s success. “Successes are due to the fact that the overwhelming majority of American people agree with our position, not because of any influence,” he says.
NRA spokesman Andrew Arunanandam disputes the association between lobbying and policy, citing American attitudes against stricter gun control as a leading factor in the NRA’s success. “Successes are due to the fact that the overwhelming majority of American people agree with our position, not because of any influence,” he says.
HellsWindStaff
Dharma Initiate
Interesting seeing such passion from both sides; truly this is an issue I am not overtly concerned about, and one I shy away from discussing usually, but I like seeing people with such strong opinions on either side.
My thoughts:
*I don't know what is wrong with gun control (if anything), or how to fix it (if anything).
*It should be a citizen's right to own a gun if he or she chooses too, and is legally eligible. (Such as Felons can't have guns)
*Felons, or bad guy's who legally can't get guns, are going to get guns regardless. So while you may be more at risk for gun violence if you own a gun (I agree), and consequentially less at risk if you don't own a gun, that doesn't really even address the issue.
I just feel like this is a topic where there will, probably never be a realistic solution.
You have a few solutions. You can make it much much harder to get a gun. But you're really just limiting law abiding citizens personal freedoms at that point, as the bad guy will get the gun anyways.
Or you destroy all guns. Can't have violence with something that doesn't exist.
I'm going to further my point, with two examples of gun violence that happened in the area around me over the last few years.
1. A guy I used to work with, is an avid hunter. He's a law abiding citizen, he likes to hunt though. One day, he's cleaning his rifle, and accidentally shoots himself in the leg. Loses his leg. This goes into the stats as "gun violence" and it's correct in saying that he would still have his leg if he didn't own a gun.
2. There is a gun store in a town nearby. 3 17/18 year olds throw a rock through the window, bust in, and steal 11 handguns and 2 or 3 rifles.
A few months later, there's a reported shooting, that a little girl was shot in a drive by shooting. Police investigate, and realize, this doesn't really add up as a driveby. After some more legwork, they figured out that the father of the little girl, who was a felon and legally was unable by any way to own a gun, accidentally shot the girl while showing it off. The father, his brother is one of the youth's who robbed the gun store and that is how he had access to the firearm.
My thoughts:
*I don't know what is wrong with gun control (if anything), or how to fix it (if anything).
*It should be a citizen's right to own a gun if he or she chooses too, and is legally eligible. (Such as Felons can't have guns)
*Felons, or bad guy's who legally can't get guns, are going to get guns regardless. So while you may be more at risk for gun violence if you own a gun (I agree), and consequentially less at risk if you don't own a gun, that doesn't really even address the issue.
I just feel like this is a topic where there will, probably never be a realistic solution.
You have a few solutions. You can make it much much harder to get a gun. But you're really just limiting law abiding citizens personal freedoms at that point, as the bad guy will get the gun anyways.
Or you destroy all guns. Can't have violence with something that doesn't exist.
I'm going to further my point, with two examples of gun violence that happened in the area around me over the last few years.
1. A guy I used to work with, is an avid hunter. He's a law abiding citizen, he likes to hunt though. One day, he's cleaning his rifle, and accidentally shoots himself in the leg. Loses his leg. This goes into the stats as "gun violence" and it's correct in saying that he would still have his leg if he didn't own a gun.
2. There is a gun store in a town nearby. 3 17/18 year olds throw a rock through the window, bust in, and steal 11 handguns and 2 or 3 rifles.
A few months later, there's a reported shooting, that a little girl was shot in a drive by shooting. Police investigate, and realize, this doesn't really add up as a driveby. After some more legwork, they figured out that the father of the little girl, who was a felon and legally was unable by any way to own a gun, accidentally shot the girl while showing it off. The father, his brother is one of the youth's who robbed the gun store and that is how he had access to the firearm.
frostyrod
Well-Known Member
And full disclosure, I was one of those Gun Nuts 15 years ago in my reckless youth. This was years before I educated myself more on the issue and started to look up real issues related gun violence. Statistics from State Health Departments. And not groups and individuals with agendas. I was a Member of the NRA for a few years, and I even dropped them Years before I got out of Gun collecting. Because all they were interested in was fleecing donations from their Members. They don't care about gun owner rights, I think that if they could switch tomorrow to a Gun Control Organization and still pull in the same type of money and political power they'd do it in a heartbeat, because to the it's about the control and political agenda, not protecting Gun owners rights. I've seen the NRA send their Lobbyists to State Health Departments and Violently oppose Gun Safety agendas, like free Gun locks and discounts on Gun safes, because to them "any" control is too much.
nihil
Member, Known Well
Okay, I've resisted posting in this thread since Sunday, but I wanted to correct a few assumptions I've read as well as answer some questions I saw raised, and lastly, offer some arm chair advice on how to bring down gun violence in America. If you quote me and you're not acting in a civil manner, don't expect a reply.
Background: I'm a vegetarian/vegan that hasn't intentionally taken a life.. ever. This includes spiders, which I'm deeply afraid of. So fuck hunting.
My take is very simple.. that is, what was the intent of the 2nd amendment when it was put down? Or better yet, what was the intent of the Bill of Rights when it was authored? Notice I kept it to the Bill of Rights, not the other constitutional amendments that followed.
Basically, you had a country on the cusp of its own sovereignty, and they wanted to ensure it would remain that way once that goal was attained. It's the same reason you swear in to defend against threats external as well as internal. Keep in mind there was also a "no standing army" clause at the founding of our country. The citizens by design were to keep checks on the current government, with the 2nd amendment being their large wacking stick if push came to shove.
That said, here are some things that drive me nuts regarding the gun debate in this county:
The NRA. Basically an organization put in place to keep guns out of the hands of "darkie." You still see this today. White man open carries an AR-15 in a legal state, no problem, cop even has a nice, informative conversation with him. Black man holding a BB gun in a Walmart (open carry state), that's a shooting. American society does not want minorities armed, this is a bullshit double standard.
Assault Weapons. Intermediate sized round, detachable magazine, select fire. That is the one and only definition. Select fire means to empty the magazine while not releasing the trigger. So the typical AR-15 or AKM pattern rifle you see is in fact not an assault rifle. A real assault rifle will cost you north of $20,000 USD with transfer/registration. No new assault weapons have been imported into this country since 1986, so they are a good investment.
Hand Guns. Designed as anti personnel weapons, either offensively (H&K Mark 23) or defensively (any modern subcompact). The primary purpose of a handgun is to kill people, not wild game. There are some that are designed to hunt or plink with, but the genre are primary designed to kill people.
Magazines, not clips. If you want to know the difference, google "stripper clips."
Licensing and/or registration. I see this all the time and try to correct it as much as I can. In most states it doesn't exist. When you purchase a firearm (rifle or pistol), they run you through NICS, a federal background check. This is a one time deal. The only license I can think of would be a) a permit to carry concealed and b) the tax stamp/marking on your firearm if it falls out of the NFA.. is the barrel on your rifle shorter than 18", you absolutely have to have that silencer, stuff like that. The "gun show loophole" also partially derives from this. The "loophole" is mainly there if I want to give or sell a gun to my brother, father, friend, etc..
"Smart" guns. No thank you. That would be like not being able to lend out my car, screwdriver, etc.. Also, as stated earlier, it is one more point of failure when seconds count.
Speaking of seconds.. "when seconds matter, police are minutes away." Every living creature on this planet has the right to defend itself from harm. I'm a slender, "pacifist," well going guy. If I find you in my house at 2am unexpected, what am I to do if I wasn't armed? Use foul language? Offer you a beer? Ask you politely to leave?
The above also applies to locking up your guns. Kids in the house? Lock them up or better yet, do what my parents did. Educate them, take the mystique out of them, let them know they are a tool only to be used when that tool is absolutely, 100% needed.
So, my solutions to the gun violence in America?
Education.
Mental Health background checks (mostly implemented since Side Show Bob decided to get all shooty in Aurora (see NICS (I'm being sarcastic here, NICS just added 1 more question on the form to lie about))).
Fix socio-economic strife, especially in the inner cities.
Education.
Commit a felony = no chance of gainful employment has to stop, immediately.
End the drug war and treat them as addicts, not criminals.
Education.
"Gun show loophole." The jury is still out on this one for me.
Enforce existing gun laws, this can't be said enough.
Abolish non-effective feel-good gun laws.
And lastly, education (I may have already mentioned that one).
My empirical evidence? I've had 2 situations where a handgun literally saved my ass when it was needed. A few others where having access to a gun quickly relieved stress from a possibly bad situation.
To the poster that stated earlier that they would have killed 10 people by now if they owned a gun at a young age? Please, don't buy a gun, ever. It's a mind state that demands respect. I don't mean to come off as disrespectful, but that comment really gave me pause.
Okay, hope that helps.. I'm impressed this conversation has been civil this far with so many opposing viewpoints. I know a lot of you won't agree with what I've posted, but hey, that starts a good discussion that we may all learn from.
Background: I'm a vegetarian/vegan that hasn't intentionally taken a life.. ever. This includes spiders, which I'm deeply afraid of. So fuck hunting.
My take is very simple.. that is, what was the intent of the 2nd amendment when it was put down? Or better yet, what was the intent of the Bill of Rights when it was authored? Notice I kept it to the Bill of Rights, not the other constitutional amendments that followed.
Basically, you had a country on the cusp of its own sovereignty, and they wanted to ensure it would remain that way once that goal was attained. It's the same reason you swear in to defend against threats external as well as internal. Keep in mind there was also a "no standing army" clause at the founding of our country. The citizens by design were to keep checks on the current government, with the 2nd amendment being their large wacking stick if push came to shove.
That said, here are some things that drive me nuts regarding the gun debate in this county:
The NRA. Basically an organization put in place to keep guns out of the hands of "darkie." You still see this today. White man open carries an AR-15 in a legal state, no problem, cop even has a nice, informative conversation with him. Black man holding a BB gun in a Walmart (open carry state), that's a shooting. American society does not want minorities armed, this is a bullshit double standard.
Assault Weapons. Intermediate sized round, detachable magazine, select fire. That is the one and only definition. Select fire means to empty the magazine while not releasing the trigger. So the typical AR-15 or AKM pattern rifle you see is in fact not an assault rifle. A real assault rifle will cost you north of $20,000 USD with transfer/registration. No new assault weapons have been imported into this country since 1986, so they are a good investment.
Hand Guns. Designed as anti personnel weapons, either offensively (H&K Mark 23) or defensively (any modern subcompact). The primary purpose of a handgun is to kill people, not wild game. There are some that are designed to hunt or plink with, but the genre are primary designed to kill people.
Magazines, not clips. If you want to know the difference, google "stripper clips."
Licensing and/or registration. I see this all the time and try to correct it as much as I can. In most states it doesn't exist. When you purchase a firearm (rifle or pistol), they run you through NICS, a federal background check. This is a one time deal. The only license I can think of would be a) a permit to carry concealed and b) the tax stamp/marking on your firearm if it falls out of the NFA.. is the barrel on your rifle shorter than 18", you absolutely have to have that silencer, stuff like that. The "gun show loophole" also partially derives from this. The "loophole" is mainly there if I want to give or sell a gun to my brother, father, friend, etc..
"Smart" guns. No thank you. That would be like not being able to lend out my car, screwdriver, etc.. Also, as stated earlier, it is one more point of failure when seconds count.
Speaking of seconds.. "when seconds matter, police are minutes away." Every living creature on this planet has the right to defend itself from harm. I'm a slender, "pacifist," well going guy. If I find you in my house at 2am unexpected, what am I to do if I wasn't armed? Use foul language? Offer you a beer? Ask you politely to leave?
The above also applies to locking up your guns. Kids in the house? Lock them up or better yet, do what my parents did. Educate them, take the mystique out of them, let them know they are a tool only to be used when that tool is absolutely, 100% needed.
So, my solutions to the gun violence in America?
Education.
Mental Health background checks (mostly implemented since Side Show Bob decided to get all shooty in Aurora (see NICS (I'm being sarcastic here, NICS just added 1 more question on the form to lie about))).
Fix socio-economic strife, especially in the inner cities.
Education.
Commit a felony = no chance of gainful employment has to stop, immediately.
End the drug war and treat them as addicts, not criminals.
Education.
"Gun show loophole." The jury is still out on this one for me.
Enforce existing gun laws, this can't be said enough.
Abolish non-effective feel-good gun laws.
And lastly, education (I may have already mentioned that one).
My empirical evidence? I've had 2 situations where a handgun literally saved my ass when it was needed. A few others where having access to a gun quickly relieved stress from a possibly bad situation.
To the poster that stated earlier that they would have killed 10 people by now if they owned a gun at a young age? Please, don't buy a gun, ever. It's a mind state that demands respect. I don't mean to come off as disrespectful, but that comment really gave me pause.
Okay, hope that helps.. I'm impressed this conversation has been civil this far with so many opposing viewpoints. I know a lot of you won't agree with what I've posted, but hey, that starts a good discussion that we may all learn from.
Last edited:
flotntoke
thoroughly vaped
Lots of great points, and I think a great discussion!
And here is part of the problem. Certainly don't expect anyone to read my lengthy posts - especially when I get on a good rant. But, NO ONE WAS KILLED BY A HAMMER in the recent attacks in NYC. There was a guy about 2 months ago that whacked 4 people in the head on one day, was found and shot by NYPD when he went after one of them with the hammer. He wasn't killed, but was in bad shape for a bit. This past week another idiot started swinging a hammer, also hitting 4 people (all Asian women I believe). While it certainly wouldn't be pleasant to be hit unexpectedly in the face or head with a hammer, none of the victims were seriously injured. None were even close to death. Had one or both of these whackos had a gun, I doubt the same would be true. That's a lot of my point above.
Yeah... I'm kind of familiar with Lott and his followers. A good many of them in my neck of the woods, and I read a good bit of political stuff. I started in on that lengthy piece you linked and have been really enjoying it. Thanks again for posting it!
I also was thinking about the guy who was killing folks with the hammer. You are so right. They could even use a bomb, they kill more people that way. It comes down to the unstable folks and the very angry. You put those two together and a firearm or any weapon, you may have a tragedy waiting to happen.
All these idiots in America and Europe who decide to join ISIS.
Again too many crazy people on the streets, many are homeless and drug addicts.
An angry, unstable and unhappy teenager that has been relentlessly teased. Also throw in having access to a gun could possibly be a time bomb waiting to happen. Not a few but a tiny fraction of young folks.
I agree the gun owner should be held responsible if someone gets killed because they didn't keep their gun safely stored and locked away from others.
Some of the laws are state issues. Florida has some whacky firearm laws. Somebody mentioned George Zimmerman. I tend to get really pissed about that one. That precious boy who was murdered.
And here is part of the problem. Certainly don't expect anyone to read my lengthy posts - especially when I get on a good rant. But, NO ONE WAS KILLED BY A HAMMER in the recent attacks in NYC. There was a guy about 2 months ago that whacked 4 people in the head on one day, was found and shot by NYPD when he went after one of them with the hammer. He wasn't killed, but was in bad shape for a bit. This past week another idiot started swinging a hammer, also hitting 4 people (all Asian women I believe). While it certainly wouldn't be pleasant to be hit unexpectedly in the face or head with a hammer, none of the victims were seriously injured. None were even close to death. Had one or both of these whackos had a gun, I doubt the same would be true. That's a lot of my point above.
Yeah... I'm kind of familiar with Lott and his followers. A good many of them in my neck of the woods, and I read a good bit of political stuff. I started in on that lengthy piece you linked and have been really enjoying it. Thanks again for posting it!
frostyrod
Well-Known Member
Like I said I think I found it with a 10 second Google search and a brief Topic scan at about a [7], so I didn't put too much effort into finding it. Not to mention after 7 years of college I am pretty adept at Scanning long articles to pick out the goodies, so you've got a lot more reading into than I do, I did a 60 second scan of the page to make sure it was relevant to the conversation, glad I can still do that toasted lol.
Kief
Medicated
I'm a believer in the old saying, "guns don't kill people, people do"... it is really that simple to me.
We need some regulation on parenting. Yes, it's the kind of control that nobody wants to talk about, but I see poor parenting as the root of crime and violence in general. The same freedom that we all enjoy in the US is allowing anyone to be a parent and allowing that parent to raise their children however they see fit. Many parents these days expect the schools to teach their kids everything like manors, morals, and plain human decency. Many of these parents (that should have never been parents in the first place) are the same people that are multiplying at a higher rate (not using birth control). It's hard to list all of the examples without someone being offended, so I'll skip to a solution that will probably never happen here...
My vote would be to require education and licensing in order to become a parent in the first place. Not to control the population numbers (needed on a global scale), but to control the quality of the population. We could also put a lot more money into planned parenting programs, but that would not be nearly as effective if it remains a choice.
We need to fix the problem at the root.
We need some regulation on parenting. Yes, it's the kind of control that nobody wants to talk about, but I see poor parenting as the root of crime and violence in general. The same freedom that we all enjoy in the US is allowing anyone to be a parent and allowing that parent to raise their children however they see fit. Many parents these days expect the schools to teach their kids everything like manors, morals, and plain human decency. Many of these parents (that should have never been parents in the first place) are the same people that are multiplying at a higher rate (not using birth control). It's hard to list all of the examples without someone being offended, so I'll skip to a solution that will probably never happen here...
My vote would be to require education and licensing in order to become a parent in the first place. Not to control the population numbers (needed on a global scale), but to control the quality of the population. We could also put a lot more money into planned parenting programs, but that would not be nearly as effective if it remains a choice.
We need to fix the problem at the root.
h3rbalist
I used to do drugs. I still do, but I used to, too
I'm lucky enough to live somewhere that does not have the same gun problem as you.
Or the same level of violent crime, so it would seem by the posts here. I am genuinely worried
for your safety out there people.
And unfortunately when you are a 17 year old male with raging hormones, both parents are heroin addicts and your older brother is lying on the front room floor withering from an HIV infection it's sometimes difficult to control your 'mind state'.
At least it was for me.
But lucky for some, instead of bullet holes in heads I put fist holes in doors.
My post was an honest one and my facts legitimate.
When I made my first post on this subject I had no idea so many pro gun people would be here at FC.
Its been fascinating reading the opinions expressed here.
But have to admit I am way out of my depth with regards to feelings about constitutional rights and such. It would seem this is a very American thing.
Please, all those with firearms take proper care of them.
flotntoke
thoroughly vaped
I just want to make sure I have this straight....
You're saying the government shouldn't be more restrictive with handguns, or require more education and licensing - but, they should regulate parenting instead?
I agree parenting has been slipping. Depending on who you ask this has been going on for at least 70+ years. (funny thing is, I think that 70 year mark has been around for decades. Maybe because that's as far back as the real old timers can remember?) Anyway, if people are getting killed with guns or any violence then there were probably some parents who didn't do their job as well as they could have in the past. But, really not too fair for me to say they should be doing a better job. While I do have a few guns (and extensive training on them and other weapons we aren't even allowed to own), I don't have kids.
And on the whole "guns don't kill people..." rap.... When was the last time someone was killed by a gun that a person didn't shoot (or fumble I guess)? I don't know what it's like where you are, but we don't see guns out walking around on their own in my parts. Nor have I ever heard of one jumping up and firing by itself.
CarolKing
Singer of songs and a vapor connoisseur
The statistic on post 10 really speaks for itself when we see other larger countries able to keep their gun deaths relatively low compared to the United States. That was from a few years ago. I didn't even realize how lopped sided it was, it's unreal. It's some scary info, whether you like guns for a hobby or collecting this has to be a pretty disturbing graph. I don't understand why more people aren't troubled by it?
I think some intelligent laws need to be in place to keep our families safe. I guess I don't understand why this would be so terrible? I think some who want to have guns need to follow some strict guidelines. Sorry if I'm pissing some folks off. I want to live in a country where I feel somewhat safe.
I do want to live in the land of the free. I feel the loose gun laws are taking some of my freedoms away.
I think some intelligent laws need to be in place to keep our families safe. I guess I don't understand why this would be so terrible? I think some who want to have guns need to follow some strict guidelines. Sorry if I'm pissing some folks off. I want to live in a country where I feel somewhat safe.
I do want to live in the land of the free. I feel the loose gun laws are taking some of my freedoms away.
vapirtoo
Well-Known Member
Hey flotntoke, the saying,
"Guns don't kill people, people do " always meant to me that it ain't the weapon ( tool) but the person using it.
Yes we need to regulate firearms like we do driving, get trained and licensed .
Parenting in America is a lost art that is not respected anymore. Too much unglamorous work!
I only own a rifle that my uncle left me the same uncle that taught me how to shoot his snub nosed 38. ( He was one of the few black sharpshooters and instructors for the NYPD in the 60's.)
He was proud of never having fired his gun in service,and told me that on most police situations negotiations work better than firepower.
I'm not a fan of firearms, but I would never force people to give their's up.
Education and training are key.
"Guns don't kill people, people do " always meant to me that it ain't the weapon ( tool) but the person using it.
Yes we need to regulate firearms like we do driving, get trained and licensed .
Parenting in America is a lost art that is not respected anymore. Too much unglamorous work!
I only own a rifle that my uncle left me the same uncle that taught me how to shoot his snub nosed 38. ( He was one of the few black sharpshooters and instructors for the NYPD in the 60's.)
He was proud of never having fired his gun in service,and told me that on most police situations negotiations work better than firepower.
I'm not a fan of firearms, but I would never force people to give their's up.
Education and training are key.
- Status