Re: Salsa Libre.This is very true. If every person carrying a gun
was very skilled and highly trained, it might feel safer out there. But how many
times do you hear about stories where people are accidentally hurt/killed with
guns? Or what about people who are paranoid and sense danger around every
corner? It reminds me of an episode of the 1980's TV show The Golden Girls.
After their home is burglarized, Rose buys a gun and one night accidentally
shoots a vase near the front door when she hears one of her roommates come home
late. Sophia walks into the room and says: "I manage to live 80, 81 years. I
survived pneumonia, two operations, a stroke. One night I'll belch and
Stable Mabel here will blow my head off!"
Yes, rational gun control will save lives.
Hey what if you Benghazi spin it. "There are 26 dead americans and it is
someone's fault and we are not going to let up because there is four
dead." (and we can start after Hilary before she is the next landslide
Re: "It seems to me that unrestricted access ot high power assault weapons
with high capacity ammuntion clips crosses the line and is too much
risk."Too much risk for who?The bad guys already
have them and are no more likely to give them up in response to a new
gun-control measure than they did in response to the old, failed measures.So, the only ones placed at risk by a new ban would be those attempting
to respond to a home invasion by bad guys carrying "assault weapons."Besides, we've learned from sad experience that liberals will
certainly disingenuously overreach in any new measure's definition of
"assault weapons," since we know their real object is to ban the
possession by law-abiding citizens of ALL firearms.
Sorry Mike it wasn't an analogy it was a statement that correlation is not
causation and an example of an 100% correlation without causation. On the other
hand a bullett in your heart is an example of causation if you die from it. At
the same if you had jello in the morning that you were shot you could draw a
correlation between eating jello and dying. The point is the two are not the
same so don't mix them up.
Pragmatistferlife. A rooster's crow dosn't casue the sun to rise, But
a bullet from a gun can, and often does cause the death of innocent persons.
Your analogy is faulty. But I agree with your final conclusion that It boils
down to what kind of a society we want to live in and how much risk we are
willing to endure so that gun afficiandos can have whatever weapon they want. I
doubt that many would say that citizens should all be allowed to hove nuclear
weapons, too much risk. But then again I doubt that most would say that no
weapons would be permitted because that also increases risk. So, where do we
draw the line? I doubt that a rooster's crow is going to help us in that
regard.It seems to me that unrestricted access ot high power assault
weapons with high capacity ammuntion clips crosses the line and is too much
risk. Taking away all firearms including handguns also increases the risk and
crosses the line.
The whole attempt to try and draw correlations between the presence of or lack
of guns in a community and murder rates or violent crimes is a fools errand.
Even if you could draw a correlation, correlation doesn't in any way
indicate cause. The correlation between the rooster crowing every morning and
the rising of the sun is 100%..and yet I'll bet no one here thinks the
rooster causes the sun to rise. If you're going to play statistics the
only game you can play is how probable is something. Even that's tricky
but, given both societys' and most individuals experiences it's far
more probable that a privately owned gun is going to harm an innocent than be
used to stop a crime. So it boils down to what kind of society do you want a
society that is awash in guns that are most likey to be involved in a tragedy or
one where you go unarmed...avoid the risk of tragedy and take the inprobable
chance that you may be harmed by a criminal.
The irrational love of guns is a major cause of our problems. A rational
approach to gun control will most definitely help.
Instead of armend guards at the school, give every sixth grader a gun and an NRA
membership. With a gun and the membership the will all be good guys.
Israel Gun policies cont'd:"In Israel, it used to be that
all soldiers would take the guns home with them. Now they have to leave them on
base. Over the years they’ve done this — it began, I think, in 2006
— there’s been a 60 percent decrease in suicide on weekends among
IDS soldiers. And it did not correspond to an increase in weekday suicide.Israel rejects 40 percent of its applications for a gun, the highest
rate of rejection of any country in the world. And even when you get approved,
you say that “all guns must have an Interior Ministry permit and
identifying mark for tracing.” That seems like it might make people think
twice before they shoot from a gun they know the government can track.Israel is not a peaceful society. If there were a lot of guns, it may be even
more violent. Israeli schools are well known for having a lot of the kicking and
punching type of violence. It seems that the lack of guns promotes the lack of
firearm violence rather than there being some nascent tendency toward
peacefulness and cohesion."
Re:LledravIn Israel, teachers are not allowed to carry weapons in
the school, but security guards at the entrances are armed."In
Israel, they’re very limited in who is able to own a gun. There are only a
few tens of thousands of legal guns in Israel, and the only people allowed to
own them legally live in the settlements, do business in the settlements, or are
in professions at risk of violence.Both countries require you to have a
reason to have a gun. There isn’t this idea that you have a right to a
gun. You need a reason. And then you need to go back to the permitting authority
every six months or so to assure them the reason is still valid.The second
thing is that there’s this widespread misunderstanding that Israel and
Switzerland promote gun ownership. They don’t. Ten years ago, when Israel
had the outbreak of violence, there was an expansion of gun ownership, but only
to people above a certain rank in the military. There was no sense that having
ordinary citizens [carry guns] would make anything safer."(Washington
After the elections in 2008 and 2012, gun sales spiked. After the shooting in
Newtown, gun sales spiked. It's the people who think the solution to every
problem is to arm themselves to the teeth that I'm most afraid of. What
sort of idiots are we in this country? Do people really think buying a gun for
self-defense is going to protect them?From the American Journal of
Epidemiology: "Results show that regardless of storage practice, type of
gun, or number of firearms in the home, having a gun in the home was associated
with an increased risk of firearm homicide and firearm suicide in the home."
Mountainman, you gave us a hypothetical argument that gun laws don't
prevent criminals from getting guns. But Australia, Japan, Sweeden
(yes), Spain, Europe in general all have empirical evidence that shows that NRA
falsehood for what it is. When Australia cracked down and required
gun registration, background checks and other means of assuring crimminals would
not get guns they in fact denied criminals guns while retaining the rights of
law abiding citizens to have them.We definetly would like to keep
guns from criminals and those untrained and unprepared to be responsible with
them. I'd like gun owners to be responsible for securing their guns and
responsible for what they are used on. I'd like the well regulated militia
to be regulated well.Make up stuff, it's your reality.
The higher we raise the stakes, the more transparent the insanity of the game
becomes. Escalating the individual arms race is not a viable solution.
We've gotta try something else. It's time.
If a private citizen accidentally kills an innocent individual while trying to
stop an attack (i.e. the Colorado theater shooter or the Gabby Giffords
shooter), should he/she be charged with manslaughter? Perhaps that individual
might be charge with secondary murder since they came to the event armed and
ready to shoot someone if they determined it necessary and they shot someone
else by mistake.If someone pulls out a gun to stop and attack and
accidentally shoots me, I certainly will not consider that person doing me a
great favor. For one, he doesn't have the training or experience to deal
with critical situations. Odds are, he/she will hit me rather than the
assailant, and I wouldn't like that very much. I would want them to be
prosecuted to the full extent of the law, same as the bad guy.This
is different from someone breaking in your front door and you hit him with 30
rounds of explosive bullets in 10 seconds, assuming you had your semi-automatic
rifle in hand when he came through the door. Any military veteran will tell you
that a pistol is just as effective if you're trained.
Gun control advocates conjure up all kinds of problems with armed teachers. But
it hasn't happened where its been tried. In Israel all teachers are armed.
a Sandy Hook teacher said she huddled with her class and just listened to the
spaced and steady "pops" continue for 20 minutes or more! How sickening!
There is no way it took 20 minutes to get a cop to that school! No one wants
to criticize the police response but when did the first responders arrive? what
were they doing? Crouched outside the doors till the shooting stopped like they
did at Columbine? William Erickson, chairman of the Columbine Review Commission
reported “Instead of going into the school and searching for Harris and
Klebold, they set up a perimeter and waited "for the assault to end."If only there had been an armed teacher at Sandy Hook I think at least some
lives would have been saved.
"There is a Latin phrase that says, "SI VIS PACEM PARA BELLUM"
— if you want peace, prepare for war." Typical words of an
anti-government zealot clinging to his military-type weapons and waiting for the
black helicopters to descend. The Cold War was extremely hot in places like
Korea and Vietnam. About the only safety to come out of deterrence was we
didn't have a nuclear holocaust (Bay of Pigs, notwithstanding). But that
was "almost". Lucky for the residents of New York City.However, this argument over semi-automatic rifles, large-capacity ammunition
clips, cop-killer bullets, a extensive background checks (including extensive
training, licensing, and skill maintenance) is an issue only for the
survivalists hiding in their bunkers waiting for armageddon.Legitimate hunters, sportsmen, and responsible gun owners don't worry
about legislation to develop reasonable firearms policy. About the only people
who argue in favor of more and more guns are those paranoid-schitzophrenics
waiting for the military to come charging through the front door.Let's talk about mental illness and the crazies who don't believe in
Killing Machines.The weapon the coward used at Sandy Hook was not a
sporting rifle.The weapon the coward used at Sandy Hook was a
killing machine.Lawnmowers don't cut the grass...people cut the
grass.Guns (Killing Machines) don't kill people...people kill
people.So yes...Protect killing machine rights,
irrational killing machine control won't solve problems.Perfect.
Family councils rules to help everyone in the family grow and develop as quickly
as possible without causing harm to individuals or to the family. Cerfews are
often set. Rules of conduct are set. Times and places are defined. The
children know what is expected and the parents know what conduct to expect from
the children.So, how many children follow those rules 100% of the
time? How many children face the prescribed discipline when they break rules?
How many lives are ruined because children said that they would obey the rules -
and had no intention of keeping those rules?Laws are the "family
rules" of society. We told the Federal Government that they would NEVER
make a rule about religion, about speech or about the right to keep and bear
arms. We reserved the right to set our own rules; however, we NEVER told
Congress that they could not set penalties for our misconduct.Making
rules does not mean that any problem is solved. The "rule" only defines
the consequence for misconduct.Gun laws do not stop criminals just
as family rules do not stop teenage rebelion.
With the NRA's recent non-solution to increasing gun violence in the
nation, two points should be made: (1) Adding armed police officers
to each school as a deterrent suggests that several officers be available since
no single individual can be in all places on a school campus at any one time.
Hence, local taxes should be increased significantly to pay for these additional
police officers who should probably be available 8-12 hours a day waiting for an
incident to occur. They would have no other duties but to stand guard.
That's a lot of money and overtime to sit around waiting. However, these
are highly-trained police officers, so the costs will be substantial. (2) It may be assumed that having armed police officers on a school campus may
or may not deter this type of school violence since the assailent would probably
prepare more carefully for their planned assault. Like the pro-assault rifle
NRA, they would want more powerful weaponry to carry out their assault, dress
with more body armour, have plenty of ammunition, and plan their attack with
greater care so they can inflict greater damage before they are finally
To "Screwdriver" but according to the statistics more guns does equate
to more safety and lss crime. Read "MILLER: Gun ownership up, crime
down" in the Washington Times you find out that we need more people with CC
permits and handguns because that helps to lower crime rates. This was
confirmed by the Brookings Institute in their study "The Impact of
Conceal-Carry Laws". They point out that the more CC permits and guns you
get out there, the lower the crime rate for crimes of opportunity.Plus, it is a myth that more guns leads to more deaths by guns. For example
El Salvador has 50 deaths/100000 due to homicides using firearms. They have 5.8
guns per 100,000. In fact the 9 of the top 10 nations for homicides using guns
all have fewer guns per person than the us, some by large ratios. Only a fool
would say that more guns means more deaths.To "LDS Liberal"
Again, what is the difference between an AR-15 .223 and a .223 Rugar Mini 14
Ranch? Same bullets, both are semi-automatic. Only one looks different. Why
stop law abiding citizend from buying guns?
I'm ignorant of US history, but I don't see how anyone back in those
days could envision the technological progress in weaponry that has occurred
over the last 200 years. I don't see how personal weapons have any bearing
on national security when so much of modern warfare is done at a distance.
If the Second Amendment confers the absolute right many of you claim, why do you
put up with control of RPGs, tanks, IEDs? Get the government out of your face.
Get your "rights" back. While you do that the rest of us will campaign
for an assault weapons ban (without the tricks built into the last one to please
manufacturers), high volume magazines and clips, and removal of the gun show
exception on licensing. The criminal will always have guns, but
maybe we can slow down the mentally ill from getting them easily. We won't
stop incidents but without high speed firing maybe we can make them reload long
enough to take them out one way or another (gun or body block). The NRA wants
armed guards in every school. Great idea! To pay for it lets make annual
registration a requirement with the cost of defending children paid for by the
folks causing the need for the guards.
‘Letter: Protect gun rights — irrational gun control won't
solve problems’As opposed to what -- No gun control
won't solve the problem either?-----"People
should have the right and option to defend themselves and their families from
attack by criminals and also to be ready to defend our country from terrorism
and tyranny both foreign and domestic."1. We already do. Banning
assualt type .223 weapons and high capacity magazine clips [the choice of these
nuts opening fire on theaters and schools] won't take that right away to
defend yourself.2. As for defending ourselves against all enemies -
foreign and Domestic --- I'm a Veteran. I also served in our only
Constitutionally approved "well regulated Militia" in the National
Guard.3. I don't hunt, I don't fish. but I still
keep all my rifles handy and operational, ready to protect myself and my family
from any of YOU lone-wolf vigianties who suddenly decide to take matters of
National defense or the possible over-throwing our Country and our Government
into their own hands. Yes, Enemies - foreign and Domestic.
Truthseeker - Thanks for pointing out an important point. The District of
Columbia used to to have a ban on owning anc carrying weapons until the
"States Rights" loving conservatives in Congress stepped in a did away
with it. But the fact was that it was essentially a worthless law because my
home state of Virginia had essentially no restrictions on guns sales and the
District wasn't about to put check stationsat every entrance crossing the
Potomac. We can talk about the pros and cons of stricter un laws all we want
but until we examine what other indutrialized nations have done to bring their
gun related deaths to about 10% or less of that found in the US, we will be
fooling ourselves into thinking we have done any good.
Re:MountanmanChicago's gun laws were overturned by the Supreme
Court in 2010 and since then Chicago has seen a significant rise in homicides,
despite adding more police. We do need federal gun laws. As long
as someone can purchase a gun in a neighboring state with less stringent laws,
gun restrictions will be less effective.We also need to address
mental health issues and gang violence.
Laws punish people AFTER they have done something. We have all kinds of laws
that will PUNISH anyone after they have used a gun or a knife or a club to hurt
someone else. No law will prevent someone from breaking a law.The
fallacy in "controlling" guns as a way to prevent a tragedy like the
latest school shooting is seen in the fact that the shooter broke the law by
having a pistol in his possession when he was only 20 years old. The law
requires that you have to be 21.The law that restricted his access
to pistols did not stop him. Law did not stop Cain from killing Able. Law has
not stopped anyone who has killed another. Thinking that a law will stop crime
is shown to be false everyday in every newspaper in America. Criminals don't think about the law. They never have. They never will.
Laws don't stop criminals from being criminals. Gun laws do not stop
criminals from using guns.
What is needed is responsibility and accountability by gun owners: keep your
weapons secure. And that does not mean in a glass gun case. There is no
excuse for a child getting hold of a gun: if it happens and someone dies; then
the gun owner should be held civilly and criminally responsible.If a gun
fires and hits a toilet, or table, or person; the gun owner should be charges
and held civilly and criminally responsible.It should be illegal to sell a
gun to a known criminal or mental ill person: if you sell a gun to a criminal or
mentally ill person at a gun show: then you should be held civilly and
criminally responsible.I would release the gun seller if they have made a
reasonable effort to ensure they are not selling the gun to a criminal or
someone who is mentally ill.But that is not what happens: at the gun shows
they sell the guns to whomever shows up to buy it.If a gun owner cannot
follow these rules: then they should not be allowed to buy a gun.
I own guns and I grew up with guns (no military type or assault type weapons --
I'm not trying to prove how macho I am). However, I would like the people
posting on here who say they think there should be no ban whatsoever on any type
of gun to explain why the US has more gun deaths per capita than any other
country. Why is that? Are we more crazy? Are we more Godless? I don't
think so. Explain that to my satisfaction and I will agree with your theory
that the more guns the better. Clearly we need more regulation that we've
got right now.
And again in several comments here, we see a continuing display of such hate and
paranoia and hero fantasies that we should all be very concerned.I
question the mental stability of some who frequently post here. Their endless
strings of quotes from hate radio or the pages of NRA publications certainly do
not evoke a picture of mental and emotional stability.
"There seems to be a lot of emotional calls for gun control in the wake of
the school shootings"File this letter under the "emotional
call for uninterrupted gun access" category. The letter writer waxes
paranoid about defeating terrorism with your own personal armory and ignores the
danger that firearm ownership poses to members in your own household. Today on
the front page is the story of former marine Eric Carlton accidentally shooting
his brother in the head with the firearm that Mr. Tischner erroneously believes
will only be used on criminals by patriotic citizens. This is far from an
isolated incident, and there is evidence that a handgun in a home is more likely
to be used against a home's occupants than against an intruder.We have this irrational juvenile fantasy in the country that gun wielding
wunder-citizens are going to be able to stop Sandy Hook and Aurora style
shootings without causing a lot of collateral damage in their wake. If strict
gun control is an oversimplified and ineffective solution (which it is), gun
right protection is doubly so. The truth is a bit more complicated than Mr.
Tischner wants to believe.
@ Screwdriver. Please explain to us why you think criminals will obey more gun
laws? Criminals are criminals BECAUSE they will not obey laws. All gun control
laws do it restrict honest people from protecting themselves and makes it easier
for criminals to murder, rape and rob. Case in point; Chicago has the strictest
gun control laws in the country and is the murder capitol of the nation!The solution in part is to make crimes committed with guns mandatory prison
sentences for life, or execution by firing squad or hanging! Make the punishment
fit the crime. Ultimately gun control laws do not prevent crime.
Re: "Need either more control or repeal of Second Amendment."Yeah, that'll do it. Let's make a new law. Criminals don't
respect the ones we now have, but they'll surely respect a new one.Making sure we grow the pool of law-abiding, defenseless victims, while
doing nothing of consequence to actually reduce criminal access to the tools
they'll use to victimize us, sure makes a lot of sense.To
Over the past week I have read countless opinions stating the more restirctions
on gun ownership will not prohibit the tragedy at Newtown and others like it
from happening agsain. Some of these arguments are compelling and show
legitimate evidence of truth. But what I haven't heard is any solution to
the problem at hand. Do the writers of those opinions believe we should just
throw up our hands in frustration? Do they genuine believe that first grade
teachers should be equippoed and trained with a firearm in their classroom. Is
that kind of environment they want 6 year olds to be taught in? Surely there
are more answers than that. Surely there is a reason that the United States has
ten times more gun related deaths per capita than any other industrialized
nation in the world. Can't we at least talk about it and see if there is
something we can do. Don't we all want the same thing - a more peaceful
and secure world? What is the answer? Let's lay it all out on the table,
Need either more control or repeal of Second Amendment. It has to be done, guns
in the house, none not locked up on the street.
The great american experiment of "more guns are safer" will sadly
continue. While the results have been disappointing, we are going to double down
if the NRA and minions have anything to do with it. Gun lovers will continue to
try to insert guns into every problem we have. I guess if you love guns
everything looks like a target. Hammer to nails.We have by far more
guns per capita than any other. Twice as many as the nearest competitor.Whatever you imagined it was going to solve, should have been taken care
of by now. But for the love of guns, love has reasons of which
reason knows nothing of.