Published: Friday, Jan. 4 2013 12:00 a.m. MST
Illegitimacy is a bit of an antiquated concept but let's assume you meant a
father figure is helpful in a young man's life.It's not
just the guns. It's the guns bought because fathers are convinced the
country has been taken by nefarious forces and he tells his boys that all their
lifes. It's the attitude that the gun in the house will make them safe
while leaving the door unlocked is perfectly normal. It's the talk about
the stopping power of a 9mm vs a .223. It's the general idea that guns and
their violence are the solution to the families dangerous woes. It's the scared boy that turns into a man relying on a gun to make him
feel powerful like his Dad did.
You know what I tell my kid? I tell her that while guns are fun to shoot they
are fun because they are powerful and the concept of killing someone for
trespassing in your home is as antiquated as dueling.Guns are
antiquated technology, gun nuts just don't know it because they refuse to
look at the many non-lethal technologies available - and they want to keep their
rural door unlocked. And anyway, if someone gets into your home
anywhere near your family you have dismally failed at keeping them safe. So why
is the gun nut fantasy always to shoot the bad guy instead of the bad guy trying
to get in but can't? It's just sick.
@ScrewdriverWhy do you take the extreme view of guns and try to tell us
its mainstream. There are those like that, but the majority are not. So you
can tell your kid what you what, I'll just stick with the facts with my
Actually Jeremy the current argument is not that gun legislation will
"prevent crime". It's reasonable gun legislation will reduce the
effects of crime. Banning high capacity clips won't prevent someone from
using a gun but it will help reduce the carnage when a gun is used in a crime.
Crime has always been with us and always will. The world is brief, random,
indifferent, and cruel. A sane society just doesn't exaggerate it.
Middleages, Why do you insist on telling me what I'm telling you when
I'm not telling what you told? I assure you only truth is
telling.Your guns simply don't keep your family safe nor the
public around you. However as a remote paper hole punch they are nicely superior
to a standard paper hole punch.
Pragmatistferlife. Do you really think passing a law banning high capacity clips
will keep criminals from getting them? Really?
The National Research Council review of the available research on guns and crime
found that studies comparing similar geographic areas, such as urban areas to
urban areas, known as “case-control studies,” showed that
“violence is positively associated with firearms ownership.” But
when looking at larger areas, such as countries, the National Research Council
report found “contradictory evidence.” Both types of studies, said
the report, failed to address factors involved in buying a gun —
it’s not a random decision. And gun ownership data itself is lacking
— it comes only from public opinion surveys.The NRC determined
it is difficult to conduct typical randomized studies with guns--which would
involve having control and experimental groups. They also stated more research
is needed. For example, data about gun ownership is self-reported and may not
be reliable. (From factcheck)
Somehow I don't think that banning certain guns, clips, and so forth, will
make any difference to the one perpetrating a crime. They will get the weapons,
legal or not. I can just see the victim facing the criminal trying
to them they are naughty for having an illegal weapon or clip. I think firepower
would be worth a lot more.
Re: "Your guns simply don't keep your family safe nor the public around
you."Really? We have your word on that? You're endowed with
some occult, gnostic statistic that contradicts common sense and all defensible
science on the issue?Hmmmmmm.Look, if you don't
want to have guns in your house, and you prefer to teach your kids that there is
some magic lock, secret incantation, or liberal fairy godmother that will
somehow vicariously frustrate bad guys' nefarious purposes for them -- go
ahead. It's dangerous foolishness, but it's your right.What is NOT your right is to disarm the rest of us and prohibit our use of
defense tactics that have shown their efficacy over thousands of years.Much as liberals may desire to reduce America to a trembling, defenseless
Nation that must surrender to, buy off, or make deals with her enemies, foreign
and domestic, they don't have that right.Yet.
procuradorfiscal,When you make a comment like this:"You're endowed with some occult, gnostic statistic that contradicts
common sense and all defensible science on the issue?"And then
follow it up with ridiculous overblown and oversimplified nonsense like this:
"Much as liberals may desire to reduce America to a trembling,
defenseless Nation that must surrender to, buy off, or make deals with her
enemies, foreign and domestic, they don't have that right.",I have no reason to believe you know anything about "defensible
science" and "common sense". Is it possible for you to make a point
like a grown-up without using childish insults? It takes more than expressive
vocabulary to have an adult conversation. See Mr. Robert's editorial above
for a good example.
In spite of all that, let's try it anyway.
procuradorfiscal, You are resorting to claiming I'm making a call for a
weapons ban when I'm not. This is the current dishonest tactic of the right
to try to re-frame the issue whenever there is a call to reason.The
fact is that killing someone is an antiquated solution just as dueling is. If
your real purpose was to defend your family there are thousands of things you
would be talking about before talking about killing someone with any lethal
weapon including a gun. Nobody should be able get into your home in the first
place. If keeping your family safe is your first priority having
loaded guns around the house ready for that burglar is statistically more likely
to get your family hurt with your own guns. I'm simply calling
gun nuts out on their non-reasoning. I'm not calling for a ban because it
sadly wouldn't work. I don't see why your assault rifle should be less
regulated than any other dangerous device though. I push towards accountability
and training so think and read an entire post before claiming you are a victim
of someone's fictitious gun ban.
MountanmanHayden, IDPragmatistferlife. Do you really think passing a
law banning high capacity clips will keep criminals from getting them?
Really?8:53 a.m. Jan. 4, 2013==============Using YOUR own logic Mountanman,Do you really think passing a law
banning marijuana will keep criminals from getting it? Really?BTW -
You just made an excellent case for supporting the legalization of pot.
@ LDS Liberal - You're forgetting something aren't you? The
Constitution guarantees the right to keep and bear arms, the first purpose of
which is to deter tyranny by ensuring that our citizenry have more firepower
than any standing army. "Before a standing army can rule, the
people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The
supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the
whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band
of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United
States.."--Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of
the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787).This is why banning
military style rifles and pistols would be an act of tyranny and should be
opposed by every liberty-loving American Citizen. There is no
similar Constitutional provision to possess or use marijuana.
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments