Archive for Monday, June 4, 2007

Gun control is best response

June 4, 2007

Advertisement

Soon after the one-month anniversary of the Virginia Tech shootings, three more died in a church shooting in Idaho. In the month since the Virginia Tech ordeal, an estimated 2,430 more Americans were killed with guns. Are effective steps being taken to avoid senseless violent acts?

Some seek protection through technological solutions, like better communication. Others assume that mental health professionals should be able to discern risk and act to prevent violence, such as by hospitalizing unusual or threatening individuals. Still others figure that targeted prevention - such as prohibiting gun sales to people who have been committed to a psychiatric institution - will lower the risk, as if most gun violence were perpetrated by individuals with such clearly identified psychiatric problems. Such measures may seem reasonable, but they miss the larger point: the need for effective gun control.

The Virginia Tech shooter used a Glock 19 semi-automatic weapon and a Walther. In less than 10 minutes he fired approximately 170 bullets. In the face of such firepower, do even the most ardent technophiles really believe that quicker communication systems could deliver people to safety? Do those counting on the mental health system to provide a safety net lose confidence when they hear mental health professionals readily acknowledge their limited ability to predict violence?

Very few of the millions of individuals suffering from mental illness constitute risk to others. Restricting gun control efforts to them is ineffective. It leaves those who have not been committed, but who far more often pull triggers, free to obtain and use their weapons of choice.

The incident at Virginia Tech was foreseeable in the sense that if such handguns are available they will, at times, be used on innocents. It will happen again on U.S. campuses, on the streets, and even in places of sanctuary. Since 1996, at least 107 individuals have been killed at U.S. schools and colleges. That hundreds, if not thousands, of Americans have died from gunshot wounds in less-publicized incidents throughout U.S. communities since Virginia Tech underscores the need to remove such destructive weapons from our society. That is the only effective step for reducing the violence.

Our nation's strategy for securing peace in other parts of the world includes ridding violent societies, such as Afghanistan or Iraq, of the widespread weapons that undermine their peace. We should demand that our federal, state and local leaders use similar logic and strategies and muster the courage to quell the violence here by standing up to the gun lobby, and outlawing assault weapons and handguns. Why wait any longer to liberate our campuses, neighborhoods and places of worship of the guns that make them unsafe?

- William Robiner is director of health psychology in the Department of Medicine, University of Minnesota Medical School. He wrote this for the Minneapolis Star Tribune.

Comments

craigers 7 years, 10 months ago

Please take the guns away from citizens that obey laws and leave a defenseless society. That way the only people that have guns are the criminals that will get the fire-power however they can. The best way to defend against gun crime is to make the American public that obeys the laws unarmed???

bullmoose06 7 years, 10 months ago

Gun control laws will only work to keep guns out of the hands of those individuals that fear or follow the law. The elements of our society that do not care to follow the law will aquire weapons to use.

The most troubling aspect of the VA Tech incident was that the shooter was committed to a mental health program and was released. Then goes out and purchases weapons to use. Ther law was in place but there was a disconect between the mental health and the law enforcement to keeping weapons out of this kids hands. This is the unintended consequences of the current health privacy laws keeping critical information out of the hands of those that have a legitimate reason to know this.

RonaldWilson 7 years, 10 months ago

No guns, no peace. Know guns, know peace. This issue is so simple it's not worth the bandwidth needed to debunk this guy. Please, everyone go get your CCH and we'll stop the school shooters ourselves. Let's take the streets back from the misfits and the thugs. An armed society is a polite society.

bullmoose06 7 years, 10 months ago

I enjoy the right to own and use firearms but the idea of carrying a weapon on your person on a school campus is wrong. The key reaon is that weapons should not be carried into churches, hospital and schools out of respect for these institutions.

aeroscout17 7 years, 10 months ago

Darn it scenebooster, as much as I normally agree with you, I have to ask if you have a cite for this statement: "BTW, 63% of CC license holders are also drug users, which makes them more likely to commit a crime with their concealed weapon in order to feed their drug addiction:"

Janet Lowther 7 years, 10 months ago

I'm not aware of any recent mass shootings which have not taken place in "Gun Free Zones."

If anyone in those Virginia Tech classrooms had returned fire, how many lives would have been saved? One? Two? Thirty?

The right to self defense is a natural right. Our society, in the name of order, denies most people the most feasible means of defending themselves. This gives miscreants the upper hand.

Every responsible adult has the right to an effective defense. For most people (and especially women) this means carrying a gun.

Bill Chapman 7 years, 10 months ago

Scenebooster > The real question is : how would a drug user GET a CC permit if they had been convicted?

ihatelv 7 years, 10 months ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

Bill Chapman 7 years, 10 months ago

99.7% of ALL posters use numbers as a way to make their comments look good.

Flap Doodle 7 years, 10 months ago

95% of all stats cited on the internet were created from whole cloth. The other 5% are questionable.

RonaldWilson 7 years, 10 months ago

Since guns are so dangerous, yet easily obtained in our society, I think there should be mandantory gun education in kindergarten through the sixth grade. The parents of the students should only be able to opt out if their child can hit a standard range target at 25 yards 18 out of 20 times, standing, with the pistol of their choice. Education and awareness are the answers. 63% of LJW posters think so.

acg 7 years, 10 months ago

I'm kind of on the fence with this one. I know that gun control may be necessary and that gun violence is out of control but by the same token I don't at all like the idea of gun control. I know, I just contradicted myself, let me explain. Gun control only affects legal, honest, hard working citizens. Those are the folks that are going to go thru the effort of being properly trained, purchasing a legal weapon, waiting the necessary wait periods, etc. Criminals and losers are going to go out and buy a gun off the street without a care in the world as to what laws govern that gun. If they're going to rob someone at gun point, do we really think they give a crap that they are illegally possessing that firearm? So all gun control really does, if I'm not mistaken, is screw the rest of us that want to protect ourselves against the criminals.

Flap Doodle 7 years, 10 months ago

scene, since we can't see you wink, could you put {brackets} around your sarcasm so we can know when you are being clever sarcastic scene & when you are being normal negative-Nelly scene?

acg 7 years, 10 months ago

No, logic, you are correct, this is no longer the wild western frontier it once was. And we do have the legal system and the courts to help us. But by that same token, the judge, jury and executioner aren't going to be in my bedroom when some maniac breaks in at night looking to rob/rape/kill me. I live 20 to 30 minutes away from the police. So what does one do? Make sure you have a weapon to protect yourself if god forbid you ever have to, or just hope for the best?

Jaminrawk 7 years, 10 months ago

It's insane that people act like the only reason they have guns is for protection. How many criminals have all of you shot to protect yourselves? I would be surprised if there is more than one of you that honestly has (unless you are a police officer or a veteran). Hand guns are completely unneccesary outside of law enforcement or the military. The only purpose of guns is the end-result of death, correct? Why do citizens need them so bad? No matter what, criminals are going to be criminals. They don't avoid people because they think they may own gun. The fact that depressed people can walk into Wal-Mart and buy a gun to kill themselves or shoot up a school, proves that the whole licensed owner thing doesn't work to detour violence. This isn't the wildwest and maybe the people who grew up playing "cowboys and indians" need to simply grow up.

Newell_Post 7 years, 10 months ago

Jaminrawk:

I have used firearms to defend myself or others twice, but I didn't have to pull the trigger either time. The fact that I was armed and prepared to pull the trigger was enough, in those particular situations.

Personally, I think the same general laws that apply to cars should apply to guns. Properly used both are valuable tools and enjoyable recreational devices. Improperly used both are dangerous contraptions.

Frederic Gutknecht IV 7 years, 10 months ago

logicsound04 says:

The gun owner (and soylent green) is "people"! Gun owners simply have better protection available than those without guns. There is no "notion" that guns are essential to the functioning of our society. They are certainly part of our society and the rest of the societies around the world. I'd say you'd have to change a LOT to even imagine that our society COULD function in its present configuration. It hardly seems like a stretch to imagine that a gun might come in handy when this place crashes and burns a bit more than it's crashing and burning.

---The reason order is maintained in the U.S. is because of our state-of-the-art legal/penal system--- hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

---We no longer live in colonial America or the the untamed Western Frontier-there are appropriate channels for stopping violence---

Thank goodness? So...what are you worried about?

---I just love the fact that so many people think the answer to gun violence is more guns.---

I'm not, currently, too worried about gun violence. Are you? Why? You're safe in ticky-tacky town, right? Is the big bad news frightening you? I happen to be a heck of a lot more disgusted with my government than frightened that some one in 100 million nutjob will get a gun and kill a few people. Have you seen how many people our lovely government has been killing and detaining lately with their "state of the art legal/penal" system?

Bullets are not our big problem, friend. People are our problem. There are too many of them and there are too many that feel too entitled. Hold onto any independence you can heft!~)

Sigmund 7 years, 10 months ago

Gun Control: A 3-shot grouping hitting center mass at 16 feet in 3 seconds.

monkeywrench1969 7 years, 10 months ago

One comment I will make is it does not matter how much control you put on guns, eventually someone will find another method to kill. In England (strict gun control and censorship) they are in the process of trying to ban the possession of samurai swords, martial arts weapons and in some areas certain kitchen knives with pointed tips and longer than a certain length making many standard knives you find in Target and the dreaded Walmart illegal. In some legislation they are trying to make all the blades curved instead of pointy. Why is this...They have been having work place killings and other types of killings where individuals purchase a sword, go to their ex-employer and recreate a scene from Kill Bill Vol 1.

England has censored many movies that include scenes with fights involving knives becasue they think it gives people ideas (including one of the best weapons fight scenes IMHO between Bruce Lee and Dan Inosanto in the Game of Death).

I like the possibility of being able to own a gun to protect myself and the ability to watch most things uncensored.

DaveR 7 years, 10 months ago

More of the same back & forth. Don't you guys ever get tired? Berlioz once interrupted a premiere, offering money for an idea. He wasn't rich enough. I'm not, either.

A society in which you need a gun to be safe is a failed society. FAILED.

Twenty years ago, I had two ideas. Here they are:

Separate the sale of guns from the sale of ammunition. You don't buy gas from a car dealer, you don't buy cars from a gas station. Nothing in the Constitution or any of its Amendments prohibits the separation of Guns & Ammo. Each sold by independent, licensed dealers. Kansas has a long history of micro-managing the sale of alcohol. Let's apply some of the same ideas to guns & ammo. Let anyone who wants sell the hardware. Restrict sales of ammo the same way bars are restricted: Not in residential areas, not near schools or hospitals, etc. Give them restricted hours: No evenings. No Sundays or holidays. Prohibit gun shop owners from also being ammo shop owners. Break the connection between gun hardware & gun software. Make a Saturday Night Special just a little harder to get.

Secondly, stop letting ammo manufacturers use technology against us. Milk has a shelf-life. Film has a shelf-life. Those who manufacture ammunition seek the longest possible shelf-life. Why? What possible good is fifteen year old ammo that's still perfectly lethal?

Why not a one-year shelf-life for ammunition? After which, it goes fizz, rather than bang? Cop ammo would be an exception. Otherwise, you check your pistol once a year. Just like you check the batteries in your smoke alarm. If you can't be bothered to find happiness with your warm gun once a year, then you're not serious & you're presumably not safe. Short shelf-life separates the men from the boys. It also discourages hoarding.

The issue is not if we have guns or not, or if we can have this gun or that, or if Fred can have a gun but John can't. We've been over those issues so many times there's nothing left of them. The organization & presentation of guns, such as I have outlined here, is so far an unexplored field.

Sean Livingstone 7 years, 10 months ago

It's not difficult to realize that gun is really the problem. If you put knife on those weirdos' hands, they may not even kill anyone. VaTech may suffer few injuries if the killer didn't have a gun. Sure enough, it's hard to take guns away from the street, there's still some means of obtaining one, but there should be a starting point. Anyone can obey the law at one time and become a weirdo another. We all get angry at some point, some of us know how to control our temper well enough, but others don't. The killers in all cases are all normal like us, the killers at Columbine are just as normal as the killer at VaTech.

There are bullying everywhere, in fact, the worst country should be South Korea, where it became a national issue. Yet, you rarely see people being killed in South Korea.. the only reason: The kids don't have guns to conduct a massive killing campaign. Bullying, as I know, could be worst in some public schools in the UK than in the USA, but they didn't make headlines. Guns are the problem. You cannot eliminate social problems and behaviors, all you can do is to control guns.

If NRA says that existing laws are good enough, they are not making a good argument. How can someone who is mentally sicked buy a gun? Also, anyone can become mentally sick at any one point in time. Remember the woman who killed her pastor's husband? Do you think she can do it without a gun?

maxcrabb 7 years, 10 months ago

I will never feel comfortable with the thought of shooting someone else.

This is regardless of their intentions, actions, quality of life, and the consequences facing me.

And using guns to hunt? Please, that's lame. Be a man, kill a deer with you're own hands.

monkeywrench1969 7 years, 10 months ago

Agnostic Got to concede nothing could reach the body count in Kill Bill. Here are examples of the sword attacks:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2650803.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/dorset/6599847.stm

This has a whole bunch of ref to edged weapons attacks in a gun free society: http://www.prnewswire.co.uk/cgi/news/release?id=87619

Here is an segment of an argument concerning the way the US and England get to their stats. Read more here:

http://freestudents.blogspot.com/2007/02/high-cost-of-gun-control.html

Malcolm also makes an important point about British crime figures. "The murder rates of the U.S. and U.K. are also affected by differences in the way each counts homicides. The FBI asks police to list every homicide as murder, even if the case isn't subsequently prosecuted or proceeds on a lesser charge, making the U.S. numbers as high as possible. By contrast, the English police "massage down" the homicide statistics, tracking each case through the courts and removing it if it is reduced to a lesser charge or determined to be an accident or self-defense, making the English numbers as low as possible."

Homicides, even with the more expanded definition in the US, have fallen dramatically over the last 15 or so years. Homicides rates are now justly lightly higher than they were in the 1950s, a period that has often been idealized for Americans. If you look at this chart from the Bureau of Justice Statistics you will see that the homicide rate in the 50s was just under 5 for each 100,000 population. It doubled during the late 60s and early 70s and then fluctuated until about 1990 when it declined again leveling out at slightly over 5 per 100,000 population.

The evidence doesn't seem to support the idea that gun control is the same thing as crime control. There is an old slogan "that when guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns". Certainly the criminal class don't worry about breaking laws so gun control tends to be victim disarmament. And the knowledge that the population is disarmed only gives criminals peace of mind and assurance that their occupational choices are a lot safer than before.

Ragingbear 7 years, 10 months ago

What people fail to understand is that one can make a deadly weapon out of almost anything. I can make a crude projectile weapon that could seriously hurt or even kill somebody out of some old PvC piping, some hair spray, some loose gravel and a potato. In fact, this device has been used in places like Los Angeles for gang drive-by shootings. After all, how do you do ballistic testing on a potato?

My point is, that if somebody is intent on pulling a Columbine, or a V-Tech incident, they will find a way. If they want to make a bomb, they will find a way. We can try to control this and that and the other thing until we have to submit entire grocery list to the government to be approved before the store can sell them to us because old turkey bones can be set up to rot in such a way as to allow you to grow some really nasty bacteria that could potentially be used in a terroristic plot to make everyone in a 1 block radius have a mildly upset stomach.

monkeywrench1969 7 years, 10 months ago

Rage

Too true. All the folks protesting the war have made light of the homicide bombers use of IEDs. Guns are plentiful in Iraq but people pick their method for whatever reason.

Newell_Post 7 years, 10 months ago

Agnostick:

Sorry about the delay in responding, but I needed to get some work done today....

In the matter of cars we have collectively decided that, although they are dangerous contraptions, their benefits make it unwise to completely ban them. We have made conscious tradeoffs between individual liberty and collective safety such that to legally own a car you must have insurance or other financial responsibility and to legally operate a car your must obtain a license by passing tests of skill, knowledge, and eyesight. Are these ironclad guarantees of collective safety? Of course not. People violate those laws and others. Also, well intentioned drivers make honest mistakes with cars that cause harm.

My point is that we don't try to achieve either complete freedom (no restrictions at all on cars) nor do we aim for complete safety (ban all cars). We try to achieve a reasonable middle ground between the two. In my opinion the same principles should apply to guns.

Ragingbear 7 years, 10 months ago

It has been mankind's dream to reach Utopia since our kind developed the ability to contemplate our existence. The problem is that Utopia literally means "No Place" because it cannot exist, nor has it ever existed. You can't satisfy everyone all the time, you can't have unlimited resources and unlimited protection while having unlimited freedom. You can't have people that are happy if they have unlimited rights in any category.

9-11 was a wake up call to our generation. But it was not the only one. Columbine, Ruby Ridge, Waco, even the Unabomber have all played a role in trying to wake us up. Instead, we are now awake but we haven't had our coffee yet. We are weary, tired and confused. Things are happening all around us and showing us that the world is not wrapped in bubble-wrap. We don't have monitors on our playgrounds that are constantly watching us and working to prevent us from getting hurt.

The world is real. The world is raw. The world is a real place, without any real rules. All we have is a bunch of people running around and puffing up their chest and trying to force everyone else to do what we want. Only problem is, we aren't talking about playground bullies anymore. These people all have big guns, and bombs, and the ability to force people to die for our cause. For what? All because we haven't learned the most basic lesson that people try to teach us in kindergarten. Simply put, learn how to get along with each other.

And while they're at it, they can stop being stupid.

Ragingbear 7 years, 10 months ago

~~Man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest.~~

Denis Diderot

Frederic Gutknecht IV 7 years, 10 months ago

And of course, no gun debate would be complete without this most excellent idea: http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_2:

Thanks for the ammunition.

Frederic Gutknecht IV 7 years, 10 months ago

DaveR says:.

A society in which you need a gun to be safe is a failed society. FAILED.

Twenty years ago, I had two ideas.

Separate the sale of guns from the sale of ammunition. You don't buy gas from a car dealer, you don't buy cars from a gas station.

Kansas has a long history of micro-managing the sale of alcohol.

Let's apply some of the same ideas to guns & ammo.

Make a Saturday Night Special just a little harder to get.

Secondly, stop letting ammo manufacturers use technology against us.

Milk has a shelf-life. Film has a shelf-life. Those who manufacture ammunition seek the longest possible shelf-life. Why? What possible good is fifteen year old ammo that's still perfectly lethal?

The issue is not if we have guns or not, or if we can have this gun or that, or if Fred can have a gun but John can't. We've been over those issues so many times there's nothing left of them. The organization & presentation of guns, such as I have outlined here, is so far an unexplored field.

Frederic Gutknecht IV 7 years, 10 months ago

livingstone says:

It's not difficult to realize that gun is really the problem. If you put knife on those weirdos' hands, they may not even kill anyone. VaTech may suffer few injuries if the killer didn't have a gun. Sure enough, it's hard to take guns away from the street, there's still some means of obtaining one, but there should be a starting point. Anyone can obey the law at one time and become a weirdo another. We all get angry at some point, some of us know how to control our temper well enough, but others don't. The killers in all cases are all normal like us, the killers at Columbine are just as normal as the killer at VaTech.

---"normal like us"? This kind of thinking frightens me. You say the gun is the problem because, basically, everyone is (people are) crazy sometimes. It follows that humans should be controlled by our government (which is not "people", apparently, but some worthy and benificent god...with guns, bombs and a corporate bent, that never gets angry or goes crazy). This just doesn't seem like such a brilliant view of the world.

There are bullying everywhere, in fact, the worst country should be South Korea, where it became a national issue. Yet, you rarely see people being killed in South Korea. the only reason: The kids don't have guns to conduct a massive killing campaign. Bullying, as I know, could be worst in some public schools in the UK than in the USA, but they didn't make headlines. Guns are the problem. You cannot eliminate social problems and behaviors, all you can do is to control guns.

If NRA says that existing laws are good enough, they are not making a good argument. How can someone who is mentally sicked buy a gun? Also, anyone can become mentally sick at any one point in time. Remember the woman who killed her pastor's husband? Do you think she can do it without a gun? ---There's a law against that. Laws don't always work. Is that not clear? You have so much fear of such a nonissue. You want to give away, to the gawd gov corporatocracy, as much freedom and agency and power as you possibly can...to be safe...in lala land? It won't work, IMO.---

Frederic Gutknecht IV 7 years, 10 months ago

maxcrabb says:

I will never feel comfortable with the thought of shooting someone else. This is regardless of their intentions, actions, quality of life, and the consequences facing me. ---And that should make a difference in my life, why?---

And using guns to hunt? Please, that's lame. Be a man, kill a deer with you're own hands.

Bubbles 7 years, 10 months ago

If we ban guns then only Bush will have guns.

ksdivakat 7 years, 10 months ago

Heres what I dont understand and maybe somebody could educate me, I seen a show on 60 minutes or 20-20 or one of those that said that the numbers are that 97% of homeowners who own guns and pull them out to use them in the event of a home invasion or robbery...have their own guns turned on them and used. So the homeowner 97% of the time is killed by his own gun. having said that, guns are legal but taser guns are illegal to carry, only the police can carry them. Shouldnt that be the other way? citizens can carry tasers and only police can carry real guns, police and hunters...see Im also torn with this subject, I know i hate guns and wont be around them, but im also for every americans right to carry one of they choose, as protected by the constitution and if we begin to police that, then whats down the road in the future, so nobody has ever been able to give me a convincing argument one way or another on the subject.

Jaminrawk 7 years, 10 months ago

Comparing guns to alcohol and cars is off-base. The purpose of a car is transportation. The purpose of alcohol is recreation and social interaction. Though, these combined and even separate can result in death (just like about everything). The purpose of a gun is the end-result of death. You can say protection, but the protection is provided by killing or insinuating that you are prepared to kill someone. That should tell you all you need to know about the virtues of the gun. I'd be willing to bet most of the people who use guns drive cars and drink alcohol, so where is the argument? The fact that all of the right-wing posters on here are coming off as wackos prepared to take on the government and hide their weapons rather than lose them, shows that they are living in a different era. We had the right to bear arms because of the tyranny of England. The second amendment is long overdue for a revision. The consititution use to allow slavery too, was that ok?

Frederic Gutknecht IV 7 years, 10 months ago

Jaminrawk says:

Comparing guns to alcohol and cars is off-base.

The purpose of a car is transportation. The purpose of alcohol is recreation...social interaction. The purpose of a gun is the end-result of death.

protection is provided by killing or insinuating that you are prepared to kill someone.

That should tell you all you need to know about the virtues of the gun.

I'd be willing to bet most of the people who use guns drive cars and drink alcohol, so where is the argument?

The fact that all of the right-wing posters on here are coming off as wackos prepared to take on the government and hide their weapons rather than lose them, shows that they are living in a different era.

We had the right to bear arms because of the tyranny of England. The second amendment is long overdue for a revision.

The consititution use to allow slavery too, was that ok?

Read this, from http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_slav.html : [Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence, which, famously, declares that "all men are created equal," wrote, "There must doubtless be an unhappy influence on the manners of our people produced by the existence of slavery among us. The whole commerce between master and slave is a perpetual exercise of the most boisterous passions, the most unremitting despotism on the one part, and degrading submissions on the other. Our children see this, and learn to imitate it; for man is an imitative animal. This quality is the germ of all education in him." Alas, like many Southerners, Jefferson held slaves, as many as 223 at some points in his life. His family sold his slaves after his death, in an effort to relieve the debt he left his estate in.]

People just ain't no good! Arm yourself!~)

Jaminrawk 7 years, 10 months ago

When was the last time someone came into you home and threatened you and your children? You should be more concerned with the safety of having a gun in the house with children present. Kids see the glorification of gun violence in society and no doubt are curious about guns. I wouldn't want to risk my kids getting their hands on a weapon I were to own.

Jaminrawk 7 years, 10 months ago

It's funny that JJE007 doesn't ever have anything significant to say, just cut and pastes everyone else's words with a litlle fluff commentary.

"It's funny that JJE007 doesn't ever have anything significant to say, just cut and pastes everyone else's words with a litlle fluff commentary." - Of course, because that's what people with no basis for their argument do.

mick 7 years, 10 months ago

Why do we listen to people from the mental health industry? They are part of the problem, not the solution.

Frederic Gutknecht IV 7 years, 10 months ago

Jaminrawk says: "It's funny that JJE007 doesn't ever have anything significant to say, just cut and pastes everyone else's words with a litlle fluff commentary.- Of course, because that's what people with no basis for their argument do"

---I'm perfectly happy if you decide to call me "little fluff commentary" from now on. That's so CUTE!~) Upon or in reflection, I feel I must thank you for your presciently trenchant commentary. I'm kinda absurdist in that way. Call me wacko!~)

Getting back to the "argument", where did you get your idea that the right to keep and bear arms was "because of the tyranny of England?" That is patently false.

Yours truly, little fluff commentary

Newell_Post 7 years, 10 months ago

"When was the last time someone came into you home and threatened you and your children?"

1983 (approx) 1am City of Lawrence. .357 Magnum pulled (by me) but not fired. Intruder fled.

acg 7 years, 10 months ago

Sorry it took me a while to get back to this thread, I do have to work and all, and in answer to the question posed to me "when was the last time someone came into your home and threatened you and your children" I have several examples, actually. I didn't have kids then, but that doesn't make it any less terrifying. 1999, owned a condo at Woodcreek at 2nd & Michigan (Lawrence) man tried to force his way into my condo thru the patio door. Cocked my shotgun and told him I would blow him away, he split. 1997, my brother lives in Gaslight Village, man tries to enter his home, he pulls a snubnose .38 on the guy, the guy splits. 1992, 19th street trailer park, best friend's hubby in verbal altercation with a guy that has a gun. Best friend's hubby pulls a gun, they shoot at one another at the same time, best friend's hubby okay, dude he was fighting with, shot in the face. So, there are 3 examples of how a gun helped a person. I'm just sayin'.

Jaminrawk 7 years, 10 months ago

Look, I understand that high crime areas run the risk of burglary or assault for law abiding residents. Gaslight Village and the 19th street trailerpark definitely fit into that descritption. Congrats that you all survived your burglary attempts unscathed. I'm just saying that a lot of criminals get guns easily because it's too easy to get guns! You can buy them a pawn shops or even Wal-mart. Why? Because they need to be readily available to people who think going out and having target practice is fun. You can argue that criminals can't buy guns but thier friends and family sure can. that is how it often happens wih felons, that or they just steal them from people who are licensed. What would happen if one of the times that you think you are being robbed, it's just your teenager sneaking back in on a school night?

gogoplata 7 years, 10 months ago

What would happen if one of the times that you think you are being robbed, it's just your teenager sneaking back in on a school night?

Easy, you don't shoot him.
Regular people are quite capable of making good decisions in bad situations.
It's called self reliance. I don't trust the police or the government to do a job that I am quite capable of doing myself. Gun laws will not keep guns out of the hands of all criminals and the police will not be there to help you if a bad man attacks you on the street or in your home. Having a gun to protect you simply improves your chances against a violent criminal. It is common sense.

Newell_Post 7 years, 10 months ago

"What would happen if one of the times that you think you are being robbed, it's just your teenager sneaking back in on a school night?"

My Dad has slept with a revolver under his pillow for 60+ years and has never shot me once; not even one single time.

thusspokezarathustra 7 years, 10 months ago

And if he had shot you it would prove the argument to be true? There's never been anyone mistakenly shot by someone they live with ever? My father slept without a gun under his bed for 60+ years & was never robbed does that prove that guns aren't necessary for self defense?

Commenting has been disabled for this item.