December 16, 2012
-
Re: BAN THE GUNS
I can honestly say that I’ve never blocked someone for disagreeing with me. I get really irritated when people do this to me…. @angys_coco..and I have nothing against you as a person or a blogger, but it’s not very mature.
Look, if you’re going to write a blog post advocating some sort of position on a controversial subject, it would only be natural that you’re going to have people disagree with you. Especially if you have nothing to prove your stance. You’re basing your opinion on emotional factors rather than logical ones, and therein lies the problem.
I am not advocating the death of innocent people. In fact, I despise people who murder innocent people. I wholly disagree with violence of ANY kind, EXCEPT for the natural right to defend oneself from attack. Yes, I feel empathy for surviving victims, and the families of the deceased victims. I am NOT glorifying mass murder. I advocate the use of guns and weapons ONLY in the event of self defense. There are always going to be people that choose evil, and it’s up to our own individual person to protect our own right to life. There is not always going to be a cop standing over a criminal holding a gun to your head to protect you. In fact, there never will be, because the cops are called AFTER the crime is already committed.
That being said, a ban on guns will never work. It will only take guns out of the hands of innocent people who have the right to protect themselves. It would render people defenseless in the face of a crime being committed against them. Criminals can get a gun anywhere. They don’t have to go to a gun shop and try to buy a registered gun. In fact, nearly NO criminal would buy their gun in that manner (there are obviously exceptions to this). The people that have registered weapons are (most of the time) innocent people who look to defend themselves or hunt animals.
We can look to so many examples on how banning things doesn’t work. We can look at drug laws and prohibition. We can look at examples in other countries to prove a point. Take drugs. Laws do not prevent the manufacturing, distribution, and consumption of drugs. Criminals don’t CARE about laws. Criminals will do whatever it takes to do what they want to do. If they want to sell drugs, they are going to sell drugs. If they want to get a gun, they are going to find a way to get a gun. Prohibition didn’t stop people from making and consuming alcohol. You ever hear of a speakeasy?
Apparently, I’m deranged because I’m providing sound arguments to the matter. These things are true. Telling me I’m wrong without providing any reasons or counter arguments doesn’t do anyone any good. Saying something like this using emotion to think instead of logic and rational thought isn’t productive. Can you provide some sort of reason that I’m wrong? An example? I would be glad to hear it. Otherwise, blocking someone for disagreeing with you is childish.
People have the right to defend themselves. Plain and simple. If someone has a gun at your head, would you rather die? Or would you pull out your own gun, unafraid to pull the trigger to protect your own life? Only someone who doesn’t value their own life would say no. You would rather die than be able to defend yourself? Because, as I said, a criminal doesn’t usually go through the proper channels to get a gun. A better deterrent is more people who are trained to use a weapon for defense purposes, not the banning of guns.
I enjoy a good debate. In fact, I believe that debating is healthy, and allows other people to learn new perspectives, and maybe someone sees the other side more clearly. There’s nothing clear about me seeing your side when you tell me I’m wrong and deranged, and nothing more. I was blocked before I could reply to any comments, so I wrote a response blog to further explain my points.
Comments (91)
I agree. If I’m in a public place and some nutcase is there wanting to mass murder us all, I’d much rather have a person who is trained and has a gun who can fight to PROTECT us. Not just be sitting ducks, waiting to get shot. We need more people out there who can defend against these nutcases. We’re giving them all the control, if we don’t.
Banning guns don’t work.
At least make them harder to obtain. Cops have to go through psych evaluations and training to get guns. Citizen’s have much more relaxed procedure. Even if they have a a gun law that prevents mentally ill people (or their relatives) from obtaining one, if there are no penalties for supplying one with a firearm, then that law is useless. When these have penalties tied to them, it will be a deterrent for sellers.
Very well put. People lose sight that freedom means that people have to accept the risk that others will do bad things with their freedom. Ending freedom fixes nothing.
When the amendment was written, it was, most likely, so that we could have a citizen militia as our forefathers feared a government that had all the power and citizens had none. I don’t feel they ever for saw a time like we have now with military type weapons in the hands of citizens. To me, there is no reason that private citizens need or should have or have the ability to buy military type weapons. The mom of the shooter legally owned those weapons. Not her son. Was she irresponsible in keeping them within “reach” of her son or anyone else? I do not know that. As far I know, if he bought all the ammunition, then he was legal to do so and maybe that is where so laws need to be stronger. I can’t buy Sudafed, a docngestant, in any number greater than 48 at a time more than about once a month as drug people use it to cut meth. Yet I can buy thousand of rounds of bullets at any time I wish without being checked.
If you write a blog be ready to have some one not like what you say. As long as one is respectful in presenting their opposite case, there should be no reason to block anyone. If each are not willing to bend then so be it. It is OK to agree to disagree.
I think carrying a gun should be made simpler. Connecticut actually very strict gun laws.
Oh so you want to have pity party after making sick comments on my block and I blocked you. You are the one being immature. I have every right to block anyone whom I feel I don’t want in my blog. Obviously you want to support guns and have them, and now even feel sorry for all the innocent lives of those children who have died, because of extremist people like you. And what, you want the world to feel sorry for your mishaps that you yourself caused!
I see the current gun debate as a distraction because nothing significant will come from what it said. I’ve seen so many on my twitter and facebook feed that want more firearm regulations but are silent when it comes to the overseas drone strikes.
I am currently working in Ecuador, a country which does not allow its citizens to carry guns. Only security force personel and police officers are allowed to carry guns. Armed robbery is significantly higher here than in any state in the union. A criminal pretty much can assume that th eaverage law abiding citizen is unarmed and unable to return fire. Gun related murders adorn the newspapers regularly.
Gun bans do nothing to protect us from gun weilding criminals. Gun owner education and safty training programs however would significantly reduce the number of accidental shootings.
More US citizens are killed in automobile accidents however than in accidental shootings.
Gun bans work in Japan. In fact, they work very effectively in places with strong and serious enforcement. America alone accounts for FAR more gun deaths than all developed nations combined. That has to account for something.
@Megabyyte - Ah yes, let’s hand out guns like candy. Many people are murdered by guns, so let us solve the problem by putting MORE out there, yes? Let us solve the drug problem by putting even more of it out there too!
@StupidSystemus - “Banning guns don’t work.” Tell that to the countries where guns are banned, those same countries who have the world’s lowest crime rates.
I suggest you ignore your government, and visit Cuba. When was the last time you read about mass-murders in Cuba?
Well-articulated.
Ahem…
“In England, Wales and Scotland, the private ownership of most handguns was banned in 1997 following a gun massacre at a school in Dunblane and an earlier gun massacre in Hungerford, in which the combined deaths was 35 and injured 30. Gun ownership and gun crime was already at a low level, which made these slaughters particularly concerning. Only an estimated 57,000 people —0.1% of the population owned such weapons prior to the ban. In the UK, only 8 per cent of all criminal homicides are committed with a firearm of any kind. In 2005/6 the number of such deaths in England and Wales (population 53.3 million) was just 50, a reduction of 36 per cent on the year before and lower than at any time since 1998/9. The lowest rate of gun crime was in 2004/4 whilst the highest was in 1994.”
End of.
“If someone has a gun at your head, would you rather die? Or would you pull out your own gun, unafraid to pull the trigger to protect your own life? Only someone who doesn’t value their own life would say no.” – This is a really interesting take on it. Have you heard the song Not the Killing Type by Amanda Palmer? That’s instantly what I think of. “I’d rather a die a peaceful piece of shit-bait shame-filled coward thanks” is a the line that rings in my head. Someone could place the stance that you wouldn’t fire back, out of value of their soul. Even killing in self-defense can (and probably will) harm your mind, heart, and/or soul. As for the rest, well, no one is either right or wrong; except when they close their eyes, ears, and mind to any solution in any way. So yes, banning guns won’t solve the problem and yes we do have a problem to fix, and I think if there is a solution that will better the situation, it’s going to be something we haven’t tried yet. (Such as psychological evaluations, again, there will be guns on the street, but if it is harder to buy guns legitimately it’ll be harder to buy them from the black market.)
I also think it’s not just immature but hazardous to block someone (virtually or in reality) simply because they have a different opinion on how things could work. It’s silly to say “I am right and you are wrong” because clearly, at the moment, no one knows that for sure since it hasn’t happened. Every opinion, perspective, and interpretation of our reality has value and validity, even if not in its entirety.
@coolmonkey - Absolutely correct. Americans are buying into their own propaganda. Remember, the USA is a country that PROFITS from the ill-health of its citizens.
@angys_coco - I’m still not seeing a reason why beyond that it is your own opinion. If that’s really how you feel, perhaps you should enlighten others as to WHY you feel the way you do; instead of being petty and calling someone names and placing blame. It’s just a thought, as I have heard this side of the argument, I am now itching to understand your reasons as well.
@CanuckFascist - I simply expressed my opinion on this subject. So shut the fuck up. I don’t care what you think. Stupid troll.
@Aloysius_son - Ecuador is having the same problem as my beloved Canada. Our gun crimes are a result of guns SMUGGLED INTO CANADA BY AMERICANS. We are tightening up our border somewhat, although I have demanded my government station military forces there to catch and execute all American gun-smugglers.
@Megabyyte - And I was stating my own opinion in response. That’s trolling? I have such a crush on you, beautiful woman.
@buddy71 - I don’t think the military should have that sort of artillery either, to be honest. No one should. But whether or not this kid’s mother had these kinds of weapons, he could have gotten them or other firearms from other sources.
@angys_coco - An extremist goes both ways, and I am not an extremist. Also, you are again resorting to personal attacks instead of talking about the real issue; you still have not given any reason that anything I have said on your post or mine is sick or deranged. You are a highly irrational person, reacting off of personal emotions rather than calm logic and rationale. Also, I am not having a pity party. I am reacting to you, and laying out my argument in a logical manner, while respecting the fact that not everyone may agree with me without blocking them. Yes, you can block whomever you wish, but your reasoning isn’t rational.
@FreemarketKev - Yes, I agree. Why do people turn a blind eye to innocent people dying in drone attacks, and yet demand stricter gun control here when something like this happens? Hmm.
@Aloysius_son - More people die in car crashes than even tragedies like in CT as well. It’s a frightening thought to me that those people in the country you’re in can’t legally have guns to protect themselves from the criminals.
@coolmonkey - Really? That’s interesting, I’ll have to look into it. Thanks for the info.
@romic - I honestly don’t know what it takes to own a gun, since I don’t have one, but I would like one. I live in Minnesota, and not too long ago a bill was passed, allowing our state to issue a conceal and carry license.
@TheRealRepublic - Thank you.
@StupidSystemus - I honestly don’t believe that penalties and laws are a deterrent. There’s millions of people in prison for breaking various drug laws. They get out, and do it again. The threat of prison time isn’t a deterrent for a criminal determined to get what he/she wants, and break any arbitrary law to do it.
@Megabyyte - Right. If someone had had a weapon, maybe so many children wouldn’t have died
@buddy71 - The ORIGINAL reason why your citizenry were armed was to allow them to fight as militia against my ancestors. It was not until after we left our Colonies that you decided the reason you wanted the citizenry armed was to ensure you never have a tyrannical government, such as you thought our King George was, which he most certainly was not.
@FreemarketKev - The drone strikes are irrelevant since they do not affect your citizenry. Who cares what happens elsewhere?
@romic - Connecticut cannot have ‘strict’ gun laws because the US Constitution is FEDERAL. You DO understand this concept, yes?
@TheRealRepublic - Wait, the USA is a ‘free’ country????????
Bwaaaaaaaaahhhhhaaaaaaaaahhhhhaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!
@Dame_Delirium - I am certain that it would have an effect on your psyche, if you had to kill in self defense. Some may not be strong enough to handle it, I am sure. As for me, I used to think that I would never be able to kill someone in self defense, for the reasons you’ve said. I actually used to hate guns, without ever holding one or firing one. A while back, I was arguing with a coworker about my stance, and he brought up self defense. He said, “so if someone was raping you with a gun to your head, you still wouldn’t kill them? You wouldn’t fight back?” I’ve thought about it a lot since then, and I’ve decided, yes, I would. I value my own life more than someone who is harming me. I actually recently held a gun for the first time a few weeks ago, at the store, and it was a very different experience. My sister and her boyfriend are going to take me to a virtual range some time to teach me how to shoot.
But, I do think that making it harder to legally purchase guns makes it easier to attain on the black market. Look at how well drug laws work…or, don’t work. It’s SO easy to buy drugs. I have so many sources I could go to to buy drugs, it’s kind of ridiculous, unfortunately.
@CanuckFascist - Abdulrahman Anwar Alawlaki was a 16 year old kid originally from Denver that didn’t help him.
Well said.
@crazy2love - It’s a shame this person who clearly believes that banning guns won’t share their reasons logically. If they thought that it would help other people then that person should make a point to share that view in a way that others could see the potential there too.
I certainly want to have a gun and the training to use it safely, but in complete truth; I doubt that I could kill. I still feel that they need to do background checks, psychological evaluations, and other such tests. It should be just as intensive to buy a gun as it is to adopt a child. It should be clear that the home this gun is going to will be safe, that the person is emotionally and mentally stable, and that they have not done anything horrible already in the past.
I think it’s too hard for America to choose to ban guns now that they are already allowed – it’s just not gonna happen. There needs to be an alternative, though I don’t know what it is. The only reason that everyone is all for self protection is because everyone else has access to guns, including mentally instable people so there is a need to protect yourself that’s more widespread, and more real, than perhaps in other countries where guns are harder to come by.
@Dame_Delirium - Better to not allow guns into the country at all, other than to be in the hands of trained State personnel. Execute any and all who would seek to sell guns illegally. I am a huge proponent of such executions.
@Dame_Delirium - While it’s nice to hope for safe homes for guns. a sociopath can easily cheat those kinds of tests. And yes, it would be nice to know what the reason for that side of the argument is..and I honestly believe that nothing I have said is sick or deranged. And, I kind of feel like the argument isn’t just about gun safety or laws or regulations, but more about violence in general. I don’t like violence at all, and it disturbs me.
@FreemarketKev - Was he killed in Denver by a drone?
I don’t think banning guns totally is the solution, but I do think we need way stricter gun laws. Nowadays it’s so easy to obtain a gun… The guy who shot all those kids just took his mother’s and fired them. I think in order to obtain a gun you need to go through psych evaluations and make sure that the people living in your house are not undergoing psychological problems. I know in Canada the process of obtaining a gun is very lengthy as is in Japan and in China. These three countries have less of a death toll than the US does so gun control clearly does affect the number of people getting killed.
The fact of the matter is that so far, in all these mass shootouts, nobody has ever protected themselves with their own guns, so I don’t really see the defense argument as a very strong one, particularly when all these psychopaths manage to acquire bullet proof vests or target places of worship or elementary schools where such weapons are not even tolerated on the premises.
I do think guns are part of the problem, but it’s not the whole issue obviously.
@isitreal_no - Well, human beings have had to protect themselves ever since the beginning of existence..whether it be from animals when we were still nomads, to protecting oneself from other tribes or enemies. The need for self protection will never go away, because there will always be people who choose to do evil, whether it be by gun, knife, chainsaw, ax, etc. Guns are just more effective…but if someone really wants to harm another human being, they will find a way to do it..with a tire iron, or a bat. There are many things that can be used as a weapon for those who want to do harm, and it’s not just about guns, or people with mental illness. Sure there are sociopaths and the like, with problems in their brains, but there are some that just choose to do evil.
@crazy2love – Australia suffered 13 mass shootings between 1981 to 1996. In the 16 years since their gun reform: zero.
Guns are a controversial topic. I myself – would like to think banning guns is the solution and I did believe that years ago. Unfortunately it isn’t.
My Dad explained it to me. He said if you ban guns then that just means the bad guys go to illegal means to acquire them.
He said there was a prohibition of liquor many years ago. Liquor was illegal to purchase. What happened ? Bootlegging occurred. Illegal sales took place. Liquor sold again.
Yet guns are so deadly so quickly. I honestly have no idea how you would curb their lethality.
I would hope that with this recent string of deaths that it forces the people who sell guns to take full awareness and perhaps legally even be responsible for the situation and how to work towards preventing it from happening again in the future.
That’s all I can see in this … Φ ≡
@CanuckFascist - No, he was in Yemen but still an American citizen like his father who was killed only weeks earlier.
@CanuckFascist – cause they don’t get reported?
@elvish_fairy - The other side is, if guns were allowed on premises, then there would have been someone to stop it and use it for self defense. But I understand what you’re saying. Do you think that if guns were acceptable in these places, that they would no longer be targets? I think the reason a gun hasn’t been used in self defense in these situations, too, is that not *enough* people have guns on them for self defense. There are places like Japan and China that have stricter gun laws that may help, but there’s also Switzerland, that shows the other side of the coin. Switzerland has one of the lowest crime rates in the world, and all of the men are required to go through military gun training, and required to keep their guns in there homes. If you are a criminal, would you go and commit a crime against someone who has a gun and knows how to use it? You know if you’re in Switzerland, the person you want to commit a crime against has a weapon, and they’ve been trained to use it..would you still try and commit the crime? In places like the US, criminals are willing to take the chance that you don’t have a weapon, because a fair amount of people don’t.
@crazy2love – “In Australia in 1996, a mass killing of 35 people galvanized the nation’s conservative prime minister to ban certain rapid-fire long guns. The “national firearms agreement,” as it was known, led to the buyback of 650,000 guns and to tighter rules for licensing and safe storage of those remaining in public hands.
The law did not end gun ownership in Australia. It reduced the number of firearms in private hands by one-fifth, and they were the kinds most likely to be used in mass shootings.
In the 18 years before the law, Australia suffered 13 mass shootings — but not one in the 14 years after the law took full effect. The murder rate with firearms has dropped by more than 40 percent, according to data compiled by the Harvard Injury Control Research Center, and the suicide rate with firearms has dropped by more than half. “
@crazy2love - I’m sure many people could fake it and pass these precautionary tests; but it will still make it harder to get guns, which is the idea. We all pull our opinions and views from our past experiences. I also agree this is more about violence than guns. I’m sure this person has simply been doing the same as us, pulling from their own pasts that have shaped their views about not only guns, but violence and human nature. It isn’t right of anyone to say that you are sick for having thought out the situation and made an intelligent decision based on what you know and what you feel and what you have seen.
What I find so scary about it is that it is human nature. That we cannot put a harness on humanity, and this kind of behavior makes it hard to find ways to keep innocent people safe. Even banning guns won’t get rid of them. Even intensive screening won’t keep people safe. It just doesn’t seem like there is a black and white answer in this kind of controversy.
@StupidSystemus - Okay…but that’s just gun violence. But what about violence overall? Violence with other weapons? Guns are used because they’re more effective and faster. Instead of blowing his brains out, maybe he hangs himself instead. Have bombs been used? My point isn’t just about guns, though. It’s about people still making the choice to do evil and violence, both to themselves and others.
@Dame_Delirium - Hmm. I don’t believe that there’s such a thing as human nature..as though it’s innate within us, fundamental. People with mental illnesses in their brains aren’t fully capable of rational thought, but most of us have the ability to choose. And just as there will always be those that choose good, there will always be those that choose evil. I do not know this person, or what his story was or why he did this, so I can’t speak to that. But, people like Manson and Bundy are sociopaths, with something wrong with their brains. There will always be these kinds of issues in the world, with evil.
@crazy2love – So you agree that gun reform can reduce, if not limit, gun violence? And you said guns are more effective and faster? Cause that’s exactly what needs to happen. It’s easier to shoot someone than, say, stabbing or strangling someone. The more layers you have between a person, the easier it is to do. Case in point — we have trolls here who bitch at everyone while comfortably remaining anonymous.
@crazy2love - Everything has its nature, and nature is everything. We are where we are because of human nature. We’ve been killing each other since we first started evolving and existing as we do. That’s human nature, so is taking care of an injured animal or a lost child. Mental illness isn’t the only reason people kill either, some do it because of pure emotion. Some do it because they are genuinely suffering and cannot get anyone to listen. There are far too many excuses we’ve used to justify killing. Religion, war. It is in us, perhaps it is survival instincts that have hung on in an evolutionary throw back, perhaps we are just too proud of ourselves and our thumbs. Having 7 billion people on the planet certainly doesn’t help.
@StupidSystemus - I honestly have a hard time answering your question. I do not believe in restricting one’s actions with laws and regulations. I am a Voluntaryist, so I believe in the freedom of choice. While it seems to have worked in Australia (which, I am sure there’s more than one factor happening, because these kinds of things are never cut and dry..), I don’t think it’s morally right to enforce something like that using coercive government regulations, just as I don’t believe it’s right that Switzerland forces the men to have gun training (which is the other side of gun control that also seems to work). If, however, all of said actions, both in Australia and Switzerland, were voluntary actions, I suppose I wouldn’t have a problem with it, either way, as long as it works to lessen violence. However, I would rather shoot someone in the face if they are coming at me with a knife. Which, I don’t know if any of this really answers your question, because I kind of feel like I’m talking out loud, trying to figure something out, lol.
@obamawatch – I don’t know where you got the idea that I said banning guns work, but sure.
@StupidSystemus - there is no evidence to support your idea that banning guns would lower crime rates. I have posted this several times, but I will post it again.
Example: In 1976 Washington D.C. passed a law generally prohibiting private citizens from possessing guns, as well as requiring guns in private homes to be kept unloaded and inoperable via disassembly or by a trigger lock. The law went into effect on September 24, 1976.
Result: From the time the trigger lock law was put into effect, until it was overruled by the Supreme Court in 2008, the murder rate in Washington D.C. murder rate averaged 73% higher that it was at the outset of the law. While the murder rate in the nation averaged 11% lower.
Example: Chicago passed a hand gun ban in 1982.
Results: Now at first it seems as though this ban was effective, as the murder rate in Chicago dropped 17%, while the U.S. murder rate averaged 25% lower. However, sense the outset of the handgun ban in Chicago, until it was deemed unconstitutional by the United States Supreme Court, the percentage of murders committed with a hand gun rose by 40%. In 2005 96% of all murder victims in Chicago were killed by a man using a hand gun.
Now there are many people who will say that those gun bans were ineffective because the criminals could go out and get a gun from another state. So how about we look at an example that took place on an Island?
Example: Great Brittan passed a gun control law in 1967 that made it so that civilians had to get a license from their local police chief in order to purchase a fire arm. You also had to provide id numbers for all the guns you owned. Murder rates continued to rise. In 1997 Great Brittan passed a law that required the surrender almost all privately owned handguns to the police. More than 162,000 hand guns and a million pounds of ammunition were confiscated. Using the records the government began mandating in 1967, the government knew they had all but 8 legal handguns in England, Wales, and Scotland.
Results: Sense 1967 the murder rates have averaged 52% higher than before the law, Sense 1997, the murder rate has averaged 15% higher than before the ban.
Its clear that gun control doesn’t work. we have a culture problem not a gun problem. If we don’t fix our crummbling society, it doesn’t mater if you ban guns, maniacs will still find a way to commit mass violence. Banning guns is a feel good solution, we got rid of the evil guns, we are safe.
@Dame_Delirium - Haha, what a change from discussing gun control…but one could argue that the difference between humans and the rest of nature is our consciousness..our minds. An animal cannot choose to destroy itself, it doesn’t have that capability. Just as a plant cannot choose to destroy itself. They will do everything they can to survive. They don’t have the level of consciousness that human beings do. Humans are the only creatures on earth that have the capability, the consciousness, to destroy itself. Everything is a choice for us. We can choose to let ourselves starve to death. But a hungry animal, it cannot make that choice. The only rationale it has, is to survive, and it will eat something, or try its best to, before it starves to death. This is the difference between humans all the rest of nature. That is why, I don’t think we have “human nature,” because every thing is a choice. It can’t be intrinsic and fundamental if we choose everything we do…it’s up to the individual to choose, not nature…if that makes sense.
@buddy71 - They put the second ammendment into the constitution so we could defend ourselves from an over oppressive government. There are 80 million gun owners in the country, that is nothing to sneeze at.
@crazy2love – No, I see and respect your point. I’m aware there are a lot of extraneous factors that affect results. We can’t model another country’s results on ours… Only guidance. Hopefully they’ll find what works.
I don’t understand why someone blocking you is such a big deal. It’s not like you have a constitutional right to comment on their blog. So what if they don’t get to hear your opinion anymore? So what if they express their opinion on their blog and don’t feel obligated to give a long winded explanation of their reasons? Blogging is blogging—we’re not changing the world.
We cannot enforce the laws we currently have, why add to it?
@StupidSystemus – Yes, I would agree that some kind of guidance can be seen, but we never know what will work until it’s tried.
@whyzat – I happen to think it’s rude to block someone without being able to respond. No one is obligated to answer me, no, but it’s the civil thing to do, especially if the other person is the one that brought up their opinion in the first place..an opinion, I might add, that has nothing to back it up. I’ve gotten ripped apart for spewing opinions without having anything to back it up, and it’s taught me that you should always have sound reason for having the opinions that you do. It’s actually forced me to rethink my position on many things, because I now have actual logical reasoning for my opinions, instead of based on my emotions. The world would be a better place if people were actually open to learning new perspectives, using logic and rationale, instead of blindly following their emotions. I used to hate guns, and thought they should be banned. But that was based on ignorance of the subject and emotions. Now that I know more, I’ve changed my opinion.
@crazy2love - From what I see, human nature is the fact that we commonly choose the same path repeatedly. We are inclined to do so. Also, there are animals that choose to die. I was watching a beautiful and sad documentary on dolphins, and one was so sad, it decided to kill itself and it did. My dog was so sad when my father died, that he refused to eat until he, himself died. Evolution and nature are basically what we are, at this current point in evolution we do often make choices; but look at history, at the state of the world, we generally still steer down one path, even if we are aware that we have various choices.
@dw817 - My husband has said something very much along the same lines. A gun ban, or making it more difficult to obtain then, simply takes them out of the hands of law abiding citizens and doesn’t prevent those who have ill intent and criminal means of obtaining them.
Like pot. Like cocaine. Like meth. All illegal. And all obtainable. A ban would do nothing but disarm those who would be upholders of the law while criminals continue their pursuit from the trunk of a car and in the dark like they always have.
Bad guys always find ways of being bad. That’s the uncomfortable truth.
Well said. Couldn’t have said it better myself.
@sarahsmurfette - Man has always had weapons. Murder from Cain vs Abel and the slingshot from David to Goliath.
I know my Dad had a rifle one time and he offered me to pick it up, to teach me how to use it.
I said no.
He smiled and said, “It’s not loaded, this is something you can learn.”
I said it could be loaded.
He said, “No, it’s not loaded. I just told you that.”
I said no, that’s not what I mean. I mean it has the ABILITY to be loaded. It has the ABILITY to kill someone. Therefore, I will not touch it.
Dad looked at me puzzled and said, “If it were a choice between you or someone pointing a gun at you, could you shoot them ? To save your own life ?”
I said no.
My Dad sounded angry now and said, “Then you’d be dead.”
I said likely.
After that we never brought up the subject of his rifle again and he kept it in the closet, loaded, knowing I would never go near it. And he was right, I never did.
If I can be that uncomfortable about guns, then there is a problem with them. In the issuing of them, in the loading of them, and the firing of them. And – I have no simple solution, not that would benefit everyone.
I was just watching a Columbo episode called, “The Conspirators” about an Irish man who was selling arms overseas, little machine-guns.
Each gun was about the size of your wrist and cufflinks. Each gun could shoot 1200 rounds per minute. In math that’s 20-bullets per second. Per second …
God I can’t even imagine the destruction of that.
It’s bad enough you have guns to squeeze a trigger to take someone’s life, now you can just hold it down and massacre.
Are people – REALLY aware of this today ? Because I don’t think they are. I think it’s all about the money and the power a gun wields to a person, or there would be – something – done to prevent this sort of thing today.
@crazy2love - I was just about to bring the drug thing up! Banning drugs wasn’t that dangerous. Banning guns just means people who really shouldn’t have them will and the rest of us using them for protection won’t.
@dw817 - Yes but you are never EVER to shoot to kill unless you are hunting. Even the police are taught to shoot to injure. Again this is all about responsibility. What about a knife? Yes as a responsible person, I will only use my knife to cut meat. However, people have used them to murder people as well. Cars? Also have been used in murder. I’m pretty brave and if I’m that uncomfortable with cars, does it mean we should ban them? I mean…just one tiny mistake can ruin someone’s life.
Back to guns. Yes it is fine to be uncomfortable. Its not always about money (some people have very little of it but have a registered gun…ever lived in the ghetto?) power (some people have never had to fire it) or anything of that sort. A gun is a last act of protection.
@angys_coco - What? That statement is dumb. Thats like me saying “Oh poor guy was stabbed to death…think I’m gonna go carve up that turkey.” Am I being a hypocrite because I’m using a potentially dangerous item? I mean a knife did kill someone. Yesterday I saw a horrific accident on the freeway. According to your logic, because I feel sorry for these people, I should also support the ban on cars.
@angys_coco - Mightn’t the children been safer if a teacher or princpal–anyone who worked at the school been able to shoot the shooter before he killed any one? We are all in morning over the loss of life regardless of which side of the debate we are on. We all are sorrowful about it.
@CanuckFascist - I agree, however, the Constitution is routinely ignored, especially the Second Amendment–usually by the left. I wish that it weren’t the case. In time the Constitution will be followed closely or scrubbed. I hope it is the former. Keep a close eye on that man in the Oval Office.
You say so logically and concisely, I have nothing to add. You could ban all guns everywhere (Washington DC with both the most restrive guns laws in the nation and highest incidence of gun related violence) and it will not stop this from happening again.
Maybe if more people take up martial arts for self defense, there will be less guns around. Martial arts teaches you how to disarm people and duck bullets (seriously). It sharpens your senses and improves your reflexes.
Bare hands can be also be used as assault and defense weapons.
@crazy2love - but you’re not allowed weapons in schools, so even if a teacher had a gun at home, they’d never have had it with them in a classroom.
There’s quite a few links in the left sidebar detailing the different research done on this topic.
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-threats-and-self-defense-gun-use/index.html
what is lame is attacking people on their blogs then blogging about them.
@Dame_Delirium - One never knows how they would react in an emergency. Sometimes the wave of a gun scares the bad guy into surrendering. I am thinking of the guy with the knife at shopping mall. A man with a legal handgun got him to lie down on the pavement until the police came.
Regardless of how old the 2nd amendment is, it doesn’t matter. This is EXACTLY the kind of g0vt manipulation and subversion that they meant so please go take a refresher history course. And making it harder to obtain LEGAL guns makes it harder for LAW ABIDING CITIZENS to obtain them, not the CRIMINALS! Think about it and connect the dots! It is VERY EASY for a criminal to get a gun, yet hard for people who want to protect themselves from criminals to get them? Freaking ridiculous… Anyone disagreeing with this post needs less tv propaganda. Crazy2love is one of the smart ones!
I’ve posted on this topic too and I believe we disagree but I have never blocked anyone from my public site and I applaud you for your openness to debate. Let me just make one point here if I may. My current position (it has evolved some because of discussion on Xanga and other places) is that if we want to make any progress on this issue we must define what we mean by a GUN. I favor guns as originally defined by the NRA as those used for recreation and personal protection. There is no need, in my opinion, for combat weapons in personal homes. We have public museums and government arsenals that serve this purpose in some other nations. I advocate that we move away from debating “what we have” versus the assumption that all guns will be taken away from people. That is not a good solution in my mind and will NEVER come about in the USA.
@coolmonkey - Food for thought: http://www.guncite.com/journals/dkjgc.html
Without going into specifics, it is a shame that you cannot have a conversation with someone who disagrees with you, but that’s Xanga. If it matters, i dont see the point of any ban, either. But it’s hard to discuss what you’re for or against when it’s unclear what measures you’re talking about, and i dont see anyone being specific. Maybe the real debate is whether we have a right to self-defense.
I’m sick of people blocking me, too…especially when they’re the ones who start crap to me and I end it. Next time they should think twice then than to start something with me. And the sick thing is, they still get on me for other discussions even after they’ve blocked me. I was clicking around on some pages and I laughed to find some pages “not found.” So when they can insult what I believe in and I call them out for it, they put me on block. So cowardly.
P.S. I’ve seen some people who posted in your blog who have blocked me, I laugh that they still think they’re so “tough.” If they can’t handle me then how tough are they really!
Guns don’t kill, people with guns kill. Just like you won’t get hit and killed by a parked car but you can by a car that is being driven, by a drunk or non-drunk person. Accidents happen. What happened in Newtown, CT last week was no accident.
If people could be authorized to carry guns they would definitely have to be background checked and Psych checked for obvious reasons. If the person’s mother had locked her guns up correctly then he would have had to find another way to carry out his dastardly act and she may still be alive, along with all them children and adults at the school.
America is rooted in their rights to carry arms. It WILL NOT go over too easily for any sitting president to attempt to take away that right.
It is simple minded to blame an organization like the NRA for this tragedy. It is simple minded to blame “guns” also. There is an abundance of firearms in the US and no matter WHAT laws are passed people who want to obtain a gun will continue to do so. After all the job of a criminal is to violate the laws. Everyone has seen the military like response from the Police – State Local and Federal to this tragedy. They ALL had assault rifles and piston and some Sniper rifles but guess what? JUST like most other tragedies they were all a half hour too late!!!! So the question is – why aren’t these legally armed police officers not securing our most valuable resource – our children? The answer is because States and municipalities want their police officers out on the street writing tickets to generate revenue for their districts. It is unconscionable that there is not an armed uniformed police officer at the main entrance to EVERY school in the country to deter and respond if necessary to threats like this.
Why is it that these kind of shootings never happen in the UK then? Why is gun crime simply not an issue here, or in fact in most first world countries where guns are illegal? Last year 8 people were killed by handguns in Britain, while over 10,000 were in America. Reason is simply because it’s so darn hard to get guns in the USA, hence if there is some suicidal or mentally disturbed teen he can’t simply pick up his dads gun and mow down his classmates. What good is it being able to have guns in self defence if you can’t defend yourself or your children from something like that?
@plursheep - Yes, well, I don’t even think I’d make a very good hunter. I’ve always been more of the cerebral sort.
I =MIGHT= be able to hunt with a bow and arrow were I trained because at least then I might feel responsibility for pulling back the string and releasing it and realizing it is my own motions that caused me to slay the animal for necessity.
Likely there are other hunters out there who feel the same.
And even then, it wouldn’t be a comfortable feeling for me – even if the food were needed.
While there is some research support suggesting that more liberal gun laws reduce crime, (See the writing of John Lott, More Guns-Less Crime) we have to be careful about correlational data and cause and effect date. Nearly all of the “more guns” support is correlational and therefore inconclusive. It is worth considering but is it valid? There are dramatic social and economic changes taking place in cities and countries that, in my opinion, impact the data. We talk about “gun free zones” yet also have seen an increase in legally carrying weapons in, of all places bars and public parks! Now,logically how smart is it to mix guns and booze?@obamawatch -
Thiiis. This. Thisthisthis. *dances* I have nothing better to add.
My “arguments”:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/14/nine-facts-about-guns-and-mass-shootings-in-the-united-states/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/do-concealed-weapon-laws-result-in-less-crime/2012/12/16/e80a5d7e-47c9-11e2-ad54-580638ede391_blog.html
http://thestir.cafemom.com/in_the_news/148264/adam_lanzas_mom_nancy_never
I agree with both of your positions… your position on writing a contraversial blog and your position on the “gun control” issue. And no, you don’t fit my definition of deranged either.
BTW: Connecticut statutes contain provision that allow law enforcement officials to pre-emptively seize a person’s firearms without a warrant or court order, when they have probable cause that the person may either be mentally unstable or intends to use the weapons to commit a crime. (Wikipedia)
@dw817 - On a completely different note lol. yes I’d love to be an archer myself. I mean…bullets, especially full of lead, cause more problems. What if a coyote eats what you shot instead of you and chokes on that bullet?
gun bans sure worked in Chicago
@crazy2love - “ I don’t think the military should have that sort of artillery either, to be honest.:
Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhtttttt thhhhheeee ffffuuuuucccckkkk!!?????
@godfatherofgreenbay - The UK, amongst by far the lowest gun crime rates in the world, and it has the strictest gun laws. Hmmmm, coincidence, no?
@davidian - And mine…
“Viewpoints: Mass shooting in Australia provides gun control lesson
By Will Oremus
Published: Tuesday, Dec. 18, 2012 – 12:00 am
On April 28, 1996, a gunman opened fire on tourists in a seaside resort in Port Arthur, Tasmania. By the time he was finished, he had killed 35 people and wounded 23 more. It was the worst mass murder in Australia’s history.
Twelve days later, Australia’s government did something remarkable. Led by newly elected conservative Prime Minister John Howard, it announced a bipartisan deal with state and local governments to enact sweeping gun-control measures. A decade and a half hence, the results of these policy changes are clear: They worked really, really well.
At the heart of the push was a massive buyback of more than 600,000 semi-automatic shotguns and rifles, or about one-fifth of all firearms in circulation in Australia. The country’s new gun laws prohibited private sales, required that all weapons be individually registered to their owners, and required that gun buyers present a “genuine reason” for needing each weapon at the time of the purchase. Self-defense did not count. In the wake of the tragedy, polls showed public support for these measures at upward of 90 percent.
What happened next has been the subject of several academic studies. Violent crime and gun-related deaths did not come to an end in Australia, of course. But as the Washington Post pointed out in August, homicides by firearm plunged 59 percent between 1995 and 2006, with no corresponding increase in non-firearm-related homicides. The drop in suicides by gun was even steeper: 65 percent. Studies found a close correlation between the sharp declines and the gun buybacks.
Robberies involving a firearm also dropped significantly. Meanwhile, home invasions did not increase, contrary to fears that firearm ownership is needed to deter such crimes. But here’s the most stunning statistic. In the decade before the Port Arthur massacre, there had been 11 mass shootings in the country. There hasn’t been a single one in Australia since.
There have been some contrarian studies about the decrease in gun violence in Australia, including a 2006 paper that argued the decline in gun-related homicides after Port Arthur was simply a continuation of trends already under way. But that paper’s methodology has been discredited, which is not surprising when you consider that its authors were affiliated with pro-gun groups.
Other reports from gun advocates have similarly cherry-picked anecdotal evidence or presented outright fabrications in attempting to make the case that Australia’s more-restrictive laws didn’t work. Those are effectively refuted by findings from peer-reviewed papers, which note that the rate of decrease in gun-related deaths more than doubled following the gun buyback, and that states with the highest buyback rates showed the steepest declines. A 2011 Harvard summary of the research concluded that, at the time the laws were passed in 1996, “it would have been difficult to imagine more compelling future evidence of a beneficial effect.”
Whether the same policies would work as well in the United States – or whether similar legislation would have any chance of being passed here in the first place – is an open question.
Howard, the conservative leader behind the Australian reforms, wrote an op-ed in an Australian paper after visiting the United States in the wake of the Aurora, Colo., shootings. He came away convinced that America needed to change its gun laws, but lamented its lack of will to do so.
There is more to this than merely the lobbying strength of the National Rifle Association and the proximity of the November presidential election. It is hard to believe that their reaction would have been any different if the murders in Aurora had taken place immediately after the election of either Barack Obama or Mitt Romney.
So deeply embedded is the gun culture of the United States that millions of law-abiding Americans truly believe that it is safer to own a gun. This is based on the chilling logic that because there are so many guns in circulation, one’s own weapon is needed for self-protection. To put it another way, the situation is so far gone there can be no turning back.
That’s certainly how things looked after the Aurora shooting. But after Sandy Hook, with the nation shocked and groping for answers once again, I wonder if Americans are still so sure that we have nothing to learn from Australia’s example. ”
Now, kindly be silent, yes?
@CanuckFascist - So are you agreeing with me or disagreeing with me? I don’t get it. Your article proves my point.
@angys_coco - As far as I know, crazy2love killed nobody. Adam Lanza, however, did.
As for people citing gun control statistics from Japan and England: gun related-homicides in America are at a similar level to the rest of the developed world in areas that aren’t impoverished, indicating that gun crimes aren’t caused by gun ownership, which is determined more by a population’s general placement on the left-right political spectrum, not wealth, but by a culture infatuated with violence.