Where to go from here? (Possible debate, gun control)

[tvguy]

I do not own a gun. That sad reality is, no matter what we do, there will be guns.
An innocent woman murdered this month is San Francisco with a gun stolen from a Federal Agent.
http://www.mercurynews.com/crime-co...teinle-fatal-shooting-suspect-enters-plea-san

Or like Unabombr Ted Kaczynski, built their own with less than $1 of parts from the hardware store.

As for Australia, yes it cut gun violence by over half. But it has not eliminated it
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...stralia-banned-lots-of-guns-after-a-massacre/

 

[NHdisneylover]

Well you are not even starting the conversation in a reasonable manner. The second amendment does not have a limit to start with and the supreme court has ruled it guarantees law abiding US citizens have a right to own and use firearms. Most hunting rifles sold are semi-automatic (or did you mean fully automatic? which have already been banned since 1986?). Most rifle bullets above .22 lr will penetrate body armor, so you basically want to ban all rifles in America. And how many rounds is a "few"? Five? Four? One? I doubt the criminals will turn their handguns that already hold 17.

I have a rifle I use on camping trips in Alaska for protection from large predators, it is a .375 H&H magnum. I carry it so I can stop something large and angry from eating me. The round will go through several armor vests. You would prefer I become a snack for a bear rather than have the ability to protect myself. That is NOT a reasonable conversation.

Your opinion has been over-ruled by our supreme court, twice now. You are going to have to realize your opinion is subservient to our constitution and courts.

Yep, this is true--there are some supreme court decisions, both older and newer, that I disagree with. Is there anyone who agrees with all of them?

The way I read the second amendment, and interpret it, it does not place many limits but it also does not say no limits can be placed. And it does place the limit that arms are to be carried as part of a well organized militia--that doesn't necessarily mean walking around town on your own just in case. Nor, does it state firearms. just "arms" and yet we regularly prevent people from carrying knives, swords, bows and arrows and all manner of other arms in places we allow open carry or concealed carry and say that those FIREarms somehow enjoy more protection than others types of arms. I do not understand that, and i do think it will eventually (sadly, IMO; probably a long time from now) be interpreted differently by a court.

 

[Planogirl]

It is really getting interesting in Texas. They just passed open carry and some businesses are banning open carry on their premises which angers some of the open carry groups even though they supposedly supported property owner rights too. The gun advocates want guns everywhere but considering how irrationally people can behave I'm not sure if that's such a good idea. But then they could just hide them and be just as potentially dangerous.

I don't know what the answer is but I agree that it is ironic that a piece of cloth gets way more attention than the item that was actually used to kill.

 

[NHdisneylover]

I do not own a gun. That sad reality is, no matter what we do, there will be guns.
An innocent woman murdered this month is San Francisco with a gun stolen from a Federal Agent.
http://www.mercurynews.com/crime-co...teinle-fatal-shooting-suspect-enters-plea-san

Or like Unabombr Ted Kaczynski, built their own with less than $1 of parts from the hardware store.

As for Australia, yes it cut gun violence by over half. But it has not eliminated it
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...stralia-banned-lots-of-guns-after-a-massacre/

I don't think it can be eliminated--no type of violence can really be eliminated, all we can do is lower the risk.

 

[Planogirl]

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

So what does that really mean? A well regulated militia is not the same thing as Joe Bubba marching around a fast food restaurant with his AK-47.

 

[Disneyliscious]

only national laws will really have an effect.

....on responsible gun owners. No law in any city, county, country or continent will have an effect on a criminal other than possibly increasing sentencing. But by the sentence happens, the crime is already done. Giving someone life in prison does not stop crime from others. The problem needs to be addresses at the forefront.

I also want to add that the problem seems worse now because of social media. Shootings still happened 30 years ago but there was no internet to spread it around or cell phones to capture it. This isn't something new. It just appears new because of technology and people are gasping with mouths wide open all of a sudden.

 

[NHdisneylover]

....on responsible gun owners. No law in any city, county, country or continent will have an effect on a criminal other than possibly increasing sentencing. But by the sentence happens, the crime is already done. Giving someone life in prison does not stop crime from others. The problem needs to be addresses at the forefront.

I also want to add that the problem seems worse now because of social media. Shootings still happened 30 years ago but there was no internet to spread it around or cell phones to capture it. This isn't something new. It just appears new because of technology and people are gasping with mouths wide open all of a sudden.

Do you really believe that there are so MANY fewer criminals in most of the rest of the Western world than in the US? That we somehow breed substantially higher numbers of criminals than France, Canada, Germany, Denmark, etc?
When there are fewer legally owned guns out there, there are simply fewer guns for criminals to get their hands on, and what is there costs more, which does not stop those who are super intent on committing gun violence, but it stops a whole lot of other, smaller time criminals, angry ex spouses, etc. And keeps guns out of the hands of a whole lot of suicidal teens. and and and

 

[lauradis]

Population 23,829,607 Australian vs American 318.9 million

So your point was????????

 

[NHdisneylover]

And let'S look at the recent data that has come out in which for every 1 "justifiable gun homicide" in the US (like the example given above of the person stopping a car jacking in progress), there are:

34 criminal gun homicides

78 gun suicides

2 accidental gun deaths

Even if you assume that every single criminal gun homicide would still happen, that all of those involve people so determined that they will go out and obtain illegal weapons at cost and risk and with planning, that not one would be caught in the process, etc--there are still 80 other gun deaths from suicide and accident for every one time a gun actually ends up used in a justifiable way against someone. So getting guns out of hte hands of law abiding citizens, when they are not acting as part of an organized militia, is still likely to save lots of lives.

I actually think that is the single biggest issue--we need to stop seeing guns as a form of protection (which they rarely are)--this is really shaping the debate in a way that simply does not make logical sense.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...illed-in-self-defense-34-innocent-people-die/

 

[Vaughn4380]

Yep, this is true--there are some supreme court decisions, both older and newer, that I disagree with. Is there anyone who agrees with all of them?

The way I read the second amendment, and interpret it, it does not place many limits but it also does not say no limits can be placed. And it does place the limit that arms are to be carried as part of a well organized militia--that doesn't necessarily mean walking around town on your own just in case. Nor, does it state firearms. just "arms" and yet we regularly prevent people from carrying knives, swords, bows and arrows and all manner of other arms in places we allow open carry or concealed carry and say that those FIREarms somehow enjoy more protection than others types of arms. I do not understand that, and i do think it will eventually (sadly, IMO; probably a long time from now) be interpreted differently by a court.

The courts have ruled multiple times that the reference to "arms" was intended to mean weapons in common use by citizens and millitary. So anything the local police department or national guard issues to a regular soldier/officer is protected by the second amendment. These rulings are documented in the supreme court rulings available online, perhaps some research would help you understand.

As for hoping the courts reverse their ruling, it is my hope that never happens as this would no longer be the America that the founders wanted.

 

[lauradis]

Do you really believe that there are so MANY fewer criminals in most of the rest of the Western world than in the US? That we somehow breed substantially higher numbers of criminals than France, Canada, Germany, Denmark, etc?
When there are fewer legally owned guns out there, there are simply fewer guns for criminals to get their hands on, and what is there costs more, which does not stop those who are super intent on committing gun violence, but it stops a whole lot of other, smaller time criminals, angry ex spouses, etc. And keeps guns out of the hands of a whole lot of suicidal teens. and and and

Terrorist attacks outside of america for 2015 except 2....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents,_2015

Violence is human nature, guns are not evil, people are.

I will never believe that you wouldn't use any weapon to protect your children.

America will not band guns for many more moons, to many of us lawful citizens still feel the need to use them against our government if the time ever comes again.

 

[Wendy31]

If someone wants a gun badly enough, he or she will get it. You can't "out-regulate" criminals.

I'm all for waiting periods & background checks & ways to improve the checks & balances we have - so human error happens less frequently. I also think we need to take mental illness more seriously in this country. However, I don't think stricter gun controls will stop gun violence.

I think the government regulates enough, & we don't need them "babysitting" the citizens. Bad things happen. Sometimes people do really bad & evil things. But the majority of people do not. And knee-jerk reactions to control everyone don't solve the problem.

It's like the teacher who punishes her entire class because 1 boy disobeyed the rule. The kid who disobeyed doesn't care & just finds more ways to be disobedient. And, in the meantime, you've disciplined a whole class who did nothing wrong.

Drunk driving kills people too. And it is a sad, horrible thing. But saying that an every day citizen shouldn't be allowed to own a gun because some other person used a gun to kill someone is like saying you can't have a car because some other person drove drunk & killed someone.

My husband & I are responsible & sane gun owners. I don't need the government exercising more control over us (& the many other people like us) because a random crazy drug addict got accidental access to a gun.

Stricter gun laws are not going to stop gun violence any more than taking down a flag stops racism.

 

[Vaughn4380]

I actually think that is the single biggest issue--we need to stop seeing guns as a form of protection (which they rarely are)--this is really shaping the debate in a way that simply does not make logical sense.
/

This statement is ignorant and not based on any fact.

My career is in law enforcement, I see guns used for self defense on a weekly basis. If they don't work for self defense then why do police carry them?

 

[luvsJack]

We can say all day long that criminals will still get guns. And I believe that. I believe in our right to own guns.

But what happened here is that this guy DID obtain a gun legally. He didn't steal it nor did he buy it on the black market. He bought it legally. That is a problem that needs fixing. There was a breakdown in the system that needs plugging.

 

[lauradis]

And let'S look at the recent data that has come out in which for every 1 "justifiable gun homicide" in the US (like the example given above of the person stopping a car jacking in progress), there are:

34 criminal gun homicides

78 gun suicides

2 accidental gun deaths

Even if you assume that every single criminal gun homicide would still happen, that all of those involve people so determined that they will go out and obtain illegal weapons at cost and risk and with planning, that not one would be caught in the process, etc--there are still 80 other gun deaths from suicide and accident for every one time a gun actually ends up used in a justifiable way against someone. So getting guns out of hte hands of law abiding citizens, when they are not acting as part of an organized militia, is still likely to save lots of lives.

I actually think that is the single biggest issue--we need to stop seeing guns as a form of protection (which they rarely are)--this is really shaping the debate in a way that simply does not make logical sense.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...illed-in-self-defense-34-innocent-people-die/

You think banning guns will lower the suicide rates?

I would think that the 78 would just slit their wrist or take a ton of pills or jump off a cliff etc. etc.

Now the 36 is a problem, 34 being criminal and 2 being possible prevented with gun safety.

If we have 2 accidental gun deaths why isn't real gun safety taught in schools????

auto deaths last year in America around 35k
gun deaths last year in america around 32k

I don't hear screaming for band on cars.

Edited to include if 2015 trend conti. we might see gun deaths in the age range of 15-24 yrs surpass car deaths... which is a big increase in the last 10-15 yrs, but then school shooting and drugging our children has risen too.

 

[Wendy31]

I actually think that is the single biggest issue--we need to stop seeing guns as a form of protection (which they rarely are)--this is really shaping the debate in a

Why wouldn't a person see a gun as a form of protection?

Our president's children are protected by men who carry guns.

Should I not have that same right?

If someone broke into your house while you're there, are you saying you wouldn't feel better if you had a gun to protect yourself & your family?

 

[Teresa Pitman]

But stricter gun laws do seem to reduce gun violence in other countries.

 

[NHdisneylover]

The courts have ruled multiple times that the reference to "arms" was intended to mean weapons in common use by citizens and millitary. So anything the local police department or national guard issues to a regular soldier/officer is protected by the second amendment. These rulings are documented in the supreme court rulings available online, perhaps some research would help you understand.

As for hoping the courts reverse their ruling, it is my hope that never happens as this would no longer be the America that the founders wanted.

I have done research. You and I disagree, but that does not mean I am uniformed on the issue.

Terrorist attacks outside of america for 2015 except 2....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents,_2015

Violence is human nature, guns are not evil, people are.

I will never believe that you wouldn't use any weapon to protect your children.

America will not band guns for many more moons, to many of us lawful citizens still feel the need to use them against our government if the time ever comes again.

Did I (or anyone on this thread?) ever say I would not sue any weapon or that I would not protect my children?
I am too lazy to look it up right this moment, but there have been multiple studies that conclude that children are much more likely to be killed accidentally r commit suicide with a gun in the home than to be protected by it.

This statement is ignorant and not based on any fact.

My career is in law enforcement, I see guns used for self defense on a weekly basis. If they don't work for self defense then why do police carry them?

"ignorant" sigh--and now the civil discussion has ended and name calling has begun. Well, it was nice while it lasted. And I cited the facts and included a link to last month's Wall Street Journal article on it in a previous post--so I am not just guessing or ignorant as so rudely called me. In the USA or every ONE justifiable gun homicide there are 78 gun suicides, 2 accidental gun deaths and 34 criminal gun suicides.

Anyway, now that it has stopped being civil I am going to bow out of the thread. I enjoy discussing the issues even with those I totally disagree with, but I am not interested in a name calling debate.

 

[IndyRnRfan]

Look at every country who had some sort of gun ban. Crime increases plan and simple after that ban took effect. I'm on my phone and can't post the links but you can find it. Gun crimes may go down but every other crime goes up in most cases.

 

[NHdisneylover]

Why wouldn't a person see a gun as a form of protection?

Our president's children are protected by men who carry guns.

Should I not have that same right?

If someone broke into your house while you're there, are you saying you wouldn't feel better if you had a gun to protect yourself & your family?

I said I was bowing out, but this was posted while I typed so I will quickly answer it. NO, I would not feel safer with a gun. IN fact, my husband travels 80% of the time. so often I have been alone at night, or just me and kids. I do not now, nor have I ever, own a gun. I do not want one. I do not think it would make me safer.