Guns, the NRA, the constitution and senseless shootings

[JackS]

Here's the dilemma: Even though the prevalence of firearms is not the root cause of shootings, ending it is the only realistic solution to the problem.

Does anyone here think we can or should censor all violent media? Force feed the 10 Commandments to all students? Re-engineer society to reverse the trend toward so much personal isolation?

Because if you're not going to do any of those things and not crack down hard on guns either, then you may as well just resign yourself to America being an embarrassment when it comes to violent crime.

I still send my checks to the Brady Campaign, but basically, I already have.

I just walk around and hope that I don't get caught in the crossfire.

 

[Inky_Wretch]

Yes, you can kill another person with one. But the people who do that are evil and should be punished, not those of us who will never commit a crime with our firearms.

If only that were true.

--- A while back, man sees car being stolen from his driveway. Instead of calling the police (who would have certainly caught the guy, given that the theft had just started), the man gets his gun and shoots through the window of the car, killing the thief.

Many will say "He deserved it; I would have done the same thing."

Except that car theft is not a capital offense. That man now faces manslaughter charges . . . charges he would not have faced had there not been a gun in his home giving him the idea of playing cop, judge, jury --- and executioner.

--- 10-year-old Johnny stumbles upon gun in dresser drawer. Plays around with it, shoots 6-year-old sister.

Johnny is a criminal who is evil and should be punished?

No, but his parent who kept an unlocked pistol in a dresser drawer when there's a child in the house is a criminal.

I just don't understand the mindset of punishing innocent, law-abiding gun owners for the actions of the few. That's why I equate it to drinking and driving, though it is an apples to oranges situation. We could save tens of thousands of lives by installing breathalyzer lockouts on every car in America.

If the main reason for outlawing guns is to save lives, shouldn't we extend that mindset to other areas?

 

[JR]

The U.S murder rate (5.5 per 100,000, compared to Canada at 2.0 and UK at 1.6) is the highest in the industrialized world.

I would venture that easy access to firearms, particularly handguns, is one of the major reasons.

As Michael Moore tried to show in Columbine, you can't explain it all with that one reason, but it goes a long way.

 

[Pastor]

No, but his parent who kept an unlocked pistol in a dresser drawer when there's a child in the house is a criminal.

I just don't understand the mindset of punishing innocent, law-abiding gun owners for the actions of the few. That's why I equate it to drinking and driving, though it is an apples to oranges situation. We could save tens of thousands of lives by installing breathalyzer lockouts on every car in America.

If the main reason for outlawing guns is to save lives, shouldn't we extend that mindset to other areas?

I believe that it really boils down to the necessity of the firearm in today's society. It serves almost no purpose. Food is cheap enough and can be obtained easily enough without hunting. The amount of security placed on the storage of a gun negates whatever self-defense use it may have.

I would like to drive a tank to work. I am a law abiding citizen. Just because there are a few crazy individuals out there looking to blast a Wal-Mart doesn't mean I should be punished. Why can't I drive a tank? The argument cannot be boiled down so simply.

I get that some people like their guns and like to shoot them off. But at the end of the day, the result is shreaded paper. So, if your keen on destroying paper, buy a paintball gun and maybe at the end of the day, you can sell the target to a museum under the guise of being a piece of art.

 

[BTExpress]

I just don't understand the mindset of punishing innocent, law-abiding gun owners for the actions of the few.

Part of the problem is the word usage.

If you didn't have your guns, would this really be considered a "punishment", something that pains you, something you would notice, something that would inconvenience you or otherwise truly affect more than 0.001% of your life?

Is making everybody drive 55 mph "punishing" the excellent drivers who could go 95 mph and do it safely? Or is it worth it for the good of society?

If the main reason for outlawing guns is to save lives, shouldn't we extend that mindset to other areas?

We do, sort of (see speed limit example above). The Corvette that can go 155 mpg CANNOT go more than 55 mph without getting a ticket.

However . . . cars serve a myriad of purposes that is vital to a functioning, thriving, dispersed population.

Guns have one purpose . . . to kill.

If it's "protection" you want, a taser will do the job.

 

[Thanks for comin' out]

The U.S murder rate (5.5 per 100,000, compared to Canada at 2.0 and UK at 1.6) is the highest in the industrialized world.

I would venture that easy access to firearms, particularly handguns, is one of the major reasons.

As Michael Moore tried to show in Columbine, you can't explain it all with that one reason, but it goes a long way.

I have no answer for why the US has much more gun violence than any other country, but before we head out the door to end all gun possession in America ...

Why are gun crimes exponentially higher in cities/states that either ban or put serious restrictions on guns? Places like Washington DC and New York have the highest numbers around because Benny the Burglar knows he can hold you up in a subway station with no chance his effort being thwarted by self defense.
If the U.S. would be militant towards cleaning up ALL guns EVERYWHERE, maybe we could get somwhere in a few decades, but the time between now and the last gun leaving the States would be the most unsafe America we've ever seen.

 

[Pastor]

You cannot compare the access in certain cities to the crime in them. The guns came in somehow and most likely, they were one time purchased or sold legally in a state with extremely lax laws. As such, the states with the lax laws helped create the problem in those with more stringent laws.

And while there would be a jump in crime for a short period, the long lasting effects would be an incredible decrease in crime. International examples demonstrate this.

 

[andyouare?]

The U.S murder rate (5.5 per 100,000, compared to Canada at 2.0 and UK at 1.6) is the highest in the industrialized world.

I would venture that easy access to firearms, particularly handguns, is one of the major reasons.

As Michael Moore tried to show in Columbine, you can't explain it all with that one reason, but it goes a long way.

I have no answer for why the US has much more gun violence than any other country, but before we head out the door to end all gun possession in America ...

Why are gun crimes exponentially higher in cities/states that either ban or put serious restrictions on guns? Places like Washington DC and New York have the highest numbers around because Benny the Burglar knows he can hold you up in a subway station with no chance his effort being thwarted by self defense.
If the U.S. would be militant towards cleaning up ALL guns EVERYWHERE, maybe we could get somwhere in a few decades, but the time between now and the last gun leaving the States would be the most unsafe America we've ever seen.

Why are gun crimes exponentially higher in cities/states that either ban or put serious restrictions on guns? Because those cities are likely suffering from a high rate of murder/gun violence in the first place, necessitating gun laws. There aren' strict gun laws in Podunk, USA because Podunk doesn't have a gun/violence problem.

And again, it gets back to a point made earlier, why do you think people with guns can properly defend themselves? This ain't the movies. We're not cowboys.

 

[BTExpress]

What happened yesterday WAS UNPLEASANT.

Amazingly, and perhaps ironically, there is a place where Yawn would be correct.

Americans look at what happened yesterday and see a tragedy.

To a Baghdad resident, it's called "rush hour."

 

[Oz]

From "Bigger & Blacker" in 1999 ...

Chris Rock: Everybody is talking about gun control. Got to control the guns. fork, that, I like guns. If you've got a gun, you don't need to work out! Cause, I ain't working out. I ain't jogging. No, I think we need some bullet control. I think every bullet should cost $5,000 ... $5,000 for a bullet. Know why? Cos if a bullet cost $5,000, there'd be no more innocent by-standers. That'd be it. Some guy'd be shot you'd be all, 'Damn, he must've done something, he's got $50,000 worth of bullets in his ass!' And people'd think before they shot someone. 'Man I will blow your forking head off ... if I could afford it. I'm gonna get me a second job, start saving up, and you a dead man. You'd better hope I don't get no bullets on lay-away!' And even if you get shot you wouldn't need to go to the emergency room. Whoever shot you'd take their bullet back. 'I believe you got my property?' "

 

[Yawn]

Wow, "unpleasant," huh? That's the best you can muster for what happened yesterday, Bigot? Jesus, don't strain yourself.

Dipshirt.

FenPhen doesn't want to do the things necessary to stop this problem because some of it would be unpleasant. Compared to what happened, point of emphasis, the shootings were UNPLEASANT. What he described as unpleasant is along the line of going outside and seeing it's raining and he has to find a way to get to his car without getting wet. You are one terrible, pathetic individual. You're probably sitting there, watching the convocation and saying "Oh shirt, there we go with that God stuff."

Narrow. Minded.

 

[Inky_Wretch]

I just don't understand the mindset of punishing innocent, law-abiding gun owners for the actions of the few.

Part of the problem is the word usage.

If you didn't have your guns, would this really be considered a "punishment", something that pains you, something you would notice, something that would inconvenience you or otherwise truly affect more than 0.001% of your life?

Considering I spend about 20 days per year hunting, it would be much more than .0001 percent of my life affected by such a ban.

I have no problem with stregthening gun control laws. Put a 60-day waiting period on all purchases. Require gun owners to obtain licenses or permits for even owning them. Fingerprint and DNA swab all of us. But I don't see why I should be forced to give up hunting and target shooting because of the actions of criminals. I have done nothing wrong.