USA Politics

[mckindog]

First, I'll point out that whether or not it should be, it is a constitutional right.

As to why, maybe it is antiquated, but the reason was the the writers of the constitution wanted the people of the country to have a defense against the government. Remember, it was a rebellion that created the country at that time and they were thinking that if the government ever became oppressive, the people had the right to defend themselves from it.

Now, the statement has been made that defending oneself against the US has become impossible with the invention of fighter planes, missles and nuclear weapons. If the gov't really wanted to kick the 'people's' asses, it could without breaking a sweat.

The constitution is a document written by a group of men to fit the reality of their time. It is not a piece of religious dogma, though some seem to want to treat it as such. But I guess entrenching the idea your neighbour (the people, who ostensibly are the government) is not to be trusted is pretty difficult to overcome.

However, a rather large percentage of the population are avid hunters. They aren't going to be giving up their right to own weapons easily.

Not an issue when you make it about gun regulation, not ownership. Plenty of avid hunters where I live. They own their weapons.
Never seen their guns in public, nor read or heard reports of them using them on people.

 

[Wästed The Great]

I think you misunderstand my statement; I don't make the Constitution out to be something biblical. However, to make changes, it has to be by the will of the people. When it comes to the Constitution, it has to have a large portion of the country agree that the law should be changed/modified. As such, it becomes difficult.

I'm also trying to point out that this problem doesn't exist in a vacuum. There are guns in this country. According to one report, 350 million handguns are out there. It will be virtually impossible to make those illegal. You have to look a that and realize it is a fact and not just an opinion-- you guys want to see stiffer handgun control in the US, but you also have to look at it realistically and try to find a solution that makes sense instead of just saying "make handguns illegal". I say this, and I'm not halfway joking, concealed carry isn't a bad idea. If you really can't remove guns from the hands of criminals, why not make it easier for a citizen to protect themselves? Seriously, how many bank robberies have been foiled because some citizen was carrying a handgun? Quite a few. How many people would start to think twice about trying something stupid if there is a possibility that a citizen may be carrying a gun to protect themselves?

i'm not saying it is a perfect solution. What I am saying is there needs to be some other solution rather than just 'make handguns illegal'.

EDIT: Let me add to that: How would one presume to make handguns illegal? I'm assuming that is the point, to make handguns illegal, right? So, there are 350,000,000 handguns at a price of, what, $400 on average? So that is a cost of about $140,000,000,000? Who pays for that? Do citizens just hand over their guns and give up the value? Does the Gov't pay for them? Do they get to keep the guns even tho they are not legal? ...like I said, not a vacuum.

 

[Sebas-hero1995]

There's a bigger reason guns aren't being banned in the US: Money. The weapon industry pays a lot, and everyone knows rich people are friends with other rich people, as politicians. So there you got, that's why they aren't going to ban the guns, at least in a while.

 

[Onhell]

Ah come on Onhell, you're underestimating the danger of firearms.

And you of a really thick book..

I believe it was a wrong report. His mother did not work at that school.

Fair enough

The attack at Newtown is the second deadliest shooting attack at a US school or university, after the Virginia Tech killings of 2007 (32 people dead and many injured).

So? Next shooting you're going to tell me it's news because it's the 3rd deadliest ever? or 5th?

Some people are empathic or have a conscience. They don't like to have innocent people dying so easily.

Funny how said people only come out when tragedies occur in the U.S, but not elsewhere...

It has to do with people but not only people. Access to weapons plays a part.

Like Wasted said, people want a gun, they'll get it, laws or not, or a knife or a really thick book...

It's not easy to kill people with an encyclopedia

Yet not impossible

 

[maidenn.c.indiana]

Perhaps if this crazy bastard didn't have a gun he wouldn't have killed all those kids, perhaps. There is no way to know. However a couple of weeks ago a Kansas City football player killed himself and his girlfriend who he shot 9 times. Now you can say that if he didn't have a gun that this wouldn't have happened. However I tend to believe that if you're pissed off at someone enough to shoot them 9 times, you're are probably going to kill them anyway you can. I know people say that more and stricter gun control laws are the answer. Yet any reasonable person would have to admit that even if our government went so far as to ban any private citizen from possessing any type of firearm that the criminal elements in our society would still possess firearms and continue to use them against unarmed innocents. Don't belive me? Marajunna is illegal in 48 states yet how many people every day are buying, selling, using, and possessing a substance that is illegal. You think that the gun violence in America is bad now, just take away firearms from the citizens and see what happens when the criminal element knows that they can go into any business or residence and do what they want because they are the only ones that are armed. Everyone talks about the violence that comes with firearms, yet noone seems to want to admit that people possessing firearms also deters violence. I don't care who you are you are less likely to bust into someplace with bad intent if you know that there is a good chance that if you do, you'll be the one who ends up dead.

 

[mckindog]

@ Wasted, dogma comment certainly not aimed at you.
@ MCI, I've yet to see evidence violence is deterred by armed citizens. The American experience does not seem to prove that.

 

[mckindog]

Clearly, there is a cultural divide here.
I was raised and live in a culture where people do not expect to shoot or be shot at, so my position is self-evident from where I sit. Your culture has different expectations, therefore yours is equally evident from your perspective.
Clearly, it takes time to sway cultural mores, just as it has has for things like women's roles, or the acceptance of gays.
Society can change, but it takes a recognition that it can be done, and the efforts of individuals to make it happen.
I am saying it is possible if people want it to happen.
I would rather raise my kids in an environment that has my cultural expectation about guns than yours.

 

[Onhell]

@ Wasted, dogma comment certainly not aimed at you.
@ MCI, I've yet to see evidence violence is deterred by armed citizens. The American experience does not seem to prove that.

There were 16 school shootings from 1927-1989 which lead to the Gun free school zones act of 1990. Since then there has been 106 school shootings.

• A 1997 high school shooting in Pearl, Miss., was halted by the sch
ool's vice principal after he retrieved the Colt .45 he kept in his truck.
• A 1998 middle school shooting ended when a man living next door heard gunfire and apprehended the shooter with his shotgun.
• A 2002 terrorist attack at an Israeli school was quickly stopped by an armed teacher and a school guard.
• A 2002 law school shooting in Grundy, Va., came to an abrupt conclusion when students carrying firearms confronted the shooter.
• A 2007 mall shooting in Ogden, Utah, ended when an armed off-duty police officer intervened.
• A 2009 workplace shooting in Houston, Texas, was halted by two coworkers who carried concealed handguns.
• A 2012 church shooting in Aurora, Colo., was stopped by a member of the congregation carrying a gun.
• At the recent mall shooting in Portland, Ore., the gunman took his own life minutes after being confronted by a shopper carrying a concealed weapon.

Read more at: http://www.lp.org/news/press-releases/halt-the-massacre-of-innocent-children-by-ending-prohibition-on-self-defense-in/

Support the victims of this senseless, preventable tragedy at:https://newtown.uwwesternct.org/
Hope that helps.

 

[mckindog]

Anecdotes of shootings halted by returning fire. These shooters shot despite the fact they lived in a culture that would lead one to believe there was a reasonable chance bystanders may have had access to defensive weapons.
Where is the evidence of shootings being prevented by the possibility bystanders may have had guns?

 

[Wästed The Great]

They did shoot, but were stopped from creating more destruction by someone that had a legal firearm. Just think what would have happened had the principle of Sandy Hook confronted that shooter with her own firearm. Granted, we can do 'what if' all day long in that situation, but reports state that once he thought he was going to be confronted with any resistance, he took his own life.

Here is an excerpt from a 2004 paper. I know they do studies all the time, but this was in the top 5 results from a Google search. Granted, this doesn't specifically state that citizens carrying a side arm were what caused this, but it seems like that isn't a far reach to make by this information.

* Concealed carry laws have reduced murder and crime rates in the states that have enacted them. According to a comprehensive study which reviewed crime statistics in every county in the United States from 1977 to 1992, states which passed concealed carry laws reduced their rate of murder by 8.5%, rape by 5%, aggravated assault by 7% and robbery by 3%.

If you do a quick search on 'robberies stopped by concealed carry', you'll find banks, malls, mini-marts that have all seen a robbery averted by a citizen carrying a firearm. Now, would any of these robberies ended up in a shooting? Maybe not, but crime was averted by this.

 

[Rotam]

For a non-American, especially for Europeans and i presume Canadians, this issue is not an issue at all. Guns are for cops or for private hunters. Even cops are obliged to justify where and why they use ammunition.

There are homicide figures in the Western World outside the USA? Yes. 0% homicide figures is utopian.

Will ilegal guns continue to circulate in the Western World? Yes, they will. Not that much, but they will. Fighting illegal weapons should be the right policy.

Banning guns from civilians will reduced a lot this kind of events? Absolutely yes. I found this actually common sense.

Sebas is right. Maybe this is much more because of the gun industry than amendments. We are not in the late XVIII century. There are no Indians. There are no English soldiers (maybe there's one called Eddie, but i believe we might give him a handshake). There is no slavery or the need to form militias. There are not Martians or other dangerous aliens. There is no need to sold guns to civilians. Period.

Clearly, there is a cultural divide here.
I would rather raise my kids in an environment that has my cultural expectation about guns than yours.

 

[Wästed The Great]

I understand what you are saying. However, no one has said what to do with the current firearms that are in possession. And, who is a 'private hunter'? What makes it ok for that person to have a gun and not someone else? I'm somewhat playing devil's advocate, but I really don't see a quick answer to that question.

Lets put it this way, in Europe, many people have an auto, correct? What would happen if all of Europe decided that autos were too dangerous for private citizens to own and outlawed them Jan 1, 2013. What would happen to all the autos that are privately owned? Do you get to be 'grandfathered' in? Can you donate it to your kids or grandkids? Do you just give it over and ignore any investment you have in it?

 

[maidenn.c.indiana]

Here's a question to ponder? I'm not saying this is the case in every instance mind you, but in the majority of these shooting sprees the punks commiting them often take their own lives. Why is that? A seriously disturbed person with mental issues would have no concept thus no fear of the consequences of their actions. Yet inevitably these people off themselves. Could it be that they DO know what they're doing goes against every rule of society? They do know that at best they'll be put away for the rest of their lives if they don't go to the gas chamber or get killed by one of their victims relatives. If they realize this doesn't that shoot a hole in the mental illness theory?

 

[Wästed The Great]

I think, in all fairness, mental illness isn't that easy. It's not like they are stating that these shooters are sociopaths. It's more along the lines that they are very depressive of nature, some them are border-line personality disorder. I'm no expert, but chemical imbalances have people making really screwy choices. Not that it is a 'defense' against what they are doing, but I think they can have moments of rationality during an extreme bout of irrational behavior.

 

[mckindog]

Forget the mass shootings.
How about the drunk, or depressed, or drug-addled, or the enraged individual who snaps, grabs the gun and shoots — someone like that KC Chiefs football player?
How many lives would be saved if, during that temporary loss of control, guns were out of reach?

 

[Forostar]

I can't sleep and turned the TV on. And suddenly I saw a man out there who has my blessings:

"That's how as a society we will be judged. And by that measure, can we truly say as a nation that we're meeting our obligations? Can we honestly say that we're doing enough to keep our children, all of them, save from harm? Can we claim as a nation that we're all together there letting them know that they're loved and teaching them to love in return? Can we say that we're truly doing enough to give all the children of this country the chance they deserve to live up their lives of happiness and with purpose? I've been reflecting on this the last few days and if we're honest with ourselves the answer is no. We're not doing enough. And we'll have to change.

... We can't tolerate this anymore. These tragedies must end. And to end them we must change.

...Surely we can do better than this,..."

...surely we have an obligation to try...

He also said he'll use whatever power he holds to prevent more tragedies like what happened in Newtown.

Because what choice do we have? "We can't accept events like this as routine,"..


- - - -
O yeah, and eat this too: Gun control: Change is possible -- and fast
http://edition.cnn.com/2012/12/16/opinion/australia-gun-laws/index.html?hpt=hp_c1

 

[Onhell]

For a non-American, especially for Europeans and i presume Canadians, this issue is not an issue at all. Guns are for cops or for private hunters. Even cops are obliged to justify where and why they use ammunition.

There are homicide figures in the Western World outside the USA? Yes. 0% homicide figures is utopian.

Will ilegal guns continue to circulate in the Western World? Yes, they will. Not that much, but they will. Fighting illegal weapons should be the right policy.

Banning guns from civilians will reduced a lot this kind of events? Absolutely yes. I found this actually common sense.

Sebas is right. Maybe this is much more because of the gun industry than amendments. We are not in the late XVIII century. There are no Indians. There are no English soldiers (maybe there's one called Eddie, but i believe we might give him a handshake). There is no slavery or the need to form militias. There are not Martians or other dangerous aliens. There is no need to sold guns to civilians. Period.

You've got to be kidding. I thought the same way when I lived in Mexico and you know what? We still have a corrupt government that willfully dispatches the army with their JEEPS, machine guns and hand guns against peasants armed with nothing more than a machete and stones. Civilians have no way to fight back against the drug dealers that rampage their towns asking for "protection" money. Lawful citizens get robbed and ask help from an underfunded, underarmed, corrupt police force that in all likelihood is working in cahoots with the muggers.

You're right that it is no longer the 18th century, but you know what? it's the 21st century and I'll still protect my home from any unwanted invasion. I'll leave the open door policy to Canadians.

One must remember that the U.S has a population of 300 million people... from EVERYWHERE. Sure the majority are still "white" Europeans, but with an increasing Hispanic, Far Asian and Indian population, the population fragments naturally. For all the Persians and Turks in Germany, their numbers do not compare to those in the U.S percentage wise. It is by far much easier to manage a rather homogeneous population of 5 million ( such as those of Scandinavian nations) up to 80M than it is a diverse one of 300M.

 

[Wästed The Great]

Forget the mass shootings.
How about the drunk, or depressed, or drug-addled, or the enraged individual who snaps, grabs the gun and shoots — someone like that KC Chiefs football player?
How many lives would be saved if, during that temporary loss of control, guns were out of reach?

As I said before, we can "what if" all day long. Maybe some of them wouldn't have happened. Maybe some would have been knifes or something else. I agree that there are some cases where a 'crime of passion' (as they are called) may be averted, but when someone is like that, i'd imagine grabbing a gun is no more easy than a knife or bat.

O yeah, and eat this too:
http://edition.cnn.com/2012/12/16/opinion/australia-gun-laws/index.html?hpt=hp_c1

A mature response as always.

I've never said it couldn't happen. I don't think I've said that gun control is a bad idea. I have stated that it would be difficult. I've also stated that if it's going to be difficult, then we should look at ways we can mitigate the problem. I think that every one wants to focus on guns and no one wants to focus on mental issues that really cause the problems. As I stated above, crimes of passion will always happen, but it's the issues of mental illness that are causing these greater crimes.

Are there problems in our society? You bet there are. But the USA isn't Holland. Or Australia. It's a different society and it needs a different approach.

 

[maidenn.c.indiana]

Forget the mass shootings.
How about the drunk, or depressed, or drug-addled, or the enraged individual who snaps, grabs the gun and shoots — someone like that KC Chiefs football player?
How many lives would be saved if, during that temporary loss of control, guns were out of reach?

As I stated in my post, he shot her 9 times. Maybe a lack of gun would've stopped it. But as I also stated if you're pissed off enough at someone to shoot them 9 times, odds are you're going to kill or at the very least seriously harm them whether you use a gun, knife, or your bare hands.

 

[Forostar]

A mature response as always.

Sorry man. I was angry (and still am). I actually edited that out way before you posted, but since you quoted it, I'll have to put it back in I guess(?)

Also, I quoted some more of that excellent speech. Don't eat it, but I hope you'll buy it.