Traveler

Mass violence & gun control

Recommended Posts

To be honest I have not completely picked a side in what I see as the gun control debate.  I thought to express, in part, a couple of reasons why and express some of my opinion.

One thought: Guns are needed for self-defense?   In short the problem I have with this notion is the historical fact that most deaths in war (violent conflict) come from friendly fire.  One may argue that being armed (carrying) would prevent the mass violence we are seeing.  This is in part true concerning what we have seen in some of the media hyped cases where a well-armed individual nut job goes mental.  But in coordinated assaults of multiple individuals – this logic falls apart – especially if the defensive response is not coordinated (it is unknow who else is carrying and what “side” they are on).

Second thought:  We can eliminate and prevent mass violence with gun control?  I am not the brightest bulb on this planet but I am quite sure that I could put together devices of mass violence just from the materials in 80% of the garages of this country.  And yes, that includes making a gun or even a small cannon (among other things).  In addition, if someone has access to a 3D printer their access to instruments of violent capability is dramatically increased.

I believe part of the problem we are facing is a trend in our society to disrespect G-d and our fellow men.  Many of us that have a religious nature have thought that we can isolate ourselves in some little corner and live in peace.  I do not believe this is currently working nor do I believe such thinking has ever been sustainable.  I believe we are living in the “last days” and that to “prosper” we must first be obedient to our covenant and diligent in following our prophets.

But there is one notion of gun control that has me completely befuddled.   This notion is becoming much more popular and it is coming from the more liberal elements of our society – specifically the Democrats.  This is the notion not to take guns away from responsible citizens but they want to put more controls into who has access to guns.  As I listen to their arguments I cannot differentiate the ideological bases of their “more control” from the essence of the notion of “profiling”.  This is very confusing to me that the Democratic party (which seems to always oppose profiling and a means of determining or creating classes of citizens and their rights) is actually suggesting preemptive profiling of citizens and their second amendment right.  BTW I recently read an interesting blog that suggested that we could eliminate 90% of the gun violence in this country if we took the guns away from Democrats and those that usually vote 80% or more Democratically.   Perhaps we should include Democrats as part of any gun control legislation?  (Is there a sarcastic tongue in cheek emoji?)  

If using a gun to commit a violent crime had a capital punishment as a minimum – would that end a significant number of the Democratic party’s population?  Is this why the Democrats and other more liberal elements oppose capital punishment? (another opportunity for another sarcastic tongue in cheek emoji?) 

Final sarcastic comment – too bad we cannot trust the Republicans (political conservatives of our society to do anything they say they will do.)

 

The Traveler

Edited by Traveler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Traveler said:

One thought: Guns are needed for self-defense?  

Something that tends to be fundamentally misunderstood by those on this consideration is that the right to bear arms is not about defending against burglars or even mass shootings. It is more about the right to rise up and rebel against the tyranny of government when it gets out of hand. The entire idea behind having an armed populace is to keep the government in fear of that populace.

Edited by The Folk Prophet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Traveler said:

I am not the brightest bulb on this planet but I am quite sure that I could put together devices of mass violence just from the materials in 80% of the garages of this country.  And yes, that includes making a gun or even a small cannon (among other things).

It's considerably easier to make a functioning submachine gun than crystal meth.  A single shot firearm, even suppressed, is trivial with just a drill press and some hand tools.  Guaranteed if guns are harder to get, criminals will go that route, leaving only the law abiding disarmed.

Meanwhile, a bunch of little old ladies would die at the hands of home invaders.

http://www.ketv.com/article/elderly-arkansas-woman-shoots-kills-19-year-old-home-intruder/13139248

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/08/01/texas-woman-shoots-kills-home-intruder.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/04/29/80-year-woman-shoots-and-kills-young-intruder-after-he-stabs-her-husband/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:
Quote

We like to accuse mass shooters of being "hateful," but we're wrong. They aren't hateful at all. Hate would be an improvement. Hate is human, at least. Hate is real. But these animals aren't human enough to hate their victims. They just don't care.

I decided some time ago that amorality is much worse than immorality, for the very reasons Walsh identifies above. An adulterer or homosexual or even pedophile I can deal with. Someone who rejects any sexual moral authority beyond his own genitals? That's an alley cat, not a person.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, NightSG said:

It's considerably easier to make a functioning submachine gun than crystal meth.  A single shot firearm, even suppressed, is trivial with just a drill press and some hand tools.  Guaranteed if guns are harder to get, criminals will go that route, leaving only the law abiding disarmed.

Meanwhile, a bunch of little old ladies would die at the hands of home invaders.

http://www.ketv.com/article/elderly-arkansas-woman-shoots-kills-19-year-old-home-intruder/13139248

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/08/01/texas-woman-shoots-kills-home-intruder.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/04/29/80-year-woman-shoots-and-kills-young-intruder-after-he-stabs-her-husband/

Preach brother. "Gun control" will do absolutely nothing. It doesn't work for drugs, it won't work for guns. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tyrants will never give up until your privately owned gun is legally required to be disassembled in two different locked safes with the ammunition locked in a third separate safe.  Magazines over five rounds are banned from legal ownership and you are no longer able to legally own a handgun.  If you own one of these legally owned firearms be prepared to accept random searches from police officers verifying your gun is locked up according to law.  Only corrupt tyrants seek to outlaw self defense.

This being said I do not believe the 2nd Amendment gives unlimited rights to arms.  I am against people owning fully automatic firearms.  A semi-automatic 30 round firearm should be sufficient for self defense.  I do not believe it should be legal for people to own hand grenades or rocket propelled grenades. 

Watch footage of someone firing an M-134 machine gun.  3,000 to 4,000 rounds per minute of .30 caliber 147 grain bullets being fired.  Definitely too powerful for private citizens in my own opinion.  I think they cost over $100,000 anyway.  Full automatic firearms have heavy restrictions and for the most part are illegal anyway.  No further laws are needed.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Post Columbine, take a look at the thousands of stories of bad guys with guns out killing people.  The vast, vast, overwhelmingly vast conclusion to just about all of those stories, is they were stopped by a good guy with a gun.  

If someone comes up with a "wave my magic wand and all the guns disappear" thing, I'll reconsider my opinion.  But until then:

TrollGunControl.png.8c625bedcceaa7cc9746fe1f7c83051a.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Something that tends to be fundamentally misunderstood by those on this consideration is that the right to bear arms is not about defending against burglars or even mass shootings. It is more about the right to rise up and rebel against the tyranny of government when it gets out of hand. The entire idea behind having an armed populace is to keep the government in fear of that populace.

A fellow on my teacher forum is from the UK. We were once talking about teachers carrying, and he brought up his befuddlement with Americans and guns. He then revealed that he seriously believed (having been taught) that Americans have guns because they're afraid England will come after them again. He's a nice, reasonable guy so we had a good discussion that at least cleared up that error of belief. But that was it: No, UK teacher guy, we're not afraid of your country, it's really about our own country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, anatess2 said:

Elephant in the room:  Gun control is not about Guns.  It's about votes.

It truly is. Gun control sounds good to people. We will magically make the world a safer, happier place. Sure, I'd love to see mass killings of all sorts go away. But... no.

Funnily enough, the countries people bring up as "nobody owns a gun!" are demonstrably false in that regard. I had to explain to English Teacher Guy in my prior post that, yes, people in his country could still own guns. 

To go all preachy and stuff, gun control is a better soundbite these days than dealing with mental health, moral values, community relations, "the village", God...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Backroads said:

it's really about our own country.

Yeap.  We can see time and time again without weapons a populace is powerless to fight back against their own tyrannical country.

Can't tell you how many times I see pictures from Venezuala, Cuba, or even Catalonia for pete's sake and just say . . . these people need some weapons otherwise they can't do anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I don't get is the automatic conclusion that gun control = absolute gun ban. Yes, there are fringe nuts on the left who want that, but the meat of the gun control debate is centered on more thorough background checks and making sure ALL loopholes are closed (the Sutherland Springs shooter bought his gun legally, but he shouldn't have been able to). We aren't talking about taking guns away from law-abiding citizens. No one worth a hoot is suggesting that. You want your "good guy with a gun" around to stop the next shooting? I'm not going to stop him. You want the elderly lady down the street to be able to defend herself? So do I. Heck, I'd love to own a gun myself if I can ever talk my wife into it.

I also want individuals with a history of domestic violence to NEVER own a firearm. I want our government and health care system to take mental health seriously. I want gun ownership (and sales) to come with a higher level of accountability than it does currently. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Several thoughts, some at odds with each other.

I think gun violence is more about how a society thinks and acts, rather than perhaps the guns themselves.

The big difference I see today in regards to gun control are those who feel the Constitution is a living, breathing document, and those who feel we should always stick with what the founders intended.  Many try to make up an excuse of what a well regulated militia is composed of, but from what I remember, a majority of the founding fathers actually were quite clear on this.  The second amendment is one of the many checks the PEOPLE have on the tyranny of the government.  It is upon the people to rise up and overthrow that government, if that government is of such a tyranny that such a rebellion is required.

If this brings up a recollection of a recent war our Founding Fathers had prior to that, it should.  This is directly in relation to the Revolutionary war, where firearms and major military weapons were outlawed to a certain degree by the British Empire upon the Colonists.  When they talked about weapons, they had military grade cannon and military weapons with which they felt they needed to wage war with (and I believe one of the first battles was about, where the British were going to land to search and find and seize one or more military grade cannons they had heard the colonists concealed).  However, when the war started, the best way to fight it was being organized, as with the Continental army and such.  That does not mean this was required at the outset, but it was an essential element to actually winning independence.

In that light, I believe one who is a Constitutionalist, instead of one who adheres to the living and breathing document idea, should say that this mean that ANY weapon is allowed by the populace.  Any weapon that may be used by the military, is allowed to be owned by the populace.

That is, of course, an unpopular opinion these days, even by those who are gun rights enthusiasts.  However, I think if we are to truly keep in line with the Ideas that many of the Founders intended...that is what the intent would mean.  It is far easier to have a revolution against tyranny if you possess weapons of equal scale, or at least a chance to have weapons of equal scale, to those that you are fighting.

Some of this idea of an armed populace, I feel died down with the increase of Federal power.  More specifically to the event where we did have individuals revolt and try to rebel against the United States in the Civil War.  There we had a taste of what a war with those who have access to equivalent weapons was like, and I think MANY did not like it.

Which brings us to the other side of the equation.  In Japan, firearms are very heavily discouraged.  In fact, for most it is illegal.  There gun control laws are very restrictive.  There ARE murders in japan, but their violence and murder rates are EXCESSIVELY low, and are in fact one of the lowest in the world.  Many would point out this is the epitome of gun control, and shows absolutely that gun control works.

Does it?

Japan has VERY low murder rates.

The irony is in the US.  It seems the more restrictive the gun laws are in regards to gun control in the US, the higher the murder rates.  From what I understand, Chicago and Washington DC have some of the strongest gun control laws in the US, as does California.  However, these areas reign rather highly in per capita gun deaths.  How is this possible.  How could there be such a divergence between Japan and the US?

I don't know exactly.  I think gun control laws DO work in Japan.  I think it IS proof that gun control laws WORK.  They actually can cause less gun deaths and less violence overall.  However, the question is WHY it works there as opposed to some areas of the US.

My thoughts are that it has to do with the CULTURE of the people.  It is the culture that espouses the acceptance of violence, or shame of violence.  If we are to continue down the path of gun control, it could be commendable, but I think we need to analyze WHY such controls work in nations where they do.  In these instances, perhaps a change of the culture of our society is also in line if these laws are too be more effective than they seem to be currently.

Edit: Of course, this also beggars the question, if a culture was of such as that of Japan, but still allowed guns, would there even be a need for gun control.  I'd say yes there would be, as Japan could also demonstrate.  There has been less gun deaths and I think overall murders since they enacted gun control laws.  I think in our US culture the deaths would go down if we had a similar culture but still allowed guns without controls.  However, I think the lowest result of gun implemented deaths would be from implementing gun control.

Of course, if we did as Japan, I also think that if you are a constitutionalist, you'd realize that this is probably directly against what the Founding Fathers ever intended to happen. It destroys the intent with why they had it as a right in the first place.  One who has it as a living and breathing document solely, without reference to the original intent probably would have no such prohibition, in my own view.

Edited by JohnsonJones

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Godless said:

I also want individuals with a history of domestic violence to NEVER own a firearm. I want our government and health care system to take mental health seriously. I want gun ownership (and sales) to come with a higher level of accountability than it does currently. 

I'm okay with someone who is convicted of a felony not owning weapon . . . however even then I wonder about it.  Say you robbed a store when you were 20, that means when you are 70 you don't get to own a means of protection??  I don't particularly like that idea.  Besides if the guy who robbed a store at 20 wants to have a weapon, they can find it on the black-market.

I'm definitely opposed to gun registration.  Easy way to simply just take all the weapons in a dictatorship.  What is so sad is how many people really do not realize what the right to bear arms is really for (and I agree with JJ, bearing arms is not bearing guns, if they wanted to say guns they would have said guns). It's to ensure the ability of the people to overthrow their own government if necessary.  And by contrast, it becomes much harder for a tyrant to take over the country b/c he knows the populace is armed and would very well rise up against him.

You just have to look to 3rd world countries (Venezuala, Chile, Argentina, Bolivia, etc.) to see what happens to a country when the people do not have access to weapons and when a tyrant gets in control.  You have no way of dislodging them. If the people of Venezuala had weapons, Maduro would be gone in a sec.

Oh and for those who say we wouldn't have as many murders with gun control . . .just look at Venezuala.  Owning a gun is 100% outlawed, yet it is the murder capital of the world.  More dangerous in Venezuala than in Iraq, Syria, etc.

Edited by JoCa

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Godless said:

What I don't get is the automatic conclusion that gun control = absolute gun ban. Yes, there are fringe nuts on the left who want that, but the meat of the gun control debate is centered on more thorough background checks and making sure ALL loopholes are closed (the Sutherland Springs shooter bought his gun legally, but he shouldn't have been able to). We aren't talking about taking guns away from law-abiding citizens. No one worth a hoot is suggesting that. You want your "good guy with a gun" around to stop the next shooting? I'm not going to stop him. You want the elderly lady down the street to be able to defend herself? So do I. Heck, I'd love to own a gun myself if I can ever talk my wife into it.

I also want individuals with a history of domestic violence to NEVER own a firearm. I want our government and health care system to take mental health seriously. I want gun ownership (and sales) to come with a higher level of accountability than it does currently. 

Just like Immigration, we have a quadzillion laws restricting gun ownership.  It's the most restricted enumerated rights in the Constitution.  Just like Immigration, more laws is not the solution but rather proper application of laws already on the books.

When somebody mowed down a bunch of people with a truck, nobody said anything about restricting truck ownership.  Why?  Because, everybody understands that trucks have a very important role in society.  So, what we need is a populace that understands that guns have a very important role in society and that anybody misusing and abusing their right to own firearms will face a very stiff and very swift penalty.

And then, we need a cultural change where Life is once again Valued.  It is telling when people would be outraged over Cecil the Lion getting killed but are just fine with people getting killed if they support the "wrong" ideology.

Edited by anatess2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The trouble with claiming that mainstream progressives don’t want to completely ban gun ownership, @Godless, is that—whether by good-faith ideological evolution or by just plain deceit from the get-go—progressives have a way of building on the foundation of past gains, to reach for stuff that they used to swear they didn’t want.  They did it with gay rights/religious freedom, they did it with race relations/affirmative action/reparations, they did it with economic policy/redistributive socialism, they did it with health care reform.  

When they swear they *won’t* do it with gun control, pleading with us to agree to “common sense” measures while talking (when they think I can’t hear them) about the joys of England and Australia—I can’t help thinking of Lucy Van Pelt, inviting Charlie Brown to take yet another shot at kicking that old football.

Speaking more generally, I would offer the observation that if Her Majesty’s government feared its own citizenry the way the American government has to—maybe it wouldn’t have been complicit in the pimping out of hundreds of British children to Pakistani immigrants.  And maybe it wouldn’t have been so cavalier about condemning a child to die in an NHS hospice because his parents had the presumption to seek better medical care in the United States.

Edited by Just_A_Guy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

The big difference I see today in regards to gun control are those who feel the Constitution is a living, breathing document, and those who feel we should always stick with what the founders intended.

You don't believe that both are true? A "living document" is one that is adaptable, not hidebound. The Constitution has provisions for its own modification -- that is, it is "living".

What you suggest above is the worst possible solution: That the Constitution be interpreted, not as it was intended, but as we want to read it today. This is a path of no return, and it leads to slavery. There is no other possibility. When the judges can freely reinterpret what was codified in law, not according to the intent of the lawmakers, but according to their own sense of propriety, then the First Amendment gets "interpreted" as meaning that religion is against the law and that people have the right to say only what the government allows them to say.

Is that really what you want, that "interpretation" becomes an openly cynical code word for oligarchy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

For the record – I do not believe in the second amendment as it is currently justified and defined in our society.  But perhaps I should amend my statement a little and say that I do not believe everybody living in our country should be granted full citizenship and the rights of full citizenship.  I believe only those with full citizenship should have the right to bear arms.   I believe a full citizen should be defined and following are some elements (not all but some) that I believe should define a full citizen with a right to bear arms:

First: Someone that pays taxes.

Second: Someone that has or is currently serving honorably in the military.

Third: Someone that has not been convicted of a felony.

Forth: Someone that has voluntarily aligned themselves (pledge of allegiance) as a citizen of this and only this country.

 

I also believe that the meaning of bearing arms goes beyond just ownership and includes any use of a firearm.

 

The Traveler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is my question:

If they do pass a law to ban guns completely to be owned by the general populace (which seems to be the ultimate desire of the left)... then what??

There are so many guns in the US. People like my family would willingly turn them into whereever they need to... but how many will actually do that. Then that obviously brings up the old arguements “if you make guns illegal, then only criminals will have guns”

and as far as gun control working in other countries... that, I imagine, has a lot to do with those countries ALWAYS having gun control laws. It would be so hard to implement them here because there are already boundless amounts of guns among the populace here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Traveler said:

 

For the record – I do not believe in the second amendment as it is currently justified and defined in our society.  But perhaps I should amend my statement a little and say that I do not believe everybody living in our country should be granted full citizenship and the rights of full citizenship.  I believe only those with full citizenship should have the right to bear arms.   I believe a full citizen should be defined and following are some elements (not all but some) that I believe should define a full citizen with a right to bear arms:

First: Someone that pays taxes.

Second: Someone that has or is currently serving honorably in the military.

Third: Someone that has not been convicted of a felony.

Forth: Someone that has voluntarily aligned themselves (pledge of allegiance) as a citizen of this and only this country.

 

I also believe that the meaning of bearing arms goes beyond just ownership and includes any use of a firearm.

 

The Traveler

So you do not believe that the First Amendment Rights are Inalienable and can only be guaranteed as unabridged by the Second Amendment, also inalienable?  Or do you believe that only Active Military Servicemen's inalienable rights are protected by the Constitution?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But hey! If we are basing laws off of deaths, I’m down for that! 

According to the CDC:

11,000 forearms deaths (2014)

so everything that causes more deaths than that should probably be banned right?

tobacoo: 480,000

alcohol: 88,000

cars: 1,300,000 (asirios.org)

Ban these too!

lets ban terrorism, gangs and drugs too, Those are probably pretty high on the death scale.

Edited by Fether

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now