day of retribution

[Patrick S]

The problem withe the gun issue in America is simple: It's political. That means that there is very little sense or reason applied to the debate. And we Americans can rest quite assured that any solution will be ill conceived and bungled in it's implementation.

Our political process has become one of sound bites and identities. Your ideas don't matter as much how you look and sound saying them. Your intellect matters far less than your ethnicity, sex, height, weight, hair, eyes, etc.

So we end up doing what we do best: Nothing. Liberals seek opportunites to exploit gun violence. Conservatives say any infringement on gun ownership is step toward shredding the constitution. Ultimately the issue requires research, intelligent discussion. and a reasonable, common sense solution. Therefore, no politicians can be involved.

[Mayerling]

I grew up in rural America where guns are as commonplace a part of life as any other implement we had on our farm. I hunted both large and small game with my father, and though my adulthood has been spent as a city dweller and I've lost any desire to kill anything now I am a proud law-abiding gun owner and own a small number of both rifles and handguns. I still enjoy going camping and carry a gun for protection in case I run into a bear, and at home they are for home defense in the equally unlikely event that some criminal should ever come calling. (I don't have a concealed carry permit so I don't carry one around with me in day to day life, but that is an option for people here.)

It's hard, I understand, to divorce oneself from emotion whenever a tragedy happens. But I'd like to put forth some facts that are given very short shrift in the media. I don't have exact numbers in front of me so these will be generalizations. One, more guns equal less crime, and vice versa. It is the cities with laws that make it hardest for civilians to own guns- like Chicago, New York, and Washington D.C.- that have the highest crime rates and in particular the highest gun murder rates. In areas where civilian gun ownership is high, crime rates are low. I forget what state it's in but there is one town in America that requires every citizen to own a gun. Their crime rate is near zero. Two, many of these mass shootings that make headlines happen in "gun free zones," public places that forbid the carrying of guns. These are places where the maniacs who wish to commit these heinous acts know there will be no one there who can stop them. Three, whenever a law-abiding citizen with a gun stops a criminal (whether having to actually pull the trigger or not), it is woefully under-reported in the American media which is liberal and for the most part anti-gun. Such incidents happen on a regular basis. And four, there is an impression given in the media that there must be MILLIONS killed by guns in America every year. That is not true. The average annual number is around eleven to twelve thousand, in a country of over 300 million. That includes murders, suicides, and accidents. And what is the most under-reported of all is that the greatest percentage of those deaths are criminal gang-bangers killing each other.

People kill other people in a vast array of ways, but only with guns is there a demand to have the method of killing banned. ONE MILLION PEOPLE A YEAR die around the world in car accidents, yet there is no movememt to ban cars. I know it is horrible and harsh and ugly whenever these mass shootings happen. Of course it is, and I'm not trying to sound insensitive to that. But it is precisely for that reason that they make such big headlines and give the impression that they are more common than they are. They're not. They are isolated incidents of crazy people taking something that is supposed to be safe and legal and doing something unsafe and illegal with it.

And I know this is going long, but I have to say something about the Second Amendment to the Bill of Rights in the American Constitution. It had nothing to do with hunting or recreational target shooting. The language makes it quite clear- it was written by people who had just used weapons to win their freedom from a powerful nation and who realized that if their own government was ever to turn tyrannical that that would have to be done again, and for that reason the everyday citizen had to be allowed to own weapons. A lot has been said about how the founding fathers couldn't have known what kind of super sophisticated guns would exist in the future, but you know, they weren't stupid. They knew things would evolve. Their basic premise was that whatever the weapon of choice was for the soldier under the government of any future age, the citizens should be allowed to own the same thing. Like it or not, that was their meaning. It doesn't mean everybody should get to own rocket launchers or weapons grade plutonium, just a personal defense weapon that gives them a fighting chance against anyone that might mean them harm.

Rest in peace to the victims in California, and may the SOB that did it burn in Hell. Guns are not to blame. He is.

Fascinating presentation of a legitimate point of view Kensei.

I can't say I totally agree with it, but then I find I'm always having mixed feelings on this topic (or the death penalty, for that matter). The emotional baggage involved (by not supporting gun control are you giving aid and comfort to dreck like this priviledged manifesto writing punk and his llk?), makes it hard to be consistant on the issue unless you are related to a victim of gun violence. My sister and mother were threatened by gun wielders on a few occasions. Fortunately they were not hurt.

My guess is this issue won't go away soon. And I hate to suggest this, but the roadblock of the N.R.A. and it's legion of supporters may one day backfire badly. At some point some anti-gun fanatic may get a powerful gun (or a band of like minded idiots with guns) together and attack some NRA meeting with violent consequences. It will be much harder to be blase (as that NRA spokesman always seems) about such violence when it may be friends and family who are wiped out. I hope it never comes to that.

Jeff

[Sam Flynn]

That makes me think of comedian Robin Williams' great line -- In England the police yell "Stop or I'll yell Stop again."

...as opposed to his line about West Hollywood policemen: "Stop! Those shoes don't go with those pants!"

[Sam Flynn]

ONE MILLION PEOPLE A YEAR die around the world in car accidents, yet there is no movememt to ban cars.

The difference is that you can't smuggle a car into a classroom in your pocket, or run someone over in a school corridor.

[Hunter]

Ditto, Kensei.

[Penhalion]

The 'city' with the required gun ownership is Kennesaw Georgia with a population in 2010 of less than 30,000. Hardly a good comparison with cities such as New York or Chicago with population in the millions. In addition-
"From 1999 to 2011, Kennesaw crime statistics reported that both property and violent crimes had decreased, though from 2003 to 2008 the trend in both violent and property crime rates slightly increased."

I am not anti-gun, I own guns. I simply do not see gun ownership/carry as the answer to an increasingly violent world.

[sdreid]

I don't see much coming of this. It's an election year and Democrats have been scared to death of the gun issue since 1994.

[Beowulf]

http://worldtruth.tv/nearly-every-mass-shooting-in-the-last-20-years-shares-one-thing-in-common-and-it-isnt-weapons/

Side effects of these drugs is a likely cause of the behavior.

[kensei]

The difference is that you can't smuggle a car into a classroom in your pocket, or run someone over in a school corridor.

You can with a knife, and there was a mass-stabbing spree in the news recently with no serious outcry about banning knives.

I was just trying to illustrate how guns are singled out when there are many things that claim as many or more lives that are not. The rabidly anti-gun crowd regularly makes emotional pleas like "How many more lives must be lost before we end this madness?!!" But millions die around the world every year from starvation, preventable diseases, war, and many other causes. If the outrage is over lives being lost there are a lot of places it could be directed that are for the most part completely ignored, or at least looked at as "Oh how terrible, glad it's not happening here, let's change the channel."

[kensei]

The 'city' with the required gun ownership is Kennesaw Georgia with a population in 2010 of less than 30,000. Hardly a good comparison with cities such as New York or Chicago with population in the millions. In addition-
"From 1999 to 2011, Kennesaw crime statistics reported that both property and violent crimes had decreased, though from 2003 to 2008 the trend in both violent and property crime rates slightly increased."

I am not anti-gun, I own guns. I simply do not see gun ownership/carry as the answer to an increasingly violent world.

Thanks for pointing out the town. As I went to school in a town of only around 400 believe it or not, those in the 30,000 range were looked at in my youth as pretty large and very adventurous places to visit. Cities of millions were looked at as practically alien planets. I've visited London a couple of times now so I do have it in perspective.

I now live in a metro area of a little over 100,000, and gun ownership is high here but gun crime is not. We've had two murders in the past several months but both were stabbings.

[Sam Flynn]

You can with a knife, and there was a mass-stabbing spree in the news recently with no serious outcry about banning knives.

You'd struggle to knife to death someone standing more than a few feet away from you, and you can't stab someone to death through a closed door. Also, as a means of achieving rapid mass murder, knives are pretty useless.

[GUT]

One problem with comparing guns with cars and knifes is that guns are designed to ... KILL, knives and cars have other purposes.


If everyone can have a gun why not a hand grenade or even an A-Bomb.

And by the way growing up I had a gun in my hands more often than not.

[c.d.]

I live in Washington, D.C., the nation's capital. You really don't need to look any further for a perfect example of the argument. D.C. has very strict gun laws and there are no gun stores in D.C. Up until just a few short years ago it was illegal to own a handgun in D.C. That law was challenged in court and you can now apply for a gun permit but it is a lengthy, costly process and you have to jump through a great many hoops. Now given all that, you would expect D.C. to have virtually no gun violence or gun related crimes at all. But the fact is that the opposite is true. D.C. has gun violence out the wazoo. Well how can that be? The answer is pretty simple. Criminals in D.C. go to neighboring Virginia where guns are legal. They purchase them illegally and then bring them back into D.C. Why would they do such a thing? Again the answer is pretty simple. It's because they are criminals and don't give a rat's behind about the gun laws. So as a result of D.C.'s strict gun laws, criminals are the ones with guns and law abiding citizens are unable to protect themselves. That makes zero sense.

c.d.

[GUT]

G'day c.d.

I agree that most guns used in crime are illegally obtained.

BUT

If it wasn't possible to buy them anywhere in the country and they had to pass a customs post surely it would restrict the availability.

You will never totally get rid of them but surely the harder they are to obtain the less they will be used. Even f that is wrong why automatics and semis why not single shot at least that reduces the carnage.

[Beowulf]

You'd struggle to knife to death someone standing more than a few feet away from you, and you can't stab someone to death through a closed door. Also, as a means of achieving rapid mass murder, knives are pretty useless.

Agreed. But I'd like to hear how that skinny whimpy kid killed his three roomates with the knife. I mean how did he overcome them without two ganging up on him and overcoming him?