National day of discussion: the gun issue in America
Forums › General Discussion › National day of discussion: the gun issue in America-
★Λddi★ wrote:
mojopilot wrote:
★Λddi★ wrote:
Just because we've turned guns into toys as a society doesn't ...
Incorrect according to whom? You can't stack lives against sport or lives against numbers. It's an emotional thing, I don't deny that. But we are talking about killing apparatuses here, not football. I could care less what the % is, 1 happening is too many.
You are right in that a sport is not worth lives of people. But a solution needs to be both effective and considerate to those who legally and responsibility own semiautomatic weapons. A ban is not effective. A trade in or buy back program is not effective. Taking guns with force is neither effective not considerate. I don't have a good solution, Pandora's box has been opened and we CAN'T go back to a time before semiautomatic rifles.
Continued...
-
Furthermore, take them away and there are still plenty of devistating weapons remaining. You own a glock, how many magazines could you load up and slap on your belt? How quickly can you change them? I'm not a great shooter but I can do a pretty quick reload of my pistol. At the distance these school and mall shootings happen a 9mm 45acp, or even a 22LR will make you just as dead as a .223. No one ever talks about a shotgun, but that is an absolutely devastating weapon.
The point is a ban or removal isn't going to work. We need reasonable people like yourself working with reasonable pro gun people to come up with a solution we can all live with.
-
The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government."
Patrick Henry -
ℜagɳar Loðbrók wrote:
I suppose because they were tyrannical governments. We created a form of government, the first of it's kind, whose members are made to represent the will of the people not by threat of force, but by threat of not being re-elected. We trusted our citizens with arms to help defend our country, not so they could one day take control of it by force. You're clearly reading too much into that Madison quote.Consider Madison; why are some governments afraid to have an armed people?
-
"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive."
Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787)
-
ℜagɳar Loðbrók wrote:
Your reading comprehension leaves a bit to be desired. What do the words "individual discretion" mean and why was Adam's so against that?To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, countries or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws.
---John Adams, A Defence of the Constitutions of the United States 475 (1787-1788)
John Adams recognizes the fundamental right of citizens, as individuals, to defend themselves with arms, however he states militias must be controlled by government and the rule of law. To have otherwise is to invite anarchy. -
The last point I forgot to make is that people do stupid things, history has shown us that. Sometimes those stupid things involve taking lives of the innocent. It's an emotional thing as Andi said, and it's an emotional topics for people on either side.
The issues is not one of guns so much as preserving life, while keeping our liberties. When put like that we can (should?) all be able to come together and find some common. Ground.
I'm going to try to steer this conversation by asking what traits have these shootings have in common? It's easy to say a gun, but there must be a deeper issue here. I'm going to do some research, I encourage the rest of you to do the same and let's see if we can get at the root of this.
-
ℜagɳar Loðbrók wrote:
✂
Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 (C.J. Boyd, Ed., 1950)
Thomas Jefferson
The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.
Occasionally this phony quote attributed to Thomas Jefferson is given with the following citation: Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 (C.J.Boyd, Ed., 1950). The publication exists, but the quote does not. And the editor's correct name is Julian P. Boyd, not C.J. Boyd. In other cases, this quote is added to the end of a proven Jefferson quote "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms…" Thomas Jefferson, Proposed Virginia Constitution, 1776, Jefferson Papers 344.
Throwing around fake TJ quotes from a fake author is not helping your case.
-
To clarify, let me re-state my assertion:
The 2nd amendment exists for many reasons which can be debated, but one of them is NOT to protect the people from their own democratically elected government or to allow them to violently overthrow it. THAT is all that I am asserting, that this particular understanding of the 2nd amendment is incorrect according the the author's writings at the time and unnecessarily clouds the rational discussion about gun control.
-
ℜagɳar Loðbrók wrote:
If ever this notion would have been proven correct it would have been during the Civil War. It wasn't the case though, the federal government never backed down even though half the country was against them. It's not our guns that keep us safe, it's our laws. Simple stuff really."Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; ✂ A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive."
Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787)
-
4nick8r wrote:
Rifles★Λddi★ wrote:
✂ .And yes, I have a glock. It doesn't hold a 100 round drum or have the power capacity of a rifle though. Nor do I have an extended magazine for it because it's completely unnecessary.
And as I said in the previous ✂;)
I didn't say we need more drug therapy given to people mostly by their general doctors, I said mental health care. There is a big difference. I also said preventative and national. We had better mental health care in the 70s then we do now. Pretty pathetic.
Look all you have to do is like outside the American bubble to see what other countries of our stature are doing and how successful it is over time.
-
The source document can be found at the library of congress website. It is a letter from Thomas Jefferson to William Smith dated Nov 13, 1787.
http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/jefferson/105.html
I have tried to provide citations. I'm not interested in putting forth false attributions. And I apologize for using a disreputable author's citation.
-
★fnord★ wrote:
Our laws keep us safe from the government only as long as the government acts lawfully. The founders overthrew a government that oppressed them, and understood that private gun ownership was a primary deterrent to a government's attempts to oppress its people.ℜagɳar Loðbrók wrote:
If ever this notion would have been proven correct it would have been during the Civil War. It wasn't the case though, the federal government never backed down even though half the country was against them. It's not our guns that keep us safe, it's our laws. Simple stuff really."Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; ✂
Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787)
-
The issue at hand is not, nor has it ever been, about gun control. The cause of horrendous acts of violence are carried out from the hearts of evil men. Until we address matters and motives of the heart, no measure of gun control will stop such acts.
I may not be the sharpest tool in the shed but you don't have to be to understand that guns do not kill people......people kill people. They will continue to do so regardless of the tools available to do harm to others.
-
Have you people ever noticed WHERE these shootings take place? Schools, churches, shopping malls, theaters......all places where guns owned legally are not allowed on the premises. I've seen lots of statistics thrown around this thread so here's another one for those who may be interested. The FBI's Annual Uniform Crime Report shows that states who have implemented "Right-to-Carry" legislation have a 22 percent lower total violent crimes rate, 30 percent lower murder rate, 46 percent lower robbery rate and 12 percent lower aggravated assault rate as compared to the rest o the country.
-
Nate✯Dogg👊🔨💀 wrote:
This John Lott interpretation of the FBI's AUCR has been widely debunked. The fact is all violent crime rates are declining with no proven correlation to right to carry legislation.Have you people ever noticed WHERE these shootings take place? Schools, churches, shopping malls, theaters......all places where guns owned legally are not allowed on the premises. I've seen lots of statistics thrown around this thread so here's another one for those who may be interested. The FBI's Annual Uniform Crime Report shows that states who have implemented "Right-to-Carry" legislation have a 22 percent lower total violent crimes rate, 30 percent lower murder rate, 46 percent lower robbery rate and 12 percent lower aggravated assault rate as compared to the rest o the country.
-
http://www.policeone.com/active-shooter/articles/2058168-Lt-Col-Dave-Grossman-to-cops-The-enemy-is-denial/
This is an example of what we should be doing! A purely logical response that is simple and effective to implement, and likely to be highly effective. It deals with schools, but it could easily be adapted to any public place.
-
As with all criminals, murderers and terrorists there is a risk/reward factor. The risk/reward cannot be easily identified when your dealing with damaged people like the Columbine and Newton shooters. There is no good defense against a person with an unstable mind. However, in all other situations, criminals will generally choose the easiest targets that offer the least resistance; churches, schools etc. where there is a high likelihood that there will no one there to shoot back once the terror starts. The greater the risk the less likelihood of a violent act.
-
ℜagɳar Loðbrók wrote:
Name one occasion when a private citizen or group of citizens took up arms against the US government without disastrous results. Bonus points to name one occasion when the threat of violence made the government change position in favor of those making the threat. It just doesn't happen. We are not a nation of cowards, our government is not swayed by threats of violence. Get real. It's not our guns that made us great, it's our ideas and our resolve. Saying that guns keep the government in line ignores our entire history.★fnord★ wrote:
Our laws keep us safe from the government only as long as the government acts lawfully. The founders overthrew a government that oppressed them, and understood that private gun ownership was a primary deterrent to a government's attempts to oppress its people.ℜagɳar Loðbrók wrote:
✂ -
Fnord, maybe all violent crimes are down but just as you say there is no proof that right to carry legislation can be pointed to as the answer...neither can you provide proof that it hasn't been the answer. I agree that there are other factors that contribute to violent crimes but common sense tells me that if I'm gonna rob you, and there is a possibility that you could have a gun in your belt, I'm gonna look for another opportunity. Lol.
-
★fnord★ wrote:
The government does not negotiate with terrorists. An american citizen who attempts to overthrow the government or threaten violence in exchange for favorable action becomes a terrorist. Therefore, any organized attempted overthrow by the citizenry will be met with the full force if the US Military. I'll tell you right now, no amount of assault weapons is up for that challenge.ℜagɳar Loðbrók wrote: Our laws keep us safe from the government only as long as the government acts lawfully. The founders overthrew a government that oppressed them, and understood that private gun ownership was a primary deterrent to a government's attempts to oppress its people.
We are not a nation of cowards, our government is not swayed by threats of violence. -
Nate✯Dogg👊🔨💀 wrote:
I don't know about every state's laws, but I know I am allowed to carry a weapon in malls, theatres, and churches. Schools, government buildings, and places whose primary business is serving alcohol are off limits. Restaurants with bars are okay.Have you people ever noticed WHERE these shootings take place? Schools, churches, shopping malls, theaters......all places where guns owned legally are not allowed on the premises. I've seen lots of statistics thrown around this thread so here's another one for those who may be interested. The FBI's Annual Uniform Crime Report shows that states who have implemented "Right-to-Carry" legislation have a 22 percent lower total violent crimes rate, 30 percent lower murder rate, 46 percent lower robbery rate and 12 percent lower aggravated assault rate as compared to the rest o the country.
-
Nate✯Dogg👊🔨💀 wrote:
If you're gonna rob me and I have a gun, I'm probably just going to give you my wallet. I'm not going to threaten to kill you over some material possessions. Also, I pull my gun on you and to passersby I look like I'm the one committing the crime. Seems like a good way to get myself shot. In arguing for right-to-carry, violent crime should be your focus not robbery. Thing with violent criminals is they give little thought to deterrents, consequences or self preservation in general.Fnord, maybe all violent crimes are down but just as you say there is no proof that right to carry legislation can be pointed to as the answer...neither can you provide proof that it hasn't been the answer. I agree that there are other factors that contribute to violent crimes but common sense tells me that if I'm gonna rob you, and there is a possibility that you could have a gun in your belt, I'm gonna look for another opportunity. Lol.
-
★Λddi★ wrote:
Look all you have to do is like outside the American bubble to see what other countries of our stature are doing and how successful it is over time.
Dear US-Americans,
We really like you. What Addi says is all you have to do. Learn from others. That will solve most of your problems and take you back into this nice community called "World".
With the best wishes for your future,
Your "Old" European Friends. -
mojopilot wrote:
Sounds completely reasonable to me. Well trained and empowered law enforcement is key to prevention of mass killings.http://www.policeone.com/active-shooter/articles/2058168-Lt-Col-Dave-Grossman-to-cops-The-enemy-is-denial/
This is an example of what we should be doing! A purely logical response that is simple and effective to implement, and likely to be highly effective. It deals with schools, but it could easily be adapted to any public place.
-
★fnord★ wrote:
But so much more than that. I think law enforcement is a small piece of the puzzle. Preventative measures like locking all but the front doors of a school, having a plan to deal with a shooting, then practice it like a fire drill. It's the simple preparation that could make a target less desirable, while having people better prepared to deal with the unthinkable.mojopilot wrote:
Sounds completely reasonable to me. Well trained and empowered law enforcement is key to prevention of mass killings.http://www.policeone.com/active-shooter/articles/2058168-Lt-Col-Dave-Grossman-to-cops-The-enemy-is-denial/
This is simple, doable, effective, efficient, and best of all agreeable. This is the kind of solution we need, not bickering over what the 2nd amendment really means.
-
@Mojo
Not to nitpick, but your article is an informal directive to local law enforcement to take the LEAD in crime prevention in schools within their jurisdiction. Not as a "small piece of the puzzle" but as an THE integral, pivotal role in the equation. Read your own links please if you want to be taken seriously.
-
That is what the article says, but I don't have to agree with it in its entirety. I think it should be lead by the individual schools, malls, etc. with collaboration from local law enforcement. Who knows the school, or where ever this concept is to be applied better, the staff or the cops? Once whatever plan is in place the cops do what they do best and respond; just as firefighters do.
I think those who can should take the initiative, and not rely on the police to set up a plan for them.
-
mojopilot wrote:
Response is too late. If you want schools to be safe, you can't have the school be in charge of security. Their job is to teach. Police respond to crimes. Security prevents.That is what the article says, but I don't have to agree with it in its entirety. I think it should be lead by the individual schools, malls, etc. with collaboration from local law enforcement. Who knows the school, or where ever this concept is to be applied better, the staff or the cops? Once whatever plan is in place the cops do what they do best and respond; just as firefighters do.
I think those who can should take the initiative, and not rely on the police to set up a plan for them.
-
I don't own guns simply because of a 2nd amendment right. I own guns for hunting, sport and defending my family. If my government is going to ensure that no harm EVER comes to me or my loved ones (from a violent act) AND they they will protect ALL of my assets from those who seek to take what I have worked so hard to obtain (legally) AND constantly provide meat for my table....... then I will happily give up my guns. Until such time, there is a need for me to own guns. 😉
![[][]](https://turfwarsapp.com/img/app/ajax-forbutton.gif)
Purchase Respect Points NEW! · Support · Turf Map · Terms · Privacy
©2021 MeanFreePath LLC