JosephM Posted December 15, 2012 Share Posted December 15, 2012 Twitter is active. Pressure is on politicians. My Tweet - People needed 2nd amendment guns as levelers to evil when guns were flintlocks. Evil now has greater firepower. Ban handguns, assault guns. I would be interested in reading a response by anyone to 2 questions without rebuttal from me. 1. Exactly how will banning hand guns be anymore effective in reducing their availability and crime than banning drugs has prevented the availability and use of illegal drugs and related crimes? 2. Do you truly believe the police have the resources and time to protect your family and home from immediate danger of perpetrators? If yes, no followup question.,and if not, what will you choose to use to protect them against such or will you do nothing? Thanks, Joseph Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vridar Posted December 15, 2012 Share Posted December 15, 2012 The 2nd amendment was written to ensure flintlocks for the common people to protect themselves from despots and evil people. Despots and evil people now have access to much more powerful weapons than the common people. Take away the two handguns and the 223 assault rifle and this kid has to carry a long gun (flintlock ;>) to do his business. Maybe a descent citizen without a gun could have seen it and wrestled it away preventing this. At least he could not conceal it. There are all kinds of scenarios, but something has to change. It's not happening in other civilized nations. Yes, I know about north Africa and one could debate about the civilization there. To answer the question of how to control these weapons I have no idea, but if they are not manufactured, surely attrition would eventually take its course. We have to start somewhere. We cannot live in a steel cage to protect ourselves. No, police do not have the resources. But if we put resources into police protection we now put into "defense" maybe we could have the resources. Ron Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulS Posted December 15, 2012 Share Posted December 15, 2012 Joseph, From an Australian perspective, banning handguns is effective because there's less of them. To own a handgun here you must belong to a gun club and you must keep it secured in a gun safe. Also, you are only allowed to carry it directly to and from home to club and back. I think in our situation it's a lot harder for crims to make guns than it is for them to make and distribute drugs. To your second question, it is illegal to have firearms for self-defence in Australia but funnily enough, we don't have a lot of concern about people attacking us or our home and needing firearms to defend these. Maybe it's a culture thing. Maybe the home of the brave and free is that dangerous that you do all need to be armed up. Cheers Paul 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeorgeW Posted December 15, 2012 Share Posted December 15, 2012 Many (actually, I think it is most) gun deaths are from accidents and crimes of passion. The absence of a gun would prevent all of the accidental deaths and many of the crimes of passion. Just recently there was a news item about a young child killed accidentally by the father. I think there are types of guns that should be highly controlled. There would be no private ownership of assault weapons, cop-killer bullets and concealed weapons, except under exceptional circumstances. I would license gun ownership. A person would not be able to get a license without proving competence through training and testing. People with mental illness (see Tucson, Aurora, Virginia Tech, maybe Newton) or criminal records would not be able to own guns. This fear of home invasion is largely mythical and irrational. Yes, it happens. But, it is rare. Simple precautions like good locks and a cell phone nearby would deter many of these. We do have 911 and the reaction in many places is very quick. George Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rivanna Posted December 15, 2012 Author Share Posted December 15, 2012 (edited) I could not sleep last night. It sickens me, that our elected officials have not had the courage and perseverance to stand up against the gun lobby, to get a few common sense measures passed. They will spend billions on fighting terrorism in other countries…but not lift a finger to prevent the terrorism in our own? The least they can do is reinstate the assault weapons ban that expired in 2004. End the gun-show loophole that allows private dealers to sell guns without a license or background checks. Edited December 16, 2012 by rivanna Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vridar Posted December 15, 2012 Share Posted December 15, 2012 One more comment, then I'm going to let calmer minds prevail. Surely some sanity will come out of this atrocity. Upon 1964 college graduation I spent a week's paycheck to become a life member of National Rifle Association. In my home state center-fire firearms had no purpose, our interest was shotgunning. The American Rifleman, the NRAs flagship magazine, carried articles on all firearms. Increasingly it nuanced to center-fire assault rifles and handguns of .45 and 9mm caliber. And, fewer shotgun related articles. At the same time the articles became more political. Advertising changed from Winchester, Remington, Savage and the familiar names to ones like Glock, etc. I dimitted my NRA membership when I realized it had no purpose for the hunter-sportsman. The NRA had become a lobby for the gun industry and the industry was headed a way I couldn't tolerate. A side note, it was more difficult to dimit from the NRA than it was to join. But I finally got the papers notarized, refused enough American Rifleman magazines to get their attention. Numbers was what they were after as opposed to support. My number meant more to the industry than my contributions. So it goes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rivanna Posted December 16, 2012 Author Share Posted December 16, 2012 (edited) Well, I read two things today that seem to offer a little hope…According to Mayor Bloomberg, "There is this myth that the NRA is so powerful. Today the NRA's power is so vastly overrated." And California Senator Dianne Feinstein said she intended to introduce a gun control bill on the first day of the next Congress, aimed at limiting the sale, transfer and possession of assault weapons, along with high-capacity magazines: “It can be done.” Two petitions – easy to sign http://signon.org/si...fb&r_by=6419775 https://petitions.wh...ngress/2tgcXzQC Edited December 16, 2012 by rivanna Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeorgeW Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 I read an interesting retort to those who claim that had the teachers been armed, they would be alive. It was pointed out that the mother of the shooter was armed. In fact, she was heavily armed. George Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulS Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 I read an interesting retort to those who claim that had the teachers been armed, they would be alive. It was pointed out that the mother of the shooter was armed. In fact, she was heavily armed. George Another thing George, accurate use of a handgun actually requires a fair bit of practice. Yes, a teacher may have been able to defend themselves but unless they are capable of killing (even in self-defence) and capable of hitting their intended target first or 2nd shot, then possessing a handgun may actually not just be a waste of time, but more than liekly it is a risk in a number of ways. For the one-in-a-million chance that a person may need it for self-defence, there's the increased risk of theft, accidental discharge, misuse, the gun being used against you, not to mention the encouragement of everyone going armed because they think somebody else might shoot them because they have a gun. What Ron said about the constitutional right to bear arms being developed in the days when one could only carry out this sort of atrocity by carrying 30-odd flintlock rifles around with them, makes a lot of sense. Rapid fire, self-loading firearms weren't even a blip on the rader then, let alone the thought that another person actually would go beserk shooting dozens of inncoent people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glintofpewter Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 what will you choose to use to protect them against such or will you do nothing? Thanks, Joseph ----------------------------- When I am creating the world I want to live in - a world where fewer guns are available -I will take that risk. I think Jesus invites us to take that kind of risk. Dutch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glintofpewter Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 When the assault gun ban was in effect 1994-2004 did many more of us die because we couldn't purchase such a weapon to defend ourselves with? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glintofpewter Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 In the US – population 311.5 million (1) – there were an estimated 13,756 murders in 2009 (2), a rate of about 5.0 per 100,000 (3). Of these 9,203 were carried out with a firearm. In the UK – population 56.1 million (4) – there were an estimated 550 murders in 2011-12 (5), a rate of about 1.4 per 100,000. Of these 39 were carried out with a firearm (6). http://fleshisgrass.wordpress.com/2012/07/24/us-and-uk-murder-rate-and-weapon-updated/ Why would you not conclude that decreasing the availbilty of weapons might lead to decrease in the murder rate? Dutch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeorgeW Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 Bob Costas, the sports announcer, when challenged for speaking out about gun violence involving professional atheletes said, “Give me one example of an athlete — and I know it’s happened in society — but give me one example of a professional athlete who by virtue of having a gun took a dangerous situation and turned it around for the better." For that matter, name one mass killing that has been deterred by ordinary citizens carrying weapons. This notion of everyone carrying weapons for protection is NRA mythology. George Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeorgeW Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 I used to contribute regularly to the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence but stopped for a few years because it seemed to be a fruitless waste of money better sent elsewhere. Today, I will resume this contribution with the outside hope that something might finally happen. "We cannot tolerate this anymore." "We can do better." - Barack Obama, Newtown Conn. George Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vridar Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 (edited) Kansas City news reporting two Topeka police officers shot and killed. I'm assuming they had guns for protection. If so, didn't work. Ron Edited December 17, 2012 by Vridar 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vridar Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 Great article in Huffington Post this morning. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/16/i-am-adam-lanzas-mother-mental-illness-conversation_n_2311009.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular Ron Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glintofpewter Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 For the other side: Disarming the Myths Promoted By the Gun Control Lobby (headline is misleading) A widely-known study conducted by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz in the 1990s found that there were somewhere between 830,000 and 2.45 million U.S. defensive gun uses annually. A National Crime Victimization Study (NCVS) which asked victims if they had used a gun in self-defense found that about 108,000 each year had done so. A big problem with the NCVS line of survey reasoning, however, is that it only includes those uses where a citizen kills a criminal, not when one is only wounded, is held by the intended victim until police arrive, or when brandishing a gun caused a criminal to flee. There are other studies quoted in support of the same point in this article. It's from Forbes so I tend to trust the citations more. I know of two such situations. One published one not. We can't figure out why there have been 2-3 attempts at a Check Cashing business because each time the robbery attempt ends with the owner pulling a gun and shooting. It should be pointed out that he did not need an automatic assault weapon to do this. The other instance is hearsay. Is the question, "Are you willing to take the risk that you will be the victim of an attack that you could have fended off with a gun so that the number of guns in the country are reduced tragedies like Sandy Hook are less likely to happen? " IF the study cited by the Forbes article is correct then it seems we are risking our personal safety - providing we are competent in our use of a weapon - for the greater good. Does anyone have statistics about robberies and burglaries in the UK - are they higher than in the US?) - and Australia (after the Howard gun control laws)? - Did they increase even though the murder rate went down in the years afterward. The related statistic I saw was that the number of mass killings went to none I think. Is that the greater good? Dutch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glintofpewter Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 I think the focus on the mentally ill is a distraction. We can restrict 'their' access to guns only by giving up some of our freedoms. Who gets to decide that you are mentally ill? Dutch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dusktilldawn Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 1. Exactly how will banning hand guns be anymore effective in reducing their availability and crime than banning drugs has prevented the availability and use of illegal drugs and related crimes? A good point. Here's some data: http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/jul/22/gun-homicides-ownership-world-list The USA has the highest rate of gun ownership in the world and 2.97 gun homicides per year per 100,000 population. 3rd in rate of gun ownership is Switzerland, which has 0.77 gun homicides per 100,000 population. Finland is 4th and has 0.45 and 5th place goes to Serbia with 0.46. The highest rates of gun homicide are in Latin America and the Caribbean, where the rate of gun ownership is relatively low. There's no simple relationship between gun ownership and gun crime. 2. Do you truly believe the police have the resources and time to protect your family and home from immediate danger of perpetrators? If yes, no followup question.,and if not, what will you choose to use to protect them against such or will you do nothing? I hope you don't mind me answering a question with a question. Should breaking into someone's home be punishable be execution? If yes, no follow-up question. If no, why should the state legitimise the killing of intruders? If society behaves as if it values property more than life it's no wonder that violence results. If it becomes the norm to defend your home with lethal force intruders will use more force in anticipation. It's the logic of the arms race. Perhaps this is the kind of cultural factor which leads to the greater homicide rate in America. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JosephM Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 Good point to the second question dusktildawn, Even the Tao speaks of what happens when we value property more than life. i agree with your accessment but you of course did not really answer the 2 nd question. I personally feel no need to shoot someone stealing property. joseph Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeorgeW Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 I have no desire to kill anyone except under the most extreme circumstances like preventing the deaths of others. I don't think the penalty for burglary, as an example, is death. If someone broke into my house to steal things I would not kill them even if I had a gun and the opportunity. George Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeorgeW Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 The author of this article points out that the proliferation of guns leads to an armed society, not a civil society and limits our freedom of speech. http://tcpc.ipbhost....arch_app=forums Is that the kind of world we want to live in? Not me. George Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NORM Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 What is really beginning to anger me are the number of Christians in my Facebook community who are becoming apologists for the NRA. Here's what one preacher said: No amount of gun control, and no amount of increased security is going to stop these types of tragedies in the future, this is an issue of the heart. He goes on to say in his Sunday sermon that all we need to do is convert everyone to Christ, and all these problems will go away. We can stockpile assault rifles til the cows come home - if only we have Jesus in our hearts. This sickens me. It minimizes the problems of mental illness and an out of control gun lobby. NORM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NORM Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 Great article in Huffington Post this morning. http://www.huffingto...ref=mostpopular Ron Thanks for posting this article, Ron. Amidst all the chatter about gun rights vs gun control, the fact that these most recent spate of shootings involved mentally disturbed individuals was lost in the discussion. NORM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulS Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 (edited) Does anyone have statistics about robberies and burglaries in the UK - are they higher than in the US?) - and Australia (after the Howard gun control laws)? - Did they increase even though the murder rate went down in the years afterward. The related statistic I saw was that the number of mass killings went to none I think. Is that the greater good? Dutch I don't know about before and after the Howard Gun Laws, Dutch, but the below shows that the prevalence of burglary in Australia in 2003-2004 is much the same as America. The other two graphs do show the dramatic impact on homicide and suicide that the Howard Gun Laws (introduced 1996) had. By far the greater good in my opinion - and I was one of those that had to hand in some guns. Source - http://www.aic.gov.au/crime_types/property%20crime/burglary.html Source - http://guncontrol.org.au/ Edited December 17, 2012 by PaulS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts