Guns in America

Alethea Thompson wrote: :whistle: Makes me wonder how many of you pro-gun men frequent /k/

??

i dont understand, but i think i want to?

For, against… no matter which side of the argument we find ourselves coming down on we should consider what drives the other side.

I have found that most arguments which find people deeply set to one side or the other, fear tends to be the motivating factor. Why don’t people want others to have firearms? They don’t want to risk being shot by another person. Why don’t people want their firearms taken away? They don’t want to be shot by another person. Wait a sec… that sounds like the same reason. :huh: :laugh:

And each person will argue their side fervently. Who is right and who is wrong? Both, neither and everyone. Each person believes they are right. And that belief is wrong. As the other person would disagree, and does. Hence the pages of arguing.

People can quote numbers they found from countless studies and reports trying to convince me the worthiness of their debate. But at the end of the day; gun control is treating the symptom and ignoring the cause. I guess people believe this approach will work because it is how we face the common cold. Get a cold, take an aspirin. But the body is hard at work fighting what you cannot see. And of course people that commit mass shooting will be diagnosed as having some kind of mental issue. We would not consider them “normal” for that behavior. In my opinion, we need to turn our focus away from the rhetoric that is being fed us as a distraction from the main issue… why people feel they can or need to commit acts of violence.

Many of these people, and all people that commit acts of violent crimes I would think, do so out of some kind of internal struggle. Hopelessness, despair, feeling powerless and lost in an uncaring and hostile system sometimes the only end they feel they have left to be heard or to make some kind of impact is to act out in a violent crime. Mass shooting, murder, rape, abuse, bullying… these are all things that can, or are at least some times attributed to the afore mentioned states of emotional distress.

I honestly believe that if societies have a spiritual center which guides their moral compass and work toward the betterment of the whole (what is good for everyone) then the individuals feeling of hopelessness and despair would subside, not disappear, and the number of violent crimes would decrees.

On a side note… I have had firearms in my home for my entire life (a good deal longer than many of you have been alive ) and not once has one of them loaded themselves and tried to kill me. A firearm is just a tool. It is the person that needs healing for the hurting to stop.

Wescli Wardest wrote: For, against… no matter which side of the argument we find ourselves coming down on we should consider what drives the other side.

I have found that most arguments which find people deeply set to one side or the other, fear tends to be the motivating factor. Why don’t people want others to have firearms? They don’t want to risk being shot by another person. Why don’t people want their firearms taken away? They don’t want to be shot by another person. Wait a sec… that sounds like the same reason. :huh: :laugh:

And each person will argue their side fervently. Who is right and who is wrong? Both, neither and everyone. Each person believes they are right. And that belief is wrong. As the other person would disagree, and does. Hence the pages of arguing.

People can quote numbers they found from countless studies and reports trying to convince me the worthiness of their debate. But at the end of the day; gun control is treating the symptom and ignoring the cause. I guess people believe this approach will work because it is how we face the common cold. Get a cold, take an aspirin. But the body is hard at work fighting what you cannot see. And of course people that commit mass shooting will be diagnosed as having some kind of mental issue. We would not consider them “normal” for that behavior. In my opinion, we need to turn our focus away from the rhetoric that is being fed us as a distraction from the main issue… why people feel they can or need to commit acts of violence.

Many of these people, and all people that commit acts of violent crimes I would think, do so out of some kind of internal struggle. Hopelessness, despair, feeling powerless and lost in an uncaring and hostile system sometimes the only end they feel they have left to be heard or to make some kind of impact is to act out in a violent crime. Mass shooting, murder, rape, abuse, bullying… these are all things that can, or are at least some times attributed to the afore mentioned states of emotional distress.

I honestly believe that if societies have a spiritual center which guides their moral compass and work toward the betterment of the whole (what is good for everyone) then the individuals feeling of hopelessness and despair would subside, not disappear, and the number of violent crimes would decrees.

On a side note… I have had firearms in my home for my entire life (a good deal longer than many of you have been alive ) and not once has one of them loaded themselves and tried to kill me. A firearm is just a tool. It is the person that needs healing for the hurting to stop.

.
Yes, the problem is not of too many guns but too many people with emotional distress and no plan to help them. Millions of regular people own guns, never kill anyone with them. It just doesn't seem right to take a right away from the vast majority to ensure that a few disturbed people can't get guns (not that this would really stop that anyway).

I guess the real issue isn't about access to weapons, especially in the US where they are everywhere already, but what degree of capability to inflict damage can a legal weapon have ie you cannot own a rocket launcher. Access to weapon's have and need a hard limit, so it should be about where that limit is most effective. Which means for defence purposes, then the limit would seem to be equivalent or higher then the threat. I know that view is slightly one dimensional, such that population of handgun wielding innocents against one criminal with an M4 would not be a good move for the sane criminal.

One thing to consider is that limit for legal ownership is likely not going to increase, yet criminals will be able to continue to increase their weapon's lethality. So IMO the self defence from crime, and right to revolt are not really strong arguments... as no modern military is going to be stopped by numbers of citizens armed with rifles, carbines, shotguns and handguns. A possible idea would seem to be in affordable armour and protection measures but tighter building access controls and armoring levels in vehicles and structures help drive an increase in criminals capabilities to counter the increase protection measures.

I don't have an answer for the US, as its too saturated, but I'm happy with Australia's approach despite being a gun nut myself. If anyone has a gun here where they shouldn't, then they get treated like a serious threat by Police no matter their actual intention - which does reduce the number of guns on the street. Unfortunately illegal guns are still easy to get here since we have a widespread organised crime problem, but I think it would be a lot worse if we did not have the law changes back in `96. I personally saw about 3 at social events before 96 with young adults, but haven't seen one since. I think there are other measures to protect oneself then pretending to be able to employ one effectively when needed, as the situation where one can do so would probably also be a situation which could be managed by other means - its the situation where other options for protection break down which also likely mean one is less able to use a gun effectively.... which means giving another criminal another weapon at the end of the day - unless they are actually there deliberately to kill you, like your being hunted or something, then it would be sleeping with one eye open and one hand of the weapon no doubt!!

Of course my imagination is good enough to understand that is not a rule, and familiarity with ones premises against even multiple attackers in the dark would offer some advantage to the home owner, but I cannot help but think the criminal is probably going to be less rational, more resourced, not alone and probably ice'd to the hilt which means even getting the first hit/s might not be enough, but also not probably there to kill you but rather rob you and if its a choice between letting them ransack the house while you duck out the back, or risk confronting them in a gun fight, I'd take the former each time.

Wescli Wardest wrote: For, against… no matter which side of the argument we find ourselves coming down on we should consider what drives the other side.

I have found that most arguments which find people deeply set to one side or the other, fear tends to be the motivating factor. Why don’t people want others to have firearms? They don’t want to risk being shot by another person. Why don’t people want their firearms taken away? They don’t want to be shot by another person. Wait a sec… that sounds like the same reason. :huh: :laugh:

And each person will argue their side fervently. Who is right and who is wrong? Both, neither and everyone. Each person believes they are right. And that belief is wrong. As the other person would disagree, and does. Hence the pages of arguing.

People can quote numbers they found from countless studies and reports trying to convince me the worthiness of their debate. But at the end of the day; gun control is treating the symptom and ignoring the cause. I guess people believe this approach will work because it is how we face the common cold. Get a cold, take an aspirin. But the body is hard at work fighting what you cannot see. And of course people that commit mass shooting will be diagnosed as having some kind of mental issue. We would not consider them “normal” for that behavior. In my opinion, we need to turn our focus away from the rhetoric that is being fed us as a distraction from the main issue… why people feel they can or need to commit acts of violence.

Many of these people, and all people that commit acts of violent crimes I would think, do so out of some kind of internal struggle. Hopelessness, despair, feeling powerless and lost in an uncaring and hostile system sometimes the only end they feel they have left to be heard or to make some kind of impact is to act out in a violent crime. Mass shooting, murder, rape, abuse, bullying… these are all things that can, or are at least some times attributed to the afore mentioned states of emotional distress.

I honestly believe that if societies have a spiritual center which guides their moral compass and work toward the betterment of the whole (what is good for everyone) then the individuals feeling of hopelessness and despair would subside, not disappear, and the number of violent crimes would decrees.

On a side note… I have had firearms in my home for my entire life (a good deal longer than many of you have been alive ) and not once has one of them loaded themselves and tried to kill me. A firearm is just a tool. It is the person that needs healing for the hurting to stop.

Extremely well put I think because people have different mentalities certain issues they will never agree on or convince each other of. Better to focus on something that we could all agree on which is helping to make people less violent or whatever the root cause may be.

I can sympathize with gun control advocates slightly. I no longer go hunting because there are so many irresponsible morons out there during deer season. I have come close to being shot several times despite wearing my orange vest and following all the hunting laws. I am from Pennsylvania and there a many people here who resent even legal gun owners because of the irresponsible actions of some citizens. There are plenty of stories of deer hunters shooting too close to private property and hitting cars, houses, and people. Not to mention, the countless hunting accidents, children dying from unlocked guns, accidental discharges, you name it. There are people who CAN legally own a firearm but are so stupid that they really SHOULDN'T.

At the same time, I know the useful of guns in self-protection and this is where I conflict with the gun control advocates. Politicians will talk about advocating more gun control if it will get them elected. They will also, at the same time, pose for photos with guns to appeal to "rural America". Remeber the picture of President Obama shooting a shotgun? http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/02/02/white-house-releases-photo-of-obama-shooting-shotgun/

Some have said "Well, we have to stop the mentally ill from getting guns." Does that mean everyone who is prescribed Ritalin, Adderall, Zoloft, Prozac, Paxil, Lexapro, Lithium, Celexa, Thorazine, Risperidone, ect. can't buy a gun? We cannot judge them as being unfit to own a gun based on their prescritions. Should we ban anyone who has ever attended therapy or counseling from ever obtaining a firearm? It would be too much to try to control and would be a huge invasion of privacy. I am more in favor of hiring more armed guards in public spaces than trying sort out who is mentally compentent enough to own a gun.

One last idea, and I know it's a stretch, would converting more gun owners to smart guns/biometric firearms. They have fingerprint recognition on the trigger locks and other companies have even developed guns locks that require radio frequency identification to be operated. In other words, nobody can operate the gun but the owner. The technology is so advanced that it would be extremely difficult for criminal to try to reprogram the lock. There are many small companies developing and producing these guns. Perhaps they could invent a remote that law enforcement could use to disable the lock from a distance if the gun owner should attempt to use it in a crime. I know it sounds straight out of James Bond but these companies are well under way in developing this technology.

i agree biometric locks would be a good idea...there are already some firearms on the market like that....the cost is prohibitively high at the moment though...

maybe we should have a government like in starship troopers...only citizens can own firearms...service guarantees citizenship....since military personnel are well trained in the safe handling and proper shooting of firearms....hunting accidents are often the result of poor marksmanship....you should always know what it is you're shooting at and what is beyond what you're shooting at...when we go shooting we always make certain to have a safe backstop behind our target, when we hunt we always know which direction "civilization" is and what it is we're taking aim at....and i often tend to position myself higher than my target so that if i do miss (which almost never happens) the shot goes into the ground safely.....

Biometric locks are a good idea? Yes a bad guy wanting to kill you isnt bad enough lets add a way for mister murphy to do so in the form of electronics.

Let the government shut down guns at will? Might as well outlaw them then because it negates the intent of personal firearms ownership to begin with.

A government like start ship troops where rights are only granted to citizens via services? Fine I want your right to free speech, freedom of religion(no more jedi temple), freedom of assembly, oh heck while we are at it you are not even free to decide what to so with your own body why not. That suggestion is utterly corrosive to the concept of liberty and against the founding principles of the United States. Further its a slap in the fact to all veterans and current service members as it is a direct disreguard of the whole point of their sacrifice.

firstly i am a veteran....secondly that part was sarcasm....so don't get your undies in a wad....

and i don't agree with allowing the government to shut down firearms electronically....i do agree that having a firearm that is biometrically coded for its owner is a good idea (this can be as simple as a fingerprint/palm print)....if i own a gun (which i own several) i like the idea that no one else can take my weapon and use it against me....my laptop is biometrically locked, no one but me can use it...just because something is biometrically locked does not mean outside sources can access it...the biometrically locked firearms i've seen cannot be accessed remotely, you have to physcally touch them...

RyuJin as am I so you can guess why such a statement would bug me. Further I cant detect sarcasm on the internet and far too many people would actually mean what you said for me to tell who is joking and who is not.

Further Biometrics SUCK. They fail when you need them most and frankly adding one more item to fail on a life saving tool is just foolish. Add to this that I do not want my fiance to have to worry about oh crap is this gun coded to Hatter or myself if we ever need the firearm. Having it so you cant allow anyone to use your firearm is just foolish and cumbersome.

To close if you dont think the government would demand shut down capabilities on any electronic lock out devices you are far more trusting of them then I am.

I am very sceptical about government control of weapons. Their desire to control is ancient and started with sword hunt type activities well before any desire for the common mans well being was considered.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sword_hunt

Several times in Japanese history, the new ruler sought to ensure his position by calling a sword hunt Armies would scour the entire country, confiscating the weapons of the enemies of the new regime. In this manner, the new ruler sought to ensure that no one could take the country by force as he had just done.

I'd love to think we are immune in our modern civilised age but not so long ago....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_legislation_in_Germany

Disarming Jews in Nazi Germany

On November 11, 1938, the Regulations Against Jews' Possession of Weapons was promulgated by Minister of the Interior, Wilhelm Frick. This regulation effectively deprived all Jews living in those locations of the right to possess any form of weapons including truncheons, knives, or firearms and ammunition. Some police forces used the pre-existing "trustworthiness" clause to disarm Jews on the basis "the Jewish population 'cannot be regarded as trustworthy'".

I guess the point here is that there is a very real dark side to weapon control. If a governments intentions are true then it should not fear its peoples capacity to control it.

This is interesting.

If Sandy Hook … had what Indiana is promoting in their schools, nobody would have died.

How Indiana Is Tackling Mass Shootings Without Gun Control

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2015/10/06/3709027/indiana-mass-shooting-prevention/

Yet another gun massacre has rocked an American learning institution, the 45th school shooting to take place this year. And on both sides of the political spectrum, the responses have been as predictable as the shooting itself — the left argues for gun control; the right argues for more guns.

It is perhaps the most fiercely divisive issue in American politics. Since 20 children and six adults were gunned down at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut in 2012, there have been 142 school shootings — at least 33 of which involved fatalities, according to Everytown For Gun Safety. Still, on the issue of gun control, the political lines have been firmly drawn. Nothing has been done, and there has been no indication that anything will be done. There is no middle ground.

If Sandy Hook … had what Indiana is promoting in their schools, nobody would have died.
But as the debate rages on, some are wondering whether anything can be done in the meantime to protect schools from active shooters.

One group thinks there is, and that it’s playing out in Indiana. Continue reading at http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2015/10/06/3709027/indiana-mass-shooting-prevention/ .

where i work has that....plus numerous code locked doors...and several veterans on staff....

Br. John wrote: This is interesting.

If Sandy Hook … had what Indiana is promoting in their schools, nobody would have died.

How Indiana Is Tackling Mass Shootings Without Gun Control

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2015/10/06/3709027/indiana-mass-shooting-prevention/

Yet another gun massacre has rocked an American learning institution, the 45th school shooting to take place this year. And on both sides of the political spectrum, the responses have been as predictable as the shooting itself — the left argues for gun control; the right argues for more guns.

It is perhaps the most fiercely divisive issue in American politics. Since 20 children and six adults were gunned down at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut in 2012, there have been 142 school shootings — at least 33 of which involved fatalities, according to Everytown For Gun Safety. Still, on the issue of gun control, the political lines have been firmly drawn. Nothing has been done, and there has been no indication that anything will be done. There is no middle ground.

If Sandy Hook … had what Indiana is promoting in their schools, nobody would have died.
But as the debate rages on, some are wondering whether anything can be done in the meantime to protect schools from active shooters.

One group thinks there is, and that it’s playing out in Indiana. Continue reading at http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2015/10/06/3709027/indiana-mass-shooting-prevention/ .

I think these are the things that make a lot more sense than banning guns. Harden schools. It will cost more but I'd be willing to pay for it rather than have guns banned. I still think having an trained, armed person in the school also makes sense.

I find the idea of having armed personnel and bullet proof schools ludicrous. Education shouldn't need to be defended with weapons and armour, not in the 21st century, not in America. If you have to send your child to a school that could double as a prison, something has seriously gone wrong.

It is good that people are starting to look for other solutions, especially given the fact that prohibition isn’t having the desired result but I don’t believe that turning schools into fortresses is a positive step. To me it is like prohibition that treats the symptom and not the cause.

I think if real solutions are to be found then detailed study of previous events is critical. To this end the most important question to me is why are mass shootings increasing in frequency? What has changed that drives more people to this point? Prohibitions are only increasing so what are the real causes.

One thing I have noticed is timing. The Dunblane school massacre in Scotland was big news in Australia with extensive media coverage. A month later we suffered Port Arthur. Our next shooting (Monash University) happened during the Beltway sniper attacks in the USA. The sniper attacks were also receiving extensive media coverage at the time. Is media coverage a factor in some shootings? Do some people see these events on TV and decide that it is the answer to their problem?

Now our lives are easier and less connected to nature are we becoming more mentally fragile? Like the increasing rate of obesity are we victims of our own success?

Our government won’t trust us with nail files and we are almost constantly involved in war somewhere. Fear and mistrust is rife. Is this changing our psyche somehow?

That's brilliant! I'm sharing that on Let's Regroup! Thank you Br. John!

Edan wrote: I find the idea of having armed personnel and bullet proof schools ludicrous. Education shouldn't need to be defended with weapons and armour, not in the 21st century, not in America. If you have to send your child to a school that could double as a prison, something has seriously gone wrong.

Unfortunately, something HAS gone seriously wrong in this country.

As much as I despise Dick Cheney, he made an accurate point when he said "you don't go to war with the army you want; you go to war with the army you have." We can talk about all of our wants and wishes of how to create a utopian society, and sit around holding hands, singing Kumbaya, but the reality is that the shit is in the toilet, and we have to deal with the situation as it is presented to us, not the situation that we want to want it to be.

Do I like the idea of bullet proof schools, and armed guards? No, but we have to solve today's problem before we can work on tomorrow's. Will going to an outright Australian style ban stop the violence? Absolutely not, because it does not address the core problem - that there are too many disenfranchised and violent people in this country, and no amount of laws and regulations is going to stop them from committing violence. America was founded on gun violence; it has always been a part of our culture, but what has changed to make this an epidemic now?

It's time to address the real problem - the degradation of our society!

We are Jedi; we are the peacekeepers of our planet; we are the healers of our planet. In the immortal words of JFK - "Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country!" It's time to stop asking the government for solutions and roll up our sleeves and make a difference in our communities, one person at a time. The majority of the lone gunman shooters that we have encountered have the same basic profile - young; male; disillusioned; semi-unstable; quiet; keep to themselves; etc... It's time to be a good neighbor. How many of us know our neighbors? There was a time that I knew all of my neighbors. Our kids played together in the street; we had potlucks and BBQs; we watched each others homes when we were on vacation; we swept our sidewalks; we watched out for the elderly; etc...

Someone has to step forward and say "I will be the change!" It is time for the Jedi to step to the forefront and take the lead - be the change you wish to see in the world!

Rick D wrote:
America was founded on gun violence; it has always been a part of our culture, but what has changed to make this an epidemic now?

Except this is wrong. If you go back to my posts of the most recent available FBI data violent crime rates have gone DOWN each year by their own reporting while murder rates have held steady at .5 to .6 percent of all deaths. That is not an epidemic. Its not even statistically noteworthy. PERCEPTION of crime is up but not actual crime. Among first world nations including the US crime has been going down steadily for something like the last ten years with the occasional minor up swing usually due to economic issues.

MadHatter wrote: RyuJin as am I so you can guess why such a statement would bug me. Further I cant detect sarcasm on the internet and far too many people would actually mean what you said for me to tell who is joking and who is not.

Further Biometrics SUCK. They fail when you need them most and frankly adding one more item to fail on a life saving tool is just foolish. Add to this that I do not want my fiance to have to worry about oh crap is this gun coded to Hatter or myself if we ever need the firearm. Having it so you cant allow anyone to use your firearm is just foolish and cumbersome.

To close if you dont think the government would demand shut down capabilities on any electronic lock out devices you are far more trusting of them then I am.

I agree that there is huge risk in letting the government shut down a firearm via remote, that's why I sorta cringed when I was typing that last post. And the police can already shut down some newer model car engines via remote too. The country is between a rock and hard place I guess. Though biometrics might cut back on some of the black market activity, I agree that there are a ton of risks that need sorted out first.

Also, for the people that posted that the 2nd Amendment is no longer relevant, are you aware of the original intent of the amendment? It is specifically aimed at giving citizens the right to own firearms for not only protection from crime but also in case a tyrant were to take power in government. A great deal of the constitution is designed to ensure the limitations of government so that we wouldn't have to deal with another monarchy.

So in addition to protecting yourself against crime, firearms are available to law-abiding citizens so that we are not defenseless against our own government. There are many refugees who have come to America to escape tyrannical regimes in their home countries. It would be naive to say "It couldn't happen here in America". The examples of 1984 and Starship Troopers are extreme but interesting. I think if such an abuse of power in government were to occur it would be even more subtle and deceiving, right under our noses.

I know some will disagree, but the "Communism" that the government used as an excuse to invade Vietnam was later renamed "Terrorism" and was used to invade Iraq. The "isms" are scare tactics to get the American people to accept an expensive "nation-building" war agenda. Terrorism was also the word used to justify the Patriot Act and illegal phone tapping. And it doesn't matter if a polictician calls themselves Republican or Democrat, they are only a pawn. Will the violence here in America be an excuse for the government to take severe action against a disarmed public domestically?