Citizens with guns

I, obviously have my own opinions on the matter, but I would look to the Buddhist parable of the poisoned arrow. If an man has been struck by an poisoned arrow, but refuses to be brought to a doctor until he knows the age, hometown and caste of the man who shot it, the style of the of the bow, the wood the shaft is made of, the animal the sinew is from, the kind of bird whose feathers the fletch is made of, the style of arrowhead, etc...the man will die and will be no wiser for it.

I think that regulating guns is the first step - pulling the poisoned arrow from our collective side. Then can we start looking at the root causes of gun violence.

Trisskar wrote: Here is question (Not looking for your answer): How many people could have been saved had every other person in that nightclub carried? (or at least the bouncers) Hmmmmmm.......

* Mod: I adminified it for you before I saw it had already been done blw - Adder

Miss_Leah

It's a lot harder to kill off the weed if you cut it. Kill the root, though? Everything else will follow.

Japan doesn't have a problem with violence, not because they don't have guns, but because their values do not align heavily with violent acts. They prefer working as a whole. That's why it works.

Here in America? We can't just get rid of the guns. We can't just get rid of bombs either. This hatred is rooted deep into who we are. People will just find another way to kill.

The root of the problem is emotional stability. We hate each other. Fix that. Everything will follow.

Alethea Thompson wrote:

Trisskar wrote: Here is question (Not looking for your answer): How many people could have been saved had every other person in that nightclub carried? (or at least the bouncers) Hmmmmmm.......

[img size=478x360]http://vignette1.wikia.nocookie.net/adventuretimewithfinnandjake/images/f/fb/Tootsie-roll-pop-owl.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20140423224633[/img]
How do I actually get an image to be visible? lol

By getting rid of the sizing and a proper Image location that ends in .png .jpeg .gif ect ect..... Save to desktop > Add File > Attach

Alethea Thompson wrote: Miss_Leah

It's a lot harder to kill off the weed if you cut it. Kill the root, though? Everything else will follow.

Japan doesn't have a problem with violence, not because they don't have guns, but because their values do not align heavily with violent acts. They prefer working as a whole. That's why it works.

Here in America? We can't just get rid of the guns. We can't just get rid of bombs either. This hatred is rooted deep into who we are. People will just find another way to kill.

The root of the problem is emotional stability. We hate each other. Fix that. Everything will follow.

But getting rid of guns is pretty darned impossible, which is why it's suggested to regulate them - to mitigate damage, not get rid of then completely.

While cutting something off at the root is ideal, the problem is much more complex than that. In the meantime, the Uncle Sam is bleeding from a poisoned arrow sicking out his side, but demanding to know the religion/mental health status of the person who shot the arrow, rather than pulling the arrow out and seeing medical help...

Alright! Trisskar, here's the image (I hope !)


Miss_Leah, But by focusing on one part of the problem, we're loosing on other parts. The beauty of a community based help system, is that you don't have to worry about dividing the different fronts. We can work together on different problems simultaneously. But no one is focused on the root of the problem- the hate. They all want to talk about the guns while hate still runs amok.

Of course we can't focus *only* on guns, but it's the most immediate threat (ie. the part that's tangibly killing people. With bullets.), and the one people seem to have the most trouble regulating. This is why more focus is needed. Poor mental health care, rampant hate and religious extremism need to be dealt with, but those issues will take a loooooong time to sort out (if they ever can be). Meanwhile, we can do something NOW about gun regulation.

Miss_Leah wrote: But getting rid of guns is pretty darned impossible, which is why it's suggested to regulate them - to mitigate damage, not get rid of then completely.

Yes, and one of your previous posts included a helpful interview with Obama on his stance on gun control. It is completely illegal to take guns away, but the federal government can (and I would argue should) limit purchasing firearms. Almost all gun owners I know would rather have the government control the flow of weapons rather than have the BATFE breathing down their necks.
Interview

Alethea Thompson wrote: We can't just get rid of bombs either.

Actually a very different subject. The majority of bomb plots are tipped off to the FBI/HSA and these are completely illegal. In the case of shootings, having a gun isn't illegal so preventative measures are very scarce.

I know gunsmiths. They even make their own bullets. It's not hard to make a gun if you want to learn the skill.

So no, it really isn't all that different.

Alethea Thompson wrote: I know gunsmiths. They even make their own bullets. It's not hard to make a gun if you want to learn the skill.

So no, it really isn't all that different.

Yes, I agree but my point was that having a gun in your trunk is legal whereas a bomb is not. Most bombers are caught well before they can hurt people whereas the FBI has multiple times complained that they have very little preventative measures for shootings.
Casting bullets is easy, as is manufacturing rudamentary firearms; criminal Aussie gangs are notorious for that in particular. Luckily, these tend to be break action and don't have the cyclical rate of a semi auto 556.