Guns in America

Let me preface this video by saying that I realize we have a lot of pro-gun folks here and for Americans this seems like a Constitutional issue, but I think we need to continue talking about this issue. Here's a video to get the discussion going: ( Video )

It's cliche, but we don't have a gun problem in the US. We have a people problem.

This video takes into account 6 major 1st World Countries, but doesn't look at Iraq, Iran, Pakistan or any of these other middle eastern countries- which according to the UN isn't even as bad as Honduras (the highest in the world) or Venezuela.

http://unstats.un.org/unsd/post-2015/activities/egm-on-indicator-framework/docs/EGM.Presentation%20on%20Target%2016.1.UNODC.short.pdf

Yes, we have it the highest in the First World set. But we need to take into account an ENORMOUS amount of information before we can start a road to getting rid of guns and keeping our homicide rates down. For example, the countries with the higher rates don't have higher capita on guns.

http://www.vox.com/2014/6/11/5797892/us-world-firearm-ownership-map

I'm not saying that disarming America cannot be an end goal, but rather if we want to see it happen we have to take steps slow and steady. It will require us to make changes to our very cultural identity to accomplish it.

Japan is the greatest example of the sort of culture that crime is just not a thing to be worried about. They've had a few extremist groups in their past, but they are the exception to the rule. Below is a good example of how vastly different their culture is compared to ours. If we want a healthy country, I'd say trying to find a way to mimic the sense of community they have would be a very good start towards a gun free America.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/why-japanese-kids-can-walk-to-school-alone/ar-AAf3h2A?li=AAa0dzB

Instead of questioning if America should or should not allow guns. How about instead we ask how you plan to get rid of all the guns in the United States? And more importantly, how you plan to take it out of my home. I can guarantee, it won't be out of the generosity of mine and my husbands hearts. I am all for Jedi following the law...as long as that law is "For the people, by the people." you know...what America stands for (I speak as an American and do not stand voice to other countries). I am pretty confident that, you will find even more vicious defense for our rights to own and carry guns by everyone else.

In the end. Statistics and numbers (which is very one sided by the way) Won't change the fact that no matter what the law says. Gun's simply are apart of our lives and either the citizen's have them to defend themselves....or they don't and pose as free target practice, or own them illegally anyways.

How many of those mass shootings in those statistics was in a Gun Friendly zone? Universities, malls, theaters....Each of these locations were in a place where gun's are illegal....shame too. All it would of taken was one guy with a 9mm and some balls to stop the shooter before it ever became a "mass shooting" in the first place.

Just my passionate thoughts though I am quite excited to get my own 9mm in the coming days so that I can go take CPL class! Hope I can do it before winter hits <(0_0)>

some food for thought...louisianna has the strictest gun control laws in the country...and the highest gun related death rate...followed by michigan...think about it...more control...more deaths....since florida passed the "stand your ground" law our gun related death rate as declined drastically....less control...fewer deaths....the "wild west" had almost no gun control...and during the "wildest" period had something like 10 deaths....

more laws and control seems to have the reverse effect....


something else to think on....how does a tyrant (any tyrant) retain control?....by keeping the masses disarmed and in fear...

bottom line is that youre not getting peoples guns

period.

three generations from now, MAYBE

There are over 300 million guns owned by private citizens in the US. They're not going away, ban or not.

Also, the main problem is with gang members and mentally unstable people, not with the 99% of the people who own the guns.

Every one of these people that do these mass shootings are mentally ill and most other gun deaths in the US are criminal related (gangs, biker gangs, organized crime...ect).

Ousan Ka wrote: There are over 300 million guns owned by private citizens in the US. They're not going away, ban or not.

Also, the main problem is with gang members and mentally unstable people, not with the 99% of the people who own the guns.

Every one of these people that do these mass shootings are mentally ill and most other gun deaths in the US are criminal related (gangs, biker gangs, organized crime...ect).

[Citation Needed ]

i was watching "fox and friends" and one of the reporters mentioned that "you can go online and buy a gun"....um no, not legally...if you purchase a firearm online from any vendor it has to be shipped to a federally licensed firearms dealer and they have to run a background check before they can release the firearm to you even though you already paid for the firearm...i know this for a fact because i'm studying to become a master gunsmith and this information was on the test i just took and got a perfect score on...so yeah...more laws will not do anything except make it more difficult for the honest people to purchase them.....criminals will still get their guns illegally....

RyuJin wrote: some food for thought...louisianna has the strictest gun control laws in the country...and the highest gun related death rate...followed by michigan...think about it...more control...more deaths....since florida passed the "stand your ground" law our gun related death rate as declined drastically....less control...fewer deaths....the "wild west" had almost no gun control...and during the "wildest" period had something like 10 deaths....

more laws and control seems to have the reverse effect....


something else to think on....how does a tyrant (any tyrant) retain control?....by keeping the masses disarmed and in fear...

Yes, and Chicago has by large margin the most strict gun laws of any city in the US and is a complete warzone. 350 murders with guns in Chicago this year so far in spite of the laws. Probably 90% of these are street gang related murders. 307 of those murders were African Americans and most of these gang related.

Jamie Stick wrote:

Ousan Ka wrote: There are over 300 million guns owned by private citizens in the US. They're not going away, ban or not.

Also, the main problem is with gang members and mentally unstable people, not with the 99% of the people who own the guns.

Every one of these people that do these mass shootings are mentally ill and most other gun deaths in the US are criminal related (gangs, biker gangs, organized crime...ect).

[Citation Needed ]

http://heyjackass.com/

Not meant to be a shot at you, but an interesting site.

Jamie Stick wrote:

Ousan Ka wrote: There are over 300 million guns owned by private citizens in the US. They're not going away, ban or not.

Also, the main problem is with gang members and mentally unstable people, not with the 99% of the people who own the guns.

Every one of these people that do these mass shootings are mentally ill and most other gun deaths in the US are criminal related (gangs, biker gangs, organized crime...ect).

[Citation Needed ]

You don't need citations, BTW. Just pay attention to the stories. Everyone of them comes out later that the person had a mental issue, at least for mass shootings. Most gun deaths in the US are not mass shootings, they are gang/crime related. There's not tons of average joes out there just deciding to shoot people.

Ousan Ka wrote:
http://heyjackass.com/

Not meant to be a shot at you, but an interesting site.

Nothing in this link supports what you said.

Jamie Stick wrote:

Ousan Ka wrote:
http://heyjackass.com/

Not meant to be a shot at you, but an interesting site.

Nothing in this link supports what you said.

It supports the fact that Chicago has strict gun laws but averages a shooting every 2.5 hours in spite of that.

Also, like I said if you pay attention to the news every one of these guys that do these mass shootings end up having a mental health issue. It's more about keeping the guns out of the mentally ill people's hands than it is about "guns are bad".

You also have to realize that in the US guns are part of the lifestyle. I grew up hunting and shooting and most everyone I know has used guns in sport. It's not going away.

I'm going to preface this entry with the fact that I am a United States Marine, and I like to think that I have both an above average understanding of history, and the workings of a firearm.

So, let me just point out that the video is extremely biased in the sense that it portrays guns as the problem in regards to the rash of shootings that has plagued the United States, and proposes the fact that guns are the cause of these shootings. However, when you observe the fact that approximately 88 out of 100 Americans owns a gun, and that we hold anywhere from 35 to 50 percent of the world's armory, I would propose that our shooting rates are actually pretty low. Further, our disposition towards political upheavals, and our disposition towards engaging in a civil war or regional (emphasis on regional) conflict are much lower than those of our peers. From 1800 to 1899, there were 53 conflicts in Europe between generally the same belligerents. There were four regional conflicts in North America, including the genocide/forced relocation of the Native Americans. During World War One and World War Two, despite our ability to engage in both wars early on, we didn't engage until it was absolutely necessary (1918 in WWI and 1941 in WWII. WWI started in 1914, and WWII started in 1939). Prior to the outbreak of World War Two, Isoroku Yamamoto said "Japan would never invade the United States, we would find a rifle behind every blade of grass." The point I am making is that America's guns played (and still play) and integral part of the national security of the United States during our formative years.

Further, any anti-gun argument targets the Second Amendment of the Constitution. Aside from the fact that every Amendment in the constitution is nearly impossible to change without years and years of effort, the second amendment is a part of our Bill of Rights. In other words, it is so engrained in our psyche as Americans, that an effort to take our guns would likely lead to a prohibition-style outright disobedience of the government... Or a straight civil war, take your pick. In short, you could have some gun crime in America, or cops and other legal officials being murdered/targeted/horrible civil conflict because you attempted to change a right that Americans have had for all time. Imagine the upheaval if someone tried to take the 13th Amendment. It would never happen. Ever. Too much blood was spilled to make that societal change in the United States. Much like gun owners, especially in the beginning of the United States (1775-1812) clenched and retained independence from the English twice... With personally owned weapons.
Also, I would like to offer a more modern opposition to the gun control argument: Mass shootings have been stopped multiple times by responsible gun owners or armed private security personnel. In Chattanooga Tennessee, two recruiters stopped an Islamic extremists from lighting up the entire staff of a U.S. military recruiting office, because they were armed. This was not a one time incident. Many times, an armed Samaritan has acted and stopped a mass shooting before it became a mass shooting. Despite these incidents, there are still plenty of mass casualty shootings to go around.

Finally, I would like to put forth a more faith-based argument. As Jedi, it is our prerogative to intervene in violent situations. Although almost every situation has a non-violent resolution, we must be prepared to lift a sword in defense of those who cannot defend themselves. Except, swords don't shoot bullets... And cannot be used from a distance... Which means a shooter presents a pretty dangerous end to our sworn oath to defend the defenseless. So, as Jedi we must be willing to adapt, and accept a certain amount of risk. Instead of shying away from guns, adopt them, learn how to use them just as we would a sword. And become familiar with their operation during high stress situations. This would both reduce the fear factor behind guns, reduce the danger to yourself and those around you when encountering a gun, and increase your overall capability to protect those around you when faced with a gun. I'm not saying every Jedi should have a concealed carry and turn the world into the modern rendition of Romeo and Juliet, but I am saying that Jedi should be familiar with weapons. Such as, calibers, firing distances, penetration capability, and types of firearms, so that if we are presented with a mass shooting, we can still save lives... Even if we can't shoot back.

E-3_4L_Teeter wrote: I'm going to preface this entry with the fact that I am a United States Marine, and I like to think that I have both an above average understanding of history, and the workings of a firearm.

So, let me just point out that the video is extremely biased in the sense that it portrays guns as the problem in regards to the rash of shootings that has plagued the United States, and proposes the fact that guns are the cause of these shootings. However, when you observe the fact that approximately 88 out of 100 Americans owns a gun, and that we hold anywhere from 35 to 50 percent of the world's armory, I would propose that our shooting rates are actually pretty low. Further, our disposition towards political upheavals, and our disposition towards engaging in a civil war or regional (emphasis on regional) conflict are much lower than those of our peers. From 1800 to 1899, there were 53 conflicts in Europe between generally the same belligerents. There were four regional conflicts in North America, including the genocide/forced relocation of the Native Americans. During World War One and World War Two, despite our ability to engage in both wars early on, we didn't engage until it was absolutely necessary (1918 in WWI and 1941 in WWII. WWI started in 1914, and WWII started in 1939). Prior to the outbreak of World War Two, Isoroku Yamamoto said "Japan would never invade the United States, we would find a rifle behind every blade of grass." The point I am making is that America's guns played (and still play) and integral part of the national security of the United States during our formative years.

Further, any anti-gun argument targets the Second Amendment of the Constitution. Aside from the fact that every Amendment in the constitution is nearly impossible to change without years and years of effort, the second amendment is a part of our Bill of Rights. In other words, it is so engrained in our psyche as Americans, that an effort to take our guns would likely lead to a prohibition-style outright disobedience of the government... Or a straight civil war, take your pick. In short, you could have some gun crime in America, or cops and other legal officials being murdered/targeted/horrible civil conflict because you attempted to change a right that Americans have had for all time. Imagine the upheaval if someone tried to take the 13th Amendment. It would never happen. Ever. Too much blood was spilled to make that societal change in the United States. Much like gun owners, especially in the beginning of the United States (1775-1812) clenched and retained independence from the English twice... With personally owned weapons.
Also, I would like to offer a more modern opposition to the gun control argument: Mass shootings have been stopped multiple times by responsible gun owners or armed private security personnel. In Chattanooga Tennessee, two recruiters stopped an Islamic extremists from lighting up the entire staff of a U.S. military recruiting office, because they were armed. This was not a one time incident. Many times, an armed Samaritan has acted and stopped a mass shooting before it became a mass shooting. Despite these incidents, there are still plenty of mass casualty shootings to go around.

Finally, I would like to put forth a more faith-based argument. As Jedi, it is our prerogative to intervene in violent situations. Although almost every situation has a non-violent resolution, we must be prepared to lift a sword in defense of those who cannot defend themselves. Except, swords don't shoot bullets... And cannot be used from a distance... Which means a shooter presents a pretty dangerous end to our sworn oath to defend the defenseless. So, as Jedi we must be willing to adapt, and accept a certain amount of risk. Instead of shying away from guns, adopt them, learn how to use them just as we would a sword. And become familiar with their operation during high stress situations. This would both reduce the fear factor behind guns, reduce the danger to yourself and those around you when encountering a gun, and increase your overall capability to protect those around you when faced with a gun. I'm not saying every Jedi should have a concealed carry and turn the world into the modern rendition of Romeo and Juliet, but I am saying that Jedi should be familiar with weapons. Such as, calibers, firing distances, penetration capability, and types of firearms, so that if we are presented with a mass shooting, we can still save lives... Even if we can't shoot back.

The misunderstanding I get from people that never lived here is the distrust for authority we have here in the US. Somehow the spirit of the revolution is still alive here and that is the reason that it is in the constitution.

Ousan Ka wrote:
It supports the fact that Chicago has strict gun laws but averages a shooting every 2.5 hours in spite of that.

But the original video I posted isn't calling for "stricter gun laws" or background check or anything like that. It's calling for less guns, period.

Ousan Ka wrote: Also, like I said if you pay attention to the news every one of these guys that do these mass shootings end up having a mental health issue. It's more about keeping the guns out of the mentally ill people's hands than it is about "guns are bad".

What the media reports and what is fact are two different things.

Ousan Ka wrote: Also, like I said if you pay attention to the news every one of these guys that do these mass shootings end up having a mental health issue. It's more about keeping the guns out of the mentally ill people's hands than it is about "guns are bad".

One of the problems with keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally ill is the ever-expanding definition of what constitutes mental illness these days. With no real understandable underlying mechanism for what constitutes the basis of a label of "mental illness", it is far to easy to slowly pathologize political viewpoints, and therefore brand those who do not agree with some aspect of the system as mentally ill. Often mental illnesses are created from whole cloth from normal human behaviors and emotions.

http://www.livescience.com/34496-psychiatric-manual-stirs-controversy.html

CryojenX wrote:

Ousan Ka wrote: Also, like I said if you pay attention to the news every one of these guys that do these mass shootings end up having a mental health issue. It's more about keeping the guns out of the mentally ill people's hands than it is about "guns are bad".

One of the problems with keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally ill is the ever-expanding definition of what constitutes mental illness these days. With no real understandable underlying mechanism for what constitutes the basis of a label of "mental illness", it is far to easy to slowly pathologize political viewpoints, and therefore brand those who do not agree with some aspect of the system as mentally ill. Often mental illnesses are created from whole cloth from normal human behaviors and emotions.

http://www.livescience.com/34496-psychiatric-manual-stirs-controversy.html

Yeah, it's complicated. Personally, I think that people are much less likely to try this sort of thing if people are allowed to have armed guards or conceal and carry. All it would take is one person in that crowd to be a conceal and carry person and instead of 10 people dying, maybe just one.

I think people have to understand that if you want to enjoy freedom there are risks involved.

Jamie Stick wrote:

Ousan Ka wrote:
It supports the fact that Chicago has strict gun laws but averages a shooting every 2.5 hours in spite of that.

But the original video I posted isn't calling for "stricter gun laws" or background check or anything like that. It's calling for less guns, period.

Ousan Ka wrote: Also, like I said if you pay attention to the news every one of these guys that do these mass shootings end up having a mental health issue. It's more about keeping the guns out of the mentally ill people's hands than it is about "guns are bad".

What the media reports and what is fact are two different things.

So, when every media outlet reports that these guys have mental problems they are lying or wrong huh?

Ousan Ka wrote: I think people have to understand that if you want to enjoy freedom there are risks involved.

there are many reasons and many factors - one that i think is relevant here (but not always) is a sort of victim mindset - some people feel like victims and then are mean and angry, and also weak, but rather than find ways to strenghten themself, they demand that the world be made safe, which of course it never will be