Are you pro-gun, or anti-gun?

[Peebo]

The weapons listed are among a list of banned weapons that are known to be favoured for abuse in some way. Creedence is given to the ‘lethal mystique’ that an object holds for those who experience a need to compensate for personal lack of some sort.

My 8 year old niece was only just telling me about how a certain type of kids trading card has been banned from her school for the negative effect it was bringing to the general school community. You might say how can a piece of card with a picture on it be a negative thing. Well the fact is that some kids with certain lacks (not even criminal or evil types), can over invest their self worth and self esteem into owning a piece of coloured card. That has led some who might ordinarily not turn to crime…behaving in a criminal way to secure this illusion of power or esteem that is so illusive from within themselves. And alternately, others feel inordinately diminished and insecure due to not being the owner of this piece of magical cure all.

Manufacturing a false sense of worth, power or even security (which defense guns promise)… is big business for someone but step back a step or two and see the big picture of their effect on the community.

Wow…and all of this was deduced from a kids"trading card"…isn’t that a tad paranoid…lucky that most adult Australians don’t own guns

 

[LongingSoul]

Wow…and all of this was deduced from a kids"trading card"…isn’t that a tad paranoid…lucky that most adult Australians don’t own guns

Lol. Paranoia? Irony.

 

[Annie39]

These are not the people to ask about what policy should be applied in general because their judgement is bound to be clouded by their own recent personal experience. I think it is valuable to ask these people for their (name removed by moderator)ut on what they observed to help guide the formation of future policy, but the ultimate policy decision should be made by someone who can rationally take into account all factors, including all the people who will be wrongfully accused of being a threat to society if much stricter policies are put in place.

Well, as I see it your opinion defies logic and common sense. Let’s see, a young man is known to be very mentally disturbed and has been since early childhood. This is on record. At the time of his purchase of guns his mental state was knowable but due to his precious civil rights the authority’s hands were tied and could not know this. So if I’m understanding you correctly you would like to restrict everyone’s ability to purchase guns just so those who are on record as being dangerous can keep their civil rights and you have deemed it is there civil rights not to be “outed” so to speak as dangers to society? Where are our civil rights here?

On top of which you don’t think that those poor parents can think as straight as theoreticians who sit behind desks making rules for we people who live in the real world? Those power hungry people who never walked in their shoes? The parents know that many people in his life knew of his threats of violence. They know that the police have in their possession the videos where he is threatening violence just before he committed it. They called the police in Isla Vista and warned them not long before the crime was committed. They were frantically trying to get from L.A. about an hour and a half away (or more, L.A. is a big county) to Isla Vista. They were listening to the radio as they were traveling and heard about the slaughter. They called the police to tell them that they think that the stabber/shooter/car murderer was their son. Oh how tragic. Do you not think that they might have a little (name removed by moderator)ut into whether or not the violently mentally ill should have his precious civil rights violated? What’s worse, a man who is about to murder your loved one having his civil rights violated or your loved one ending up dead in a deli? Rather than the parents’ mind being clouded over this recent experience I believe that the experience probably has sharpened their focus. I know that the threat to my family member has sharpened my focus.

It seems to me that in order not to violate the bad guy’s civil rights you would like everyone else’s civil rights to be violated. That’s the great equalizer I suppose. I don’t know why you don’t think that I, who am close to a similar situation would not be a good person to ask if I think that a person who has threatened the life of a member of my family should have her civil rights violated to check to see if she had been involuntarily committed for threatening suicide before she is allowed to purchase a gun in this right to carry state. Oh yes, you think that since there are people who are too mentally disturbed to carry a gun, those of us who are not must bow to the civil rights god and get ours taken from us equally.

Annie

 

[GaryTaylor]

14,827 people were murdered last year in the United States, well down from 24,526 in 1993, when the country’s population was smaller. Experts point to the end of the country’s epidemic of crack use in the early 1990s.

google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CEsQFjAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.rawstory.com%2Frs%2F2013%2F09%2F16%2Fu-s-murder-rate-higher-than-nearly-all-other-developed-countries-fbi-data%2F&ei=HcaIU8XtMOrSsASMzoDQBQ&usg=AFQjCNH0dxByip71KDntFEznCsQO0gS__w

The guns are not the problem, behavior as always is the problem, we should all agree to put "God"back in the schools.

And in other 20 years we will have very few murders. We could start working on the God-School program this semester. God and Michelle Obamas new lunch program and we should be golden.

google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCYQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FList_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate&ei=HcaIU8XtMOrSsASMzoDQBQ&usg=AFQjCNEJFCxm5K6oJNfjqb_7dY1yog0AZA

Statistically speaking whats the issue?

 

[FightingFat]

I don’t own a gun and I would prefer to live in a society where guns are not carried by civilians.

No, guns are not bad. Cars are not bad either, but we do have rules, strict rules, to control how cars are used, because there are lots of stupid people who would misuse them otherwise, and the result would be death and mayhem. Even as it is, with the control, there’s still quite a lot of death and mayhem.

I think we should treat guns similarly.

 

[otjm]

I am a gun owner, and voted undecided. Mainly since pro-gun and anti-gun were undefined. Too many ways to interpret it.

I think people should be able to own guns for self-defense, hunting, and sport. I consider the owning a gun for self-defense a very bad idea in most cases. I would, if at all possible, move before I would live somewhere that I thought a gun was needed for protection. But I realize moving is not possible for everyone, so it may be necessary in those cases.
I have lived around guns my whole life (grew up on a farm/ranch where we had a .22 in every work pickup). I own several, enjoy shooting them with my kids at the range. Used to hunt birds quite a bit, but no time anymore.

And the gun culture has changed for worse, by far IMO. I go to the shooting range and I see a lot of high power handguns and assault type guns. When I was a kid, these would have been looked upon with scorn by 99% of gun owners. You had a gun, of the caliber required, that was suitable for the type of hunting you were going to do. THe only people who owned military type firearms were those who collected them. And I never shot a handgun until I was in college (and I still don’t enjoy it).

I think we have way too many handguns floating around. Anyone who does not think violence in the US, compared to other countries, is higher as a result of our current gun culture is kidding themselves.
I think all guns should be registered. Background checks are needed.
Reasonable gun laws are needed.
BTW: I have never voted for a democrat in my life, so don’t accuse me of being liberal.

We have two problems with violence: one is from criminals, particularly the gangs, and the other is from people who are deranged.

I have twice been trapped in a commercial building at night by a burglar; in one instance, they were armed; in the second, unknown. In the first instance, I was effectively out in the open, unarmed (my office was locked, and to this day I do not remember using the key to get in).

In another circumstance, my brother and his wife were out in public in an area normally considered very safe, when they were confronted by two individuals; whether the two were armed or not we don’t know. My brother has his CCW, and reached back to draw; the two upon seeing this immediately turned and moved off rapidly.

Background checks can stop (and do stop - ask your locl gun shop) criminals from obtaining a gun. But they do not stop the mentally deranged, because our health system does not categorize them. In each of the last group shootings, the shooter has subsequently been determined to be mentally deranged; but our system does not have a means of identifying them. Unless and until it does, we will continue to have mass shootings.

Yes, we have too many guns floating around within the criminal world. And as long as the drug trade continues to flourish, we will continue to have far too many criminals with guns. The answer, however, is not restricting guns; it is an oxymoron to assume that any criminals will come forward to rid themselves of theirs.

There are plenty of gun laws on the books; and precious little prosecution based on it.
We don’t need more laws; we need effective prosecution of the ones we have.

 

[LongingSoul]

I don’t own a gun and I would prefer to live in a society where guns are not carried by civilians.

No, guns are not bad. Cars are not bad either, but we do have rules, strict rules, to control how cars are used, because there are lots of stupid people who would misuse them otherwise, and the result would be death and mayhem. Even as it is, with the control, there’s still quite a lot of death and mayhem.

I think we should treat guns similarly.

There’s a different mentality between car ownership and gun ownership. People buy a car to transport themselves from place to place without any expectation to kill anyone. When you buy your gun in the sense of this debate, it is with the expectation of using it to kill someone. Guns that are bought by civilians for the purpose of sport, career or farm related needs, don’t have that purpose infused in them.

The most worrying aspect is the number of people that truly believe that they have the god given right to own a gun to kill in self defense. This explains why guns are so highly prized and proponents dismissive of gun crime and gun death rates. It makes it obvious why the gun is so prized by those who experience retributive motives whether mentally ill, psychopathic or agrieved in some way in their lives.

Guns need to be divested of their glory in the culture. The number of vanity photos of people proudly posing with guns cocked in readiness, pistols akimbo or laid proudly across their hearts in a sort of nationalistic fervour… demonstrates an exaggerated and sick reverence for its lethal force. In 2012, 2 young male Aussie swimmers posted such photos as this on their facebook page prior to the Olympics. They were very nearly banned altogether, but were permitted to swim their events in the end but forced to fly straight home after the events. A great deal of importance is given to this mentality as character eroding in general psychology. That never seems to even be acknowledged in the least in the pro gun argument. People who invest part of themselves and their esteem into something outside of themselves and hold it as their inalienable right, inevitably lose the ability to reason independently. They become this ‘thing’ in some ways and aren’t able to step away and look at the big picture.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Everyone has the right to human dignity. This is why all human life is of value, even though they are in the midst of criminal activity. True, their actions could cost them their life, but self-defense to the point of taking a life must be the last alternative, per Aquinas.

As to we are all evil, a simple reading of the epistles of St. Paul supports this. " If anyone thinks he stands, take heed lest he fall." “That which I hate, I do.” etc. If anyone owns a gun and is not honest with his own temptations, especially if he ever drinks, is ever angry, can be jealous, then he is a danger. A bullet does not know friend or foe. It can kill a loved one, or a burglar.

I do not disagree. In fact I support Aquinas.

My point is simply that the right to keep and bear arms is guaranteed to all Americans.

What do we do about it?

 

[Gorgias]

There’s a different mentality between car ownership and gun ownership. People buy a car to transport themselves from place to place without any expectation to kill anyone. When you buy your gun in the sense of this debate, it is with the expectation of using it to kill someone.

When you buy car insurance, is it with the expectation that you’ll be in an auto accident? Or, rather, is it that you wish never to have to use the insurance, but want to be able to protect yourself and your loved ones in the event of an incident you wish never to experience?

Big difference… and a completely different ‘spin’ than the one you’re attempting to put on the situation…

The most worrying aspect is the number of people that truly believe that they have the god given right to own a gun to kill in self defense.

Do you have the right to defend your life against an aggressor intent on killing you? Aquinas thought so…

Guns need to be divested of their glory in the culture.

Agreed. They’re tools, not idols…

People who invest part of themselves and their esteem into something outside of themselves and hold it as their inalienable right, inevitably lose the ability to reason independently. They become this ‘thing’ in some ways and aren’t able to step away and look at the big picture.

Umm… I invest part of myself and my esteem on God’s love for me and on Jesus’ sacrifice for me. Does that mean I’ve lost “my ability to reason independently”? Does that mean that my ability to reason has been affected for the worse? Does that mean that my love of God makes me a “‘thing’ in some ways” who cannot “look at the big picture”? No, I don’t think so, either…

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Csókolom Zoltan. I don’t see it your way. As I see it if parents like the Rogers report their child as a danger which I believe that they did. Or if a person had been committed for dangerous behavior whether voluntary or not or if anyone has told the authorities that this person is dangerous that should go on a record of that person and that record should prevent the dangerous person from owning a firearm. Of course the person who would be reported should be notified so that he/she could contest the accusation.

BTW since Zoltan is an Hungarian name I just took a guess so if you aren’t Magyar the greeting means hello

Annie

:kiss4you: Annie:

Every conceivable red flag was raised about Rogers. The police even questioned him days before his rampage. His parents knew he was weird. He promulgated what he intended to do…

From his video, I see a spoiled brat, with a heavy class envy problem. One who “hates the rich”.

What if I said that anyone, including forum members who have indicated a touch of class envy or demeaned the wealthy, should be denied the right to posses firearms, knives and BMW autos, and should be placed in protective custody and evaluated.

You know that just may save a few lives in the future.

What do you think?

PS. I was born in Hungary. Fled to the U.S. with my uncle after my parents were killed in the Revolution. If I remember correctly “Csókolom” also means “tossing a kiss”

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Now you are getting more practical, which is a good thing. You are addressing the real problems that lawmakers have to struggle with when dealing with gun laws.

I know that I have to undergo a periodic medical evaluation every two years just to exercise my right to fly my own little plane. And even that exam has some mental health questions. Would it be so different to undergo some sort of periodic exam to exercise the right to keep a firearm? I admit I don’t know.

Technically, Your Private Pilot’s license is a “permission” to fly a plane. As long as that permission can be revoked by the FAA it is not a right. Your right to keep and bear arms is protected by the Constitution. The federal government cannot infringe on that right. Licensing and registration are infringements. The federal government does not license or register firearms.

 

[LongingSoul]

When you buy car insurance, is it with the expectation that you’ll be in an auto accident? Or, rather, is it that you wish never to have to use the insurance, but want to be able to protect yourself and your loved ones in the event of an incident you wish never to experience?

Big difference… and a completely different ‘spin’ than the one you’re attempting to put on the situation…

That really doesn’t equate (even though I have heard people say that a gun is insurance)…because the purpose of ‘insurance’ is to make people whole in the event of troubles. A gun is about gaining the upper hand over someone else. The gun is saying that anothers death is a fair and just response to their criminal intention towards me or my property. An individual is forbidden to make such a call.

Do you have the right to defend your life against an aggressor intent on killing you? Aquinas thought so…

You have the right to defend yourself with moderate force in order to make a blameless defense. As per Aquinas, an individual has no right to intend to kill in self defense. To be pre armed with a weapon that is made to kill begs the question… does that form prior intent?

Umm… I invest part of myself and my esteem on God’s love for me and on Jesus’ sacrifice for me. Does that mean I’ve lost “my ability to reason independently”? Does that mean that my ability to reason has been affected for the worse? Does that mean that my love of God makes me a “‘thing’ in some ways” who cannot “look at the big picture”? No, I don’t think so, either…

I am Yahweh your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. You shall have no other gods before me. You shall not make for yourselves an idol, nor any image of anything that is in the heavens above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: you shall not bow yourself down to them, nor serve them, for I, Yahweh your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, on the third and on the fourth generation of those who hate me, and showing loving kindness to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments.— Exodus 20:2-6

It is a given that we belong to God. We are made in His image and are His children.

 

[GaryTaylor]

You have the right to defend yourself with moderate force in order to make a blameless defense. As per Aquinas, an individual has no right to intend to kill in self defense. To be pre armed with a weapon that is made to kill begs the question… does that form prior intent?

A person is justified in using reasonable physical force on another person to defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of physical force. The defender may use the degree of force he reasonably believes is necessary to defend himself or a third person. But deadly physical force cannot be used unless the actor reasonably believes that the attacker is using or about to use deadly physical force or inflicting or about to inflict great bodily harm- (CGS § 53a-19).

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Put yourself in the role of government lawmakers who are responsible for the common good and welfare of the community as a whole. What do you propose to try and stop massacres and gun violence within the community? Or are you proposing that they are unfortunate collateral damage that should just be tolerated?

In the United States, the ONLY responsibility government lawmakers have is to “…uphold and defend the Constitution.” Nothing more. Oh…well they also spend our money.

As an elected “lawmaker” my first duty would be to defend the rights of all citizens as guaranteed by our Constitution. Rather than being restrictive (it does not work) I would enable law abiding citizens to protect themselves.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

I am hoping that this is a problem with a remedy. In Texas, such a database does exist, and we spend precious little on mental health here. If other states have, or get, such a system, national checks would be possible.

Do you realize how many rights, other than the right to privacy, that will violate?

When the first law abiding citizen is refused a firearm due to a bureaucratic mistake about his/her “mental health”…that system will be closed down in record time.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Lets face it Anti gun opponents would be anti-gun even is no-one was hurt. Its just a fact of life these people exist, and usually in fear with the imagination of a Utopia which isn’t realistic. Something about peace, flowers, free-sex, smoke-pot and so forth, not realistic. Youthful imagination of a non existing world.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Good Evening Zoltan: Don’t be. We’re just discussing.
Gary Sheldrake;12036900:

I am offering the idea that devices have specific intents or what developers call “use cases” when they are invented and manufactured. The “use case” for a gun is to shoot. You can use it as a paperweight, but that is not its purpose.

…and you can use a paperweight as a murder weapon, but that is not its purpose.

I am talking about RIGHTS. devices have no rights.

It is admittedly my own practical experience and observation that I am going on, but I do not have the understanding that God either gave or intended any rights for anyone.

There are a lot of things that I don’t understand about God. I would agree that He has no concept of “rights”. But as simple humans we need a basic understanding of His will and that means we need a moral concept…rights (?)

The public at large carrying around suction devices and other tools used for abortion are not a threat to the general population. There is little purchase to be had in attempting a “mass sucking” in a crowded street or building, nor is there little chance of becoming the unintended victim of a “drive by sucking.” Children don’t accidentally blow their siblings or their own faces off with suction devices, and few hunters would be killed in sucking accidents. On the other hand, we know the potential that guns have for such things, and we know these outcomes well.

Hmmm…let’s see: 1.2 MILLION Abortions last year. How many murders with firearms???

I agree again. My sense is that the difference may lie in our perceptions of what the best means of sustaining and advancing life might be. I think more lives could be saved or improved through proper funding of research than can be done with weapons.

Remember I am focusing on RIGHTS.

How do you define a good person and an evil person? Everyone is capable of and participates in both. Is there a certain threshold that you are applying in determining who is which? For instance, I do bad things sometimes and at other times I do some very good things. Which does that make me - good or evil? I think I am neither good nor evil.

Gary, I am getting the feeling that you are saying there is no difference between good and evil. That there is no evil and there is no good???

We are all part of each other Zoltan. In reality, I do not think there is any “us” vs. “them.” It’s all “us.” Any perception of separation is illusory insofar as I am able to reason. So the question is what are “we” going to do about all this gun violence?

Thank you,
Gary

Since there is no “us vs them” and we are all “us”…then my answer to your question would be the only acceptable solution to the problem facing “us”. No argument. A separation of ideals would be an illusion…“we is we”.

So, if you are sitting down…shall I continue?

 

[Annie39]

Lets face it Anti gun opponents would be anti-gun even is no-one was hurt. Its just a fact of life these people exist, and usually in fear with the imagination of a Utopia which isn’t realistic. Something about peace, flowers, free-sex, smoke-pot and so forth, not realistic. Youthful imagination of a non existing world.

Yep

 

[Annie39]

I don’t own a gun and I would prefer to live in a society where guns are not carried by civilians.

No, guns are not bad. Cars are not bad either, but we do have rules, strict rules, to control how cars are used, because there are lots of stupid people who would misuse them otherwise, and the result would be death and mayhem. Even as it is, with the control, there’s still quite a lot of death and mayhem.

I think we should treat guns similarly.

I can see that preferring a society where guns are not carried by civilians would be a fine preference. What strict gun rules do you think should be implemented that would remove guns from the bad guys. When there is a ban on guns and people are told to turn their guns in to the authorities, law abiding citizens by definition turn them in. Witness Australia’s somewhat recent history. However they have not come up with a law to disarm the bad guys. Witness Australia and England etc. today

Annie

 

[pnewton]

I do not disagree. In fact I support Aquinas.

My point is simply that the right to keep and bear arms is guaranteed to all Americans.

What do we do about it?

For me, I am all about gun education focusing first on preventing the need to use it. Secure one’s home and person first. Then the need for defense is less likely. I am also in favor of combing databases of those with mental illness and including that as part of a background check.

But let’s face it, there are lot’s of possible answers to the gun issue, some better than others, without a repeal of the Second Amendment.