Are you pro-gun, or anti-gun?

[Rau]

Can’t do it…violation of rights.

The possibility of two or more groups within the United States going "to war’ with each other is a bit fantastic.

A good example…there are millions of licensed hunters in the U.S. There are also millions of gun owners who are NOT hunters…all have guns.

In the aftermath of 9/11 none of these “Elmer Fudd” hunters or Assault weapon crack pots formed a group (militia, vigilante…whatever) and began shooting up Islamic Mosques.

It doesn’t happen in America.

Sounds like the constitution’s motivation to grant a right to bear arms is no longer relevant. But we knew that!

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Actually we get along because of the rule of law.

Yes, one of which is gun control.

The danger is to our American culture. That should come first.

Immigrants came to our country to leave their old country and culture behind. For many reasons.

…the most common being economic.

The promotion of diversity or nationalism, other than the American culture and patriotism, makes a thinking person wonder why an immigrant would WANT to come to America in the first place.

That is easy. For the prosperity. There is no reason they would necessarily need to abandon their culture to do that. Remember that those who founded this country were also immigrants. But being the first immigrants they were in a position to define the new American culture. Instead of blending into the existing native cultures in this land we simply destroyed those cultures. They just weren’t powerful enough to kick us out. Oh well. Too bad for them. Now we have new immigrants coming to this country. They might naturally want to redefine the culture to conform more to their way of thinking. But instead of using force of arms and superior technology, they are using the rule of law, as you say, to promote these changes - something our societal structure provides for. If they happen to accomplish that by voting, then oh well. Too bad for us, just like it was too bad for the natives we kicked out. We can’t claim any moral high ground in that debate.

 

[Gorgias]

Good Evening Gorgias: I gave you the sources, and you can look them up. Not being a snob or anything, but I’m not your intern.

Here’s the thing, Gary. Unless I’m mistaken – and please show me, if I am – you didn’t “give sources”, at least not in any way that could be fact-checked. Rather, you just said “a number of sources such as the CDC”, “Department of Labor and Census Bureau”, “the US Health and Human Services Department”. Now, these aren’t citations – they’re just you waving your hands and asserting that your figures are valid. Either you have real numbers (which means that you have a source that you looked up, and can provide that URL to us), or you’re just making it up as you go along. (OK… that’s not completely fair – maybe you did read this somewhere, but don’t remember where, and so, you’re relating this from memory.)

Let’s be clear: I’m not asking you to do my research; but, if these are real numbers, which you looked up, then I’m simply asking you to be fair and point out where these numbers are… so that I might be able to research them! If you took the time to do the research, then share with us the data that you found, and not just your summary of the information (see… that’s what passes for ‘substantiation’). Short of doing that, it’s only reasonable to suspect that this is just anecdotal. After all, you yourself said that the numbers that you provided were “distilled from a number of sources”; if you wish us to believe your numbers, then show us how you distilled them. Otherwise, we can’t evaluate the truth of your figures.

You’re not my intern, Gary … but you’re also not my mama – I’m willing to verify your information, but not take your word for it unless you can substantiate it … which you have been either unwilling or unable to do so far.

People with guns most often kill themselves, relatives and people they know for the most part. You can also look that up.

It’s your assertion. You need to prove it. If you can’t, then it’s not fact, just opinion.

 

[JohnMGonser]

I am anti-gun and not a gun owner.

Id like to qualify though, I am not completely anti-gun, I believe Australia’s gun laws are fantastic, as you can still own certain guns like bolt actions, semi automatics and shotguns, you just can’t purchase and keep rediculous weapons like automatic assault rifles and concealable hand guns etc.

Please feel free to challenge my stance on this issue though.

Thank you for reading
Josh

Josh, you can’t own (without special permit) fully-automatic weapons in the United States, either. The media and many political figures incorrectly identify semi-automatic rifles as “automatic” and don’t know what an assault weapon actually is. Many of these people go on the appearance of the weapon, and if it looks “scary” then is must be lumped in with actual assault rifles. No challenge to your stance, but I’d like you to try to find an actual assault rifle that is not in a licensed collection anywhere in your location.

Advice: don’t ask questions about firearms to a person who doesn’t know anything about firearms. I’ve forgotten more about firearms than all of the media pundits have ever known, or will ever know.

By the way, I remember many family members and friends collecting rifles that were of specified calibers to send to England prior to WWII to equip the Home Guard. Darned good thing we did, too. And recall the Japanese high command that said they didn’t want to launch a land invasion of USA because there were too many armed people here.

 

[DianePa]

I’m not talking about just any venue. Talking specifically about schools and the type of places where there are large numbers of vulnerable people that aren’t permitted by law to own a gun for self defense. Even if by law everyone allowed to own a gun was allowed to carry it in readiness at all times… there will still be places were the majority of people are unarmed because they don’t qualify under law to be armed.

But you can’t seriously be saying to the vulnerable groups like school children ‘leave your lives and safety in the hands of a random stranger with a gun wandering around in the school premises’. Without any organisation, how can an armed defender be guaranteed at any one time. Are you expecting that the law should actually oblige every qualified adult to carry a gun and be prepared to act in defense of the vulnerable? As a rational thinking adult, I can’t imagine being happy to trust my childrens schooltime wellbeing to that sort of uncertainty. All you are doing is putting more guns in the mix, not making a guarantee of credible armed defense for the children.

Why don’t ‘the people’ form a defense league of all the people they know who are trustworthy and carry guns, as a public service to really be in line with the constitution. As we established earlier, the constitution was created for the sake of the ‘general welfare’… not primarily to protect an individuals rights regardless of the general welfare. That means that each and every person has the right to adequate defense of their person… just not those who might qualify for a gun. To be fully respectful of the constitution, those who are lucky enough to qualify should by law be required to devote equal time to defending the nonqualifiers in a real and practical way in order for the equal safety of *every *American.

It seems to me that people are only cherrypicking from the constitution to suit themselves. They really don’t care about the general welfare that it was designed to protect.

I am done arguing with your absurdities especially in your false statement, “the constitution was created for the sake of the ‘general welfare’… not primarily to protect an individuals rights…”
Fact: the constitution was established not for the government but to protect the individual FROM the government. Rights of the individual were inherent and only those rights granted by the people, collective individuals, were granted restrictively to the government.

It does seem you would argue in favor of the ‘no guns allowed’ signs but hypocritically would suggest those of us who have weapons volunteer to be the protectors in absence of a paid security system. Can’t have it both ways: restrict us then expect us to protect your lives and interests.

Constitutionally every citizen ALREADY has the right to be armed; it a right not to be infringed upon as stated in the 2nd amendment.

You asked: “Are you expecting that the law should actually oblige every qualified adult to carry a gun and be prepared to act in defense of the vulnerable?”
Yes, if the citizen so chooses then that would be in agreement and the intent of the founders of our Republic. I would not obligate a free people to be armed…that is their choice.

Seems one of the Scandinavian countries REQUIRES each of its citizens to not only own a gun but actually provides training and a weapon to each household and the violent crime rate there is almost NIL as compared to other European countries who happen to have very restrictive gun control laws. Explain that if you can?

The General Welfare clause did not have an exception in regard to owning guns so that part of your argument is a further absurdity.

The real picking and choosing is done not by those who adhere to the constitution and its tenets but by government. An example would be the aforementioned General Welfare Clause as well as the Commerce Clause which has been warped so as to cater to every whim of the government usually other than actual general welfare or commerce.

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

Gary Sheldrake Writes:

People with guns most often kill themselves, relatives and people they know for the most part. You can also look that up.

Gorgias replies:

It’s your assertion. You need to prove it. If you can’t, then it’s not fact, just opinion.

Good Evening Gorgias:

Three quarters of gun homicide victims know their assailant, and people with guns in their home are at a greater risk than people without guns in the home of dying from a homicide in the home. Additionally, the risk of a suicide in the home is greater in homes where there are guns than for homes without guns.

You may find large bodies of data and studies supporting this in numerous places, but you may begin with Oxford Journals > Medicine > American Journal of Epidemiology Volume 160, Issue 10 Pp. 929-936.

Thank you,
Gary

 

[on_the_hill]

The more that people argue in favor of gun rights, the more I want to oppose them. I think if gun advocates would just shut up for a while, I’d be a lot more sympathetic to their cause. I’m oppositional by nature. I know it’s irrational, but been fighting it my whole life.

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

Diane: I am done arguing with your absurdities especially in your false statement, “the constitution was created for the sake of the ‘general welfare’… not primarily to protect an individuals rights…”

Good Evening Diane: I thought I might point out that the purpose of the Constitution is outlined in it’s preamble. It is a very short and simple preamble - only one sentence really, and in that sentence it says “promote the general Welfare.” This verifies what a person from another country just told you about our own constitution. I am a bit embarrassed.

Fact: the constitution was established not for the government but to protect the individual FROM the government.

The word protect can be found twice in the constitution. In neither case does it mention protecting the individual from government.

Seems one of the Scandinavian countries REQUIRES each of its citizens to not only own a gun but actually provides training and a weapon to each household and the violent crime rate there is almost NIL as compared to other European countries who happen to have very restrictive gun control laws. Explain that if you can?

I have often thought that perhaps America should spend more on its educational system and less on guns. Switzerland is not a Scandinavian country.

It is also very different from the US in many ways. It has a population smaller than some larger US cities, and because of its small size, military service is mandated. It’s population is also significantly more affluent and educated on average than the US, and as we have established on this thread, even education in the US may not be on par with some of our neighbors.

Thank you,
Gary

 

[zeloc]

Every federal building I enter has a screening program upon entering. Not the same as an open door public building. You are mixing apples and oranges.

Every federal building does not have a screening program. You are generalizing based on the federal buildings you have been to. I am not the one mixing apples and oranges, you claimed that having a anti-gun sign is an invitation for maniacs to have free rein and consider targeting those buildings. Having an anti-gun sign does not mean anything of the sort. As I stated before, the presence or absence of an anti-gun sign does not equate to the level of security of the premises.

 

[zeloc]

Yes … I work in a federal building - likewise posted that it is against federal law to carry a firearm … of course all of the building security guards carry firearms … so your claiming that posting school grounds, theaters and shopping malls as gun free zone somehow equates to a federal office building where you have to show ID to gain access, have your bags and person searched [unless you are a federal employee granted building access and even then subject to random searches and have to display your ID] to get into the building.

The Clackamas Town Center is posted no fire arms … yet this concealed carry permit holder was able to confront the shooter … while he never got a clear shot clearly his presence impacted the event in a positive manner

kgw.com/news/Clackamas-man-armed-confronts-mall-shooter-183593571.html

You are claiming that posting anti-gun signs in any place automatically and magically increases the level of security to that of a federal building? That’s a completely ridiculous assertion.

 

[YADA]

You are claiming that posting anti-gun signs in any place automatically and magically increases the level of security to that of a federal building? That’s a completely ridiculous assertion.

I said what? .… Excuse me …:nope:. but I never said what you just said I said … nor did I imply any such position ……

Posting anti-gun signs does not increase the level of security … that is absolutely ridiculous …in fact - Those signs tell the bad actors that they can create havoc with impunity

 

[migueltojose]

I said what? .… Excuse me …:nope:. but I never said what you just said I said … nor did I imply any such position ……

Posting anti-gun signs does not increase the level of security … that is absolutely ridiculous …in fact - Those signs tell the bad actors that they can create havoc with impunity

Yada Yada Yada… (Sorry… I had to do that…)

The issue here is quite a conundrum. We have rights that we have a hard time deserving. Freedom is not free. I do not want to give up any rights… ever… but if we don’t behave… there are people, drunk on power and control, who will take our rights away… for the common good… supposedly. This is extremely dangerous and not to be taken lightly… apparently there are some here on CAF, who, I must say come across as very naïve… are willing to take my rights away. Somehow they don’t see that concentrating power into a central government is not a good thing. History has repeatedly shown otherwise. I can only guess that they are young and inexperienced. We are the greatest exception in history, not because of us, but because of what led up to us, all those who died for the name of freedom (including the early Christians) and timing and luck and most of all Providence. If you study our history in detail there is no way you can conclude anything other than Providence. It is our responsibility to the world to make it work. You can hear it in the constitution, federalist papers, early American quotes, etc. and most eloquently in Lincoln’s Gettysburg address. It’s as real as life and death. And yet with the passing of time we can be so quick to lose that sense of responsibility to the world. The world is relying on us to lead the way. We need a national vision… with a strategy… and tactics… Our country is dependent on an educated and engaged citizenry. Critical mass in that regard appears to be lost. We don’t even teach it in our substandard schools.

Our leaders don’t lead. They connive to survive.

I want to maintain our rights, I can’t imagine not having them. So much hard work to attain them and blood spilled to retain them. But we have to behave.

So, behave y’all. With or without guns.

 

[GaryTaylor]

91 % agree on background checks and that was defeated in Congress. Executive order is the only way and thats not gonna occur after the latest Congressional escapade. And this really didn’t effect the rights.

How can people behave in a more responsible manner when family and social structure is void let alone Christian moral ethics. This mental heath issue has been breed into the US fabric and for long enough where its reap and sow now. Pleasure, exploitation and objectification are rampant as is abortion and drugs…seven deadly sins. When you have drug gangs actively engaging in violence and for years, then the anti-government plan is already being enacted. These latest case’s are last minute “plans” acted on. Big difference than with well thought out and planned narcotics trade. These people have been creating a revolution for a very long time. The escalation is a result of perpetuated and realistic fears. They are acting out of control because they feel society is out of control, namely the government.

They need better response by police which is beginning to happen by adjustment. Theres no time to set-up swat teams and devise a plan outside of the school when the shooter is discharging a round every couple seconds.

So the first response becomes imperative in interceding.

 

[GaryTaylor]

What the schools need is much better evacuation plans. Like push out windows on a bus only in every classroom there should be one. You can’t have kids cowling in a fetal position with the class light off hoping they don’t get shot. They are sitting targets, now if they go out a emergency exit window then they are “moving” and toward safety. Scatter is the better plan imho. Not pretty but it buys time.

 

[pnewton]

You are claiming that posting anti-gun signs in any place automatically and magically increases the level of security to that of a federal building? That’s a completely ridiculous assertion.

Magic is not mentioned. We should read posts carefully enough to be able to respond to what was said, not create false straw men.

 

[zeloc]

What the schools need is much better evacuation plans. Like push out windows on a bus only in every classroom there should be one. You can’t have kids cowling in a fetal position with the class light off hoping they don’t get shot. They are sitting targets, now if they go out a emergency exit window then they are “moving” and toward safety. Scatter is the better plan imho. Not pretty but it buys time.

When you consider the demographic, I would say that it is impossible to set up such a plan or expect that kids are going to act semi-rationally in such a situation. All of my schools had fire drills, emergency drills, etc. Except for me, all the kids were chatting with each other, not paying attention to anything, defiant of authority. The drills were always noisy and it was impossible to get anyone’s attention. This is why in real fires, everywhere in the world, there is always mass chaos and it is very noisy. I have never heard of a fire in which everyone maintains silence, and consequently, huge numbers of excess people die in fires in buildings due to inefficient exiting, without anyone even realizing that they, collectively, are the cause of a horrific event when there could have been a small number of casualties.

 

[DianePa]

Every federal building does not have a screening program. You are generalizing based on the federal buildings you have been to. I am not the one mixing apples and oranges, you claimed that having a anti-gun sign is an invitation for maniacs to have free rein and consider targeting those buildings. Having an anti-gun sign does not mean anything of the sort. As I stated before, the presence or absence of an anti-gun sign does not equate to the level of security of the premises.

My point is that anti-gun signs might well be welcome signs for mental deviants looking for targets. Most of the places where the killings took place did not permit even legal CCP people to have on their person licensed weapons. Surely you can not argue that a no weapon sign increases security can you?

 

[zeloc]

Yada Yada Yada… (Sorry… I had to do that…)

The issue here is quite a conundrum. We have rights that we have a hard time deserving. Freedom is not free. I do not want to give up any rights… ever… but if we don’t behave… there are people, drunk on power and control, who will take our rights away… for the common good… supposedly. This is extremely dangerous and not to be taken lightly… apparently there are some here on CAF, who, I must say come across as very naïve… are willing to take my rights away. Somehow they don’t see that concentrating power into a central government is not a good thing. History has repeatedly shown otherwise. I can only guess that they are young and inexperienced. We are the greatest exception in history, not because of us, but because of what led up to us, all those who died for the name of freedom (including the early Christians) and timing and luck and most of all Providence. If you study our history in detail there is no way you can conclude anything other than Providence. It is our responsibility to the world to make it work. You can hear it in the constitution, federalist papers, early American quotes, etc. and most eloquently in Lincoln’s Gettysburg address. It’s as real as life and death. And yet with the passing of time we can be so quick to lose that sense of responsibility to the world. The world is relying on us to lead the way. We need a national vision… with a strategy… and tactics… Our country is dependent on an educated and engaged citizenry. Critical mass in that regard appears to be lost. We don’t even teach it in our substandard schools.

Our leaders don’t lead. They connive to survive.

I want to maintain our rights, I can’t imagine not having them. So much hard work to attain them and blood spilled to retain them. But we have to behave.

So, behave y’all. With or without guns.

The gist of your post seems to be that things are working in the U.S. What I see is that there are 30,000 gun-related deaths in the US annually compared to <50 in the UK. When you control for the population difference there is still an astronomical difference.

If you dramatically expanded access to guns in the US, I do not think you are going to see a sharp decline in gun violence. The reasons for gun violence are not due to not having enough guns, it is due to crime, drugs, mental illness, and moral and ethical values, as GaryTaylor points out. About concentrating power in the central government, I would say that most countries do that and have not had problems with gun violence like in the US. Look at most of Europe, Australia, South Asia, East Asia, in fact the rest of the world. The exceptions are countries like Germany, and this is the exception, not the rule. I would expect that if a government turned on its people, the rest of the world would intervene, but we have unfortunately seen that it is not the case when Russia invaded the independent country of Ukraine and annexed Crimea, when the rest of the world, including the US, UK, and Great Britain, did nothing. The world response against Hitler was very slow, with the US afraid to enter due to past conflicts and public sentiment, and only entered after we were attacked, which was a huge mistake. Putin took advantage of the similar anti-war sentiment in the US after the Afghanistan and Iraq fiascos by entering Ukraine at a time when he knew no one would do anything about it.

 

[zeloc]

Surely you can not argue that a no weapon sign increases security can you?

You are putting a lot of credence into signs. I do not think having an no weapon sign increases violence and makes it more likely for people to attack. Just because there is a sign doesn’t say anything about how much security there is, and there can still be armed security in such an area. I absolutely do not think that having an anti-gun sign at a school is going to encourage people to attack there. All of the places where these mass shootings took place where students were very familiar with the level of security there. They are not going to pay attention to whether there was a no-gun sign or not.

I never said that a no weapon sign increases security. I don’t know where you are getting these ideas. But I do think that an enforced anti-gun zone will reduce violence. If people were carrying firearms into the federal place that I worked, I think there would be much more violence. As it is, I have never heard of a shooting there.

There are not many adults in schools anyway. Allowing adults to carry concealed weapons is not going to prevent any of these episodes. Citizens greatly overestimate their ability to shoot a gun at a moving target in a high-pressure situation. The accuracy of the vast majority of people with guns is not very high, including law enforcement. It’s more likely that someone is killed in friendly fire than the perpetrator is shot. And the attacker always has the element of surprise. They are going to shoot people who have guns faster than a defender can take out their weapon and use it.

 

[pnewton]

The gist of your post seems to be that things are working in the U.S. What I see is that there are 30,000 gun-related deaths in the US annually compared to <50 in the UK.

I think murder is a greater issue than death. There the difference is still a lot, 653 compared to 14173, with the US having a little less than 5 times the murder rate. Yet this is just a comparison with two countries where many other differences exist besides gun laws. Yet, we have already discussed the uselessness of statistics in multi-variable analysis.