DEAR AMERICA: Here's Why Everyone Thinks You Have A Problem With Guns

[St_Francis]

I don’t see the point of arguing anymore.

We are not actually arguing. I showed how the writer drew inaccurate conclusions and skewed the information he presented so he could draw an inaccurate conclusion, and you slung mud at me and misrepresented what I was saying. At no point did you address my actual points. At no point did you show how what I was saying was erroneous.

We are all only going to accept that research that aligns with personal views.

Nor did I attack the research. I only showed how the conclusions drawn did not align with the research results presented.

I don’t need a page full of statistics to realize that with over 200 million guns in this country, and the amount of gun related violence, we have a problem. That is a real conclusion anyone can see.

You see gun ciolence and gun ownership as related. How is it that you draw that conclusion, given that according to the statistics in the article that *you *presented showed that hundreds of millions of people own guns, 40 to 50+% of the population own firearms, and yet is less than .2% of the general popuation*crime *. Can we honestly say that the actions of .2% of a population (legal firearms owners) plus another .2% of an outside population (non-legal firearms owners) reflect on the 99+% who do *not *engage in firearms violence? How so?

I’ve seen statistics denied, I’ve even seen our bishops become ‘suspect’ for speaking out on the issue.

I did neither.

We have a higher calling, to Him, and the least of His. I haven’t seen anything that is going to change my view according to my faith formed conscience. I believe that we are called to make sacrifices on behalf of our fellow man.

So what precisely are you advocating? Are you advocating that all firearms in the US be confiscated, leaving many people completely defenseless? Is that a good thing? Who precisely would be making the sacrifice, and do you think it is appropriate to force others to make sacrifices which go against their faith-formed consciences?

 

[kuppermom]

The article spells out all my concerns. Just click on the link.

Power = corruption.

Why did our forefathers make it the 2nd amendment when putting together the Constitution? 2nd only to freedom of speech, because they knew it was an important part to help our country retain it’s freedom.
“The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes… Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”

• Thomas Jefferson (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria)
  As humans I believe this statement that we “fear what we don’t understand and hate what we can’t conquer”. Just because some might not understand guns, doesn’t mean the rest of us should be banned from owning them.
  We do have certain restrictions on a lot of guns out there. Fully automatic, grenade launchers, etc. Just because the AR looks scary doesn’t mean it is scary. And no AR doesn’t stand for Assault Rifle like everyone would like you to believe, it stands for Armalite, the guy that made it. It is the perfect home defense rifle mainly because of it’s low recoil.
  It’s an essential right that helps retain our freedom. When Japan bombed Pearl Harbor, they were asked why they didn’t raid America, being as they had the means, to which they responded that they feared the well armed Americans that lived in there homes. We have become a nation that wants to protect and shelter everything…you shouldn’t spank your kids…tell your kids that meat only comes from the store…the list could go on. I can’t say it better than this.
  “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
• Benjamin Franklin
  Please don’t just wave what I’ve said aside. Please think, think about the consequence, because once something is taken away, it’ll be doubly hard to get it back.

 

[kuppermom]

Because often they turn into mass-murderers of innocent bystanders? And because gone are the days of the adventurous trappers and the heroic minutemen, and now we have at least a dozen of “well-regualted militias” (including many local police departments, national guard, armed forces, et cetera) so that we no longer need the local concerned citizen to own an *arsenal * .

So first of all, not to be rude, but you need to look up the word militia in the dictionary.
I hate to correct you but it isn’t as easy as you make it sound to buy a handgun. I would like to share this survey with you. ddq74coujkv1i.cloudfront.net/p1_gunsurveysummary_2013.pdf
I think you’ll find it very interesting.
Why do we think that regulating law abiding citizens is the way to go? If we can’t keep drugs from crossing our borders, why do we think we can keep illegal guns out? Why aren’t we ready to admit that we have a mental health problem, not a gun problem? Why are we surprise when things like this happens when have systematically kicked God out of our country. We are raising our kids in school, telling them that they are a mistake of nature, no reason, a chain of events that happened with no real purpose, and then trying to convince them they need to have self-esteem. Were, according to Nietzsche, there is no wrong and there is no right, there just is. This is the true problem.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I hate to correct you but it isn’t as easy as you make it sound to buy a handgun. I would like to share this survey with you. ddq74coujkv1i.cloudfront.net/p1_gunsurveysummary_2013.pdf

Martin Savidge shows how easy it is to buy guns at gunshows – no questions asked!

A hidden camera investigation demonstrates how easy it is to buy guns at gun shows without giving identification.

 

[kuppermom]

Martin Savidge shows how easy it is to buy guns at gunshows – no questions asked!

From private citizens, yes. Not from dealers. Dealers must have 2 forms of ID and background checks. If you find this disturbing I am sorry for you. I like that fact that when my husband wants to, he can freely pass on his guns to his son. But why are you so insistent on ignoring all of the facts given to you above. You are very determined to believe what you want instead of what is. Having said this, I think maybe we are at an impasse.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

Do you personally know every gun rights advocates on these forums alone? We’re speaking for millions of people. It’s not generalized that all gun owners are safe and well meaning intentions. How are all problems identified, and at what point do they become a danger? Not all are identifiable until they act on a particular imbalance. Stepping away from any of that, if the system failed on ALL those occasions, whose to say it won’t be repeated? Do we place our gun rights above the rest of society? There are things than can be done, things that would not affect anyone’s right to defense, but many gun rights advocates say no to even universal background checks.

Do we place our **gun rights **

It’s not “gun rights” … it’s the right of self defense.

Without people having the right of self-defense, then we are all just a bunch of unarmed victims waiting for some violent criminals to do whatever they want to us.

It has already been established that the police have no responsibility to protect us from violent criminals. And it has already been established that the responsibility for self-defense is with the individual.

Why are you so eager to embrace whatever it takes to disarm the innocent civilian of any means to defend himself … or even … herself.

A 110 pound woman has NO defense without a gun.

It is admirable to want everyone to just get along, but our legal system has consistently allowed violent people to do whatever they want.

Self-defense is mandatory in a civil society.

And like it or not, the AR-15 is the best weapon for a woman to defend herself and her home and her children.

The “system” did not fail; the fail was created by people who believe that putting up a sign that says they are defenseless and will therefore be left alone by violent criminals.

If you want your children to be protected, then YOU are going to have to protect them.

 

[kuppermom]

Do we place our **gun rights **

It’s not “gun rights” … it’s the right of self defense.

Without people having the right of self-defense, then we are all just a bunch of unarmed victims waiting for some violent criminals to do whatever they want to us.

It has already been established that the police have no responsibility to protect us from violent criminals. And it has already been established that the responsibility for self-defense is with the individual.

Why are you so eager to embrace whatever it takes to disarm the innocent civilian of any means to defend himself … or even … herself.

A 110 pound woman has NO defense without a gun.

It is admirable to want everyone to just get along, but our legal system has consistently allowed violent people to do whatever they want.

Self-defense is mandatory in a civil society.

And like it or not, the AR-15 is the best weapon for a woman to defend herself and her home and her children.

The “system” did not fail; the fail was created by people who believe that putting up a sign that says they are defenseless and will therefore be left alone by violent criminals.

If you want your children to be protected, then YOU are going to have to protect them.

Very well stated. More laws are not needed, just enforcement of the laws already in place.

 

[Sarcelle]

Because often they turn into mass-murderers of innocent bystanders? And because gone are the days of the adventurous trappers and the heroic minutemen, and now we have at least a dozen of “well-regualted militias” (including many local police departments, national guard, armed forces, et cetera) so that we no longer need the local concerned citizen to own an *arsenal *

Seriously, it’s so amusing to me that we struggle so much to promote a culture of life and bring forth laws that would render abortion illegal, and yet when it comes to firearms a vast amount of US Catholics for whatever reason switches mindset and walks the opposite way. It’s not even a matter of the right to own guns, but of the massive deregulation that currently exists…do you realize that in the US there was in 2007 an average of 88 firearms per person (followed by Yemen)? Not even Rambo at his prime would carry 88 firearms, and against whom do we need to “defend” ourselves by means of such firepower?

I do often hear: “it’s the people behind the guns”. Sure, it’s the people. An additional reason to prevent weapons with massive firepower to be in their hands at all, and to at most allow them to own (if anything) a handgun for the defense of their family and property, given a more strict system. Instead, for most United States citizens, purchasing a handgun is as simple as going to a local gun store, choosing a particular firearm, showing photo I.D., filling out the background check form, and then paying for the gun upon approval from NICS (usually instantaneous). Furthermore, there does not seem to be any law limiting the number of guns or the amount of ammunition a person can own. So much for “put the sword back”!

I personally don’t judge anyone who owns or decides to own firearms, no matter how many. All I say is: it does seem like we have a problem.

Prepare to back this up with statistics. Out of 10 or even a 100 law-abiding gun owners, how many of them have turned into mass murderers? About 10, 20, 50? You mentioned most. How much is most and how does it translate into percentages?

If someone can propose a gun control law that will actually reduce the numbers of guns in the hands of criminals I am all for it. So far, gun control laws have been so far ineffective and nothing more but hysterical reactions to crimes. Hysteria will get you nowhere.

 

[Sarcelle]

The theater, the mall, the school, and the attacks on the first responders; all with a Bushmaster AR15 style gun. That’s enough for me.

Ms. Lanza was a ‘law abiding’ citizen.

As far as I know Ms. Lanza did not kill those children.

If I were really hell bent on going a killing spree, do you think some law is going to stop me?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

From private citizens, yes. Not from dealers. Dealers must have 2 forms of ID and background checks. If you find this disturbing I am sorry for you. I like that fact that when my husband wants to, he can freely pass on his guns to his son. But why are you so insistent on ignoring all of the facts given to you above. You are very determined to believe what you want instead of what is. Having said this, I think maybe we are at an impasse.

I was under the assumption that the vendors at gun shows were dealers. The only private party purchase, not through a vendor, was for an AR15. The three semi-automatic pistols were purchased from vendors.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Do we place our **gun rights **

It’s not “gun rights” … it’s the right of self defense.

Without people having the right of self-defense, then we are all just a bunch of unarmed victims waiting for some violent criminals to do whatever they want to us.

It has already been established that the police have no responsibility to protect us from violent criminals. And it has already been established that the responsibility for self-defense is with the individual.

Why are you so eager to embrace whatever it takes to disarm the innocent civilian of any means to defend himself … or even … herself.

A 110 pound woman has NO defense without a gun.

It is admirable to want everyone to just get along, but our legal system has consistently allowed violent people to do whatever they want.

Self-defense is mandatory in a civil society.

And like it or not, the AR-15 is the best weapon for a woman to defend herself and her home and her children.

The “system” did not fail; the fail was created by people who believe that putting up a sign that says they are defenseless and will therefore be left alone by violent criminals.

If you want your children to be protected, then YOU are going to have to protect them.

And universal background checks impact the right to defense how, especially for truly law abiding citizens??

It doesn’t matter if an M16 would be the best weapon of defense. Fully automatic weapons are a problem, as some semiautomatic weapons are becoming. I don’t know how big Ms Lanza was, but her AR15 didn’t do her any good, nor the children at the school down the road.

Next, I am a gun owner and am not out, eager or otherwise, to disarm innocent civilians. That is only an argument presented by gun rights activists. It’s not an all or nothing scenario, but seems to be an important point to repeat to keep the masses stirred up.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

As far as I know Ms. Lanza did not kill those children.

If I were really hell bent on going a killing spree, do you think some law is going to stop me?

I apologize you didn’t get the point. People continue to portray ‘law abiding’ as beyond the possibility that something could go wrong. The Lanza family is an example of how law abiding did not prevent a great tragedy.

Do laws stop murder, robbery, rape, drugs, etc.? Yet we don’t do anything because they haven’t stopped. We legislate new laws, or restructure old laws, in an attempt to be more effective.

 

[kuppermom]

I was under the assumption that the vendors at gun shows were dealers. The only private party purchase, not through a vendor, was for an AR15. The three semi-automatic pistols were purchased from vendors.

No, not all people selling guns at a gun show are dealers. And if those pistols were sold by a dealer then it was done illegally(I say this because I am so tired of our very very bias news media across the board). I stated this above, but perhaps you didn’t see it. We don’t need more laws, just enforcement of the ones we already have.

 

[CompSciGuy]

Having read so many of your posts, I can tell you this - no need to invade, just come on down! Consider yourself invited.
But be warned - there’s lots of snow here too…

Not if you come to Texas!
But… while there is no snow in Texas there are significantly more guns.

 

[R1ch4rd]

Ya never know - with all the snow we’re having we Canucks might just invade you-all

With all this snow we’re having we may just give it to you-all, aei!

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

No, not all people selling guns at a gun show are dealers. And if those pistols were sold by a dealer then it was done illegally(I say this because I am so tired of our very very bias news media across the board). I stated this above, but perhaps you didn’t see it. We don’t need more laws, just enforcement of the ones we already have.

Then there’s a bigger problem to gun shows than I previously believed. It provides an avenue for guns and cash to exchange hands, without an exchange of even names. How hard would it be for criminals to arm themselves with that type system?

We don’t need laws that require a background check with the sell of every gun?

 

[Sarcelle]

I apologize you didn’t get the point. People continue to portray ‘law abiding’ as beyond the possibility that something could go wrong. The Lanza family is an example of how law abiding did not prevent a great tragedy.

Do laws stop murder, robbery, rape, drugs, etc.? Yet we don’t do anything because they haven’t stopped. We legislate new laws, or restructure old laws, in an attempt to be more effective.

And I still do not get the point. So you are in favor of getting guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens because there might be a possibility that something could go wrong?

There is a world of difference between outlawing murder and outlawing the ownership of guns. Owning a gun by itself should not be “malum in se” like murder or rape.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

And I still do not get the point. So you are in favor of getting guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens because there might be a possibility that something could go wrong?

There is a world of difference between outlawing murder and outlawing the ownership of guns. Owning a gun by itself should not be “malum in se” like murder or rape.

I am not opposed to more controls to prevent ‘accidents’ for the law abiding citizen.

Guns are material objects, only of this world.

 

[TimeEntrance]

Sadly, we live an amoral country. Living close to Detroit, I’ve heard and seen things that are just beyond the comprehension of most “normal” and “decent” people. There is no respect for human life in some quarters. And dysfunctional families have taken their toll on society. People think more of their themselves and less about the communities they live in. So - of course, there are going to be problems when extreme selfishness is the standard in most parts of society. (You can’t tell me…X, Y, Z. I should be allowed to wear, act, say, do whatever I want when ever I want, regardless of whether it’s good for me or the community).

Great paragraph, Kal.

I’m happy for your sake you’re not living in Detroit. One of the things I always feel fortunate about is that I don’t live in Detroit or Cleveland.

I could probably do Chicago since it has some great areas and some world class homes architecturally and in interior design. It’s a world city too. But only if I had the money.

Best thing is to live in a good area within a state or metro area. Next best thing is to leave the United States altogether. I’d probably favor Toronto or Montreal (great homes too) if Canada wasn’t so darn cold. But given human’s are essentially tropical creatures biologically, I’d recommend a climate and social environment more along the lines of Southern France and Southern Spain. Just beautiful areas too. The downside, or trade off, is that you probably can’t own guns as easily in Southern France and Spain as you might in the USofA.

But I could give up gun rights for the Mediterranean climate of Southern France in conjunction with a peace of mind and security. It’s just a different sort of security. Although, the gun always offers some security advantages you won’t have without it per se. On the other hand, living in the City of Detroit and owning a handgun or two still does not provide you security in the larger sense and does little for your peace of mind.

 

[kuppermom]

Then there’s a bigger problem to gun shows than I previously believed. It provides an avenue for guns and cash to exchange hands, without an exchange of even names. How hard would it be for criminals to arm themselves with that type system?

We don’t need laws that require a background check with the sell of every gun?

What you are asking for would be difficult, how would you yourself do a background check on everyone that might want to buy your gun from you? But the real problem is, you’re focusing on the wrong problem here. Bad guys are going to get guns if they want to. They get drugs if they want to. Bad guys are bad guys. I was physically sick to my stomach when I heard someone say pedophilia was a disease and not the persons fault, then I found out how prevalent this thought is. We have a sin problem not a gun problem. For all of the atheist out there, we have a societal discord problem, not a gun problem. You are looking at this from a view that, I’m going to guess, doesn’t have a background knowledge of gun. If I am wrong I apologize. Bad guys will find a way to be a bad guy. Trying to insulate ourselves by passing laws that will only hurt people that are law abiding, isn’t the answer. Please look at the facts. Look at Australia. Why did the terrorist, gasp yes I did call the terrorist, use bombs? Why can’t we see the true issue?