i think if you are going to be a gun person, you should probably keep it under wraps. it's not cool to be on that side of the debate. you just look uneducated, combative and rednecky.
This is so strangely combative. I'm not saying anything particularly incendiary here. I'd say if I have to pick a political party (though I find politics ridiculous) I'd fall on the side of libertarian, with a few notable "don't kill people" exceptions like the death penalty and abortion. I just happen to be a person that finds the 2nd amendment to have some merit, not saying I think we shouldn't have strict regulations surrounding guns.
These shootings are a symptom of a societal disease. Take away guns and they'll use bombs. Or, you know, illegal guns. We need to find out why people are suddenly doing this in such high numbers and fix what we're doing wrong as a populace, not disarm the nation, IMO.
I haven't read the rest of the comments, but this is my soapbox. You have to know: this simply isn't true. MOST gun killings are heat-of-the moment homicides (usually by someone you know; often a family member), suicides, or accidents. Mass killings still represent a very, very small number of gun deaths in America.
Heat-of-the-moment homicides/suicides can really and truly be stopped by removing the means. Most people won't do the research to find another means to kill. There's a good case study on the switch away from coal gas ovens and suicide in the UK. Suicides dropped by 1/3 when this mode of suicide was no longer available. AND IT STAYED DOWN. People didn't figure out another means of committing suicide. They just stopped committing suicide.
Luckily people are finally funding more research on this:
Post by sandyapples on Sept 30, 2014 12:41:14 GMT -5
We have the same internet in Canada. We have access to all of the same media. My city (pop ~250k) once went over a year without a single murder. We have had one police officer shot and killed, ever. We don't have: easy access to handguns and semi-automatic weapons.
I'm not saying our country is incapable of changing gun laws. I'm saying our country may never decide to, and may never accept it if it is attempted.
Furthermore, simply because other countries have had success with gun bans, doesn't mean they are safer from a larger perspective.
I hold liberty as a cornerstone of this country. And yes, liberty comes with preventable deaths, like those intentionally committed with guns, knives, poison, cars, and bombs. And those unintentionally taken by cars, unhealthy diets, lack of exercise, all manner of freak accidents, electricity,, etc.
"To prevent a death" is not a reason to strip a population of liberty. I do not wish to go down that road. You do. That's why we get to vote.
But...making abortion illegal strips a woman of liberty to prevent a death.
Oh lord, I can't do abortion today too. Lol.
Like I said, libertarian with some notable exceptions. I don't think it should be illegal to choose yourself when faced with a "you or the baby" situation, and it's not because I would choose me.
Post by CurlyQ284 on Sept 30, 2014 12:59:15 GMT -5
We live in a country where it is more difficult to get a drivers license than a gun or a concealed carry permit (at least that's the case in Virginia).
This is insanity. It makes absolutely no sense and this has to change. I don't necessarily think guns should be taken away completely but I think it's common sense to regulate this to a greater extent than it is right now.
So...no answer to how Australians are unsafe and oppressed?
Well, it looks like guns aren't all out banned there. As to if you're oppressed or not, I've never lived there. You tell me.
IMO, if private firearms are completely illegalized, civilians may be at a long term risk if it came to law enforcement or governmental corruption. Obviously one would be at risk anyway, but an unarmed population is more vulnerable.
Organized crime would also scare the shit out of me in that situation.
I don't understand all your talk in weird, distanced abstracts, stellas. And I'm a bit perplexed that you think school shootings and two-year-olds shooting each other in the head are necessary evils on the road to liberty.
You talk about shutting down the internet, turning off everyone's cable tv; but putting restrictions on guns like Australia is somehow the one thing that ends up impeding freedom?
(Sigh)
The internet argument was a straw man. Jesus people.
I'm not saying our country is incapable of changing gun laws. I'm saying our country may never decide to, and may never accept it if it is attempted.
Furthermore, simply because other countries have had success with gun bans, doesn't mean they are safer from a larger perspective.
I hold liberty as a cornerstone of this country. And yes, liberty comes with preventable deaths, like those intentionally committed with guns, knives, poison, cars, and bombs. And those unintentionally taken by cars, unhealthy diets, lack of exercise, all manner of freak accidents, electricity,, etc.
"To prevent a death" is not a reason to strip a population of liberty. I do not wish to go down that road. You do. That's why we get to vote.
Look. I'm a libertarian. I'm all about personal liberty. However. Personal liberty and freedom only extend to the point at which they don't harm/threaten others' freedom and liberty. Living without fear of being shot in the heat of the moment because I accidentally cut someone off in traffic is, in my opinion, a far more essential and basic freedom (dare I say right?), than buying and owning ALL THE GUNS YAY!!!
How about the woman who is denied her freedom and right to happiness (maybe even life) when she's shot in an argument by her husband who grabs the gun out of the bedroom?
How about the convenience store clerk who gets killed by an armed robber? What about his freedom to go to work and earn a living? Limit availability of guns, and what is an armed robbery/murder may well just turn into a robbery.
You can't eliminate all crime by limiting access to guns, but you sure as hell can limit the severity and loss of life, across the board. Guns make violence distant, impersonal, quick, and easy. It's a lot harder, and more time consuming to cause that type of mortal damage by other means.
And the whole "well never accept change bit," I think is bs. We would. I'm sure about 35-40% of the people would throw a huge fit, but I truly believe that after a couple years of media and right wing drama/Chicken Little B.S, we would settle in just fine.
You can still support personal liberty and understand that it comes with reasonable limitations.
We live in a country where it is more difficult to get a drivers license than a gun or a concealed carry permit (at least that's the case in Virginia).
This is insanity. It makes absolutely no sense and this has to change. I don't necessarily think guns should be taken away completely but I think it's common sense to regulate this to a greater extent than it is right now.
In Virginia you have to document proof of handgun competency in addition to filling out the application with your local circuit court. Documenting proof of competency consists of taking a court approved class, course or training and then presenting the certificate. How is this different than taking driver's ed, taking a test and being handed a license?
I agree that it needs to be regulated to a greater extent, and I would be happy to see those changes happen. But "just take them all away!" isn't a realistic solution in a society where the second amendment does exist. I am curious what kind of regulations would make people happy? I have my own ideas, but I'm always eager to hear from others, particularly the well informed, smart, and well spoken women who contribute to this board.
And I will say this right off the bat: I agree that there is no place for semi automatic rifles in civilian hands. None. And I say that as someone who has (unloaded, secured) guns in the house.
And I still can't believe that people actually think an oppressive government will be taken down with their fucking AR-15s.
If the government oppresses the people, the medium the people will use will be information, public opinion, THE INTERNET, hacking, deception and duplicity by online transaction. If you truly believe your dumb fucking shotgun is going to be the thing that stands between you and governmental tyranny, you're sadly misguided.
I don't think it would. I think gun illegalization is a symptom of acceptance of a paternalistic government, which I think is a very dangerous concept.
Well, it looks like guns aren't all out banned there. As to if you're oppressed or not, I've never lived there. You tell me.
IMO, if private firearms are completely illegalized, civilians may be at a long term risk if it came to law enforcement or governmental corruption. Obviously one would be at risk anyway, but an unarmed population is more vulnerable.
Do you (and the other gun nuts) REALLY, TRULY believe you are better armed than the government?
I mean seriously, even WITH an AR-15, you truly don't get that if the goverment/US Army really wanted to enslave their own populace that they don't have vastly superior weapons and technology?
Drones? Aircraft? Fucking armored vehicles?
Come on. You are smarter than that.
Lol. This is the argument I make to gun nuts, and if they are capable of pulling their heads out of their asses, they concede. My IL's are "gun people" and "government might take over" people. It's exhausting. One lone ranger with an AR-15 isn't going to save the country a la the horrible remake of Red Dawn.
We live in a country where it is more difficult to get a drivers license than a gun or a concealed carry permit (at least that's the case in Virginia).
This is insanity. It makes absolutely no sense and this has to change. I don't necessarily think guns should be taken away completely but I think it's common sense to regulate this to a greater extent than it is right now.
In Virginia you have to document proof of handgun competency in addition to filling out the application with your local circuit court. Documenting proof of competency consists of taking a court approved class, course or training and then presenting the certificate. How is this different than taking driver's ed, taking a test and being handed a license?
I agree that it needs to be regulated to a greater extent, and I would be happy to see those changes happen. But "just take them all away!" isn't a realistic solution in a society where the second amendment does exist. I am curious what kind of regulations would make people happy? I have my own ideas, but I'm always eager to hear from others, particularly the well informed, smart, and well spoken women who contribute to this board.
And I will say this right off the bat: I agree that there is no place for semi automatic rifles in civilian hands. None. And I say that as someone who has (unloaded, secured) guns in the house.
It was an online class. I watched a family member take the class on my computer while I cooked dinner. No one watched him shoot a gun to see if he actually could handle a firearm safely. Luckily I know this person and I know they have experience with guns but I'm sorry that scares me.
I don't think it would. I think gun control is a symptom of acceptance of a paternalistic government, which I think is a very dangerous concept.
Do you also think speed limits are a symptom of acceptance of a paternalistic government? What about income taxes? Because unless you really do think guns are a means of defending oneself against the government, that argument is kinda bullshit.
This is why democracy is awesome. We all get to draw our own line in the sand. There's no point to society if it's not used to draw us all back from chaos and provide a relatively safe environment. I happen to think banning firearms is going too far. Others disagree.
I don't think it would. I think gun control is a symptom of acceptance of a paternalistic government, which I think is a very dangerous concept.
Do you also think speed limits are a symptom of acceptance of a paternalistic government? What about income taxes? Because unless you really do think guns are a means of defending oneself against the government, that argument is kinda bullshit.
Agreed. I hate that gun nuts cling to the 2nd Amendment and that is their only argument. They cannot articulate WHY they need an AR-15 or DC9 or even a .40 cal Glock other than "because it's my right" or "to protect myself." When pressed for the honest *purpose* of an AR-15 for a civilian, or any semi-automatic weapon for that matter, if you throw aside "because the government might _______" there is no reason. None. I'd like to consider myself a reasonable, responsible gun owner. Perhaps this will now be my black mark on ML.
In Virginia you have to document proof of handgun competency in addition to filling out the application with your local circuit court. Documenting proof of competency consists of taking a court approved class, course or training and then presenting the certificate. How is this different than taking driver's ed, taking a test and being handed a license?
I agree that it needs to be regulated to a greater extent, and I would be happy to see those changes happen. But "just take them all away!" isn't a realistic solution in a society where the second amendment does exist. I am curious what kind of regulations would make people happy? I have my own ideas, but I'm always eager to hear from others, particularly the well informed, smart, and well spoken women who contribute to this board.
And I will say this right off the bat: I agree that there is no place for semi automatic rifles in civilian hands. None. And I say that as someone who has (unloaded, secured) guns in the house.
It was an online class. I watched a family member take the class on my computer while I cooked dinner. No one watched him shoot a gun to see if he actually could handle a firearm safely. Luckily I know this person and I know they have experience with guns but I'm sorry that scares me.
Thanks for clarifying, I didn't delve deeply enough to look into actual classes that may fulfill the requirement. I agree with you. Training, and course passing, should definitely be done in person, with a highly qualified instructor.
I was pointing out that we value and hold onto many things at a great cost. Those are freedoms we value and consider worth it.
Religion, the internet, driving, selecting our own diet, all things that bring preventable death.
To people themselves, not easily to others. And certainly not tow 20 fucking elementary school children.
How does MY dietary choices endanger the lives of others?
How does MY internet usage potentially kill a kid in their classroom?
And driving is a fucking stupid example, because people choose to be on the road knowing the risk.
As for religion, that may well be the only slightly comparable example because yes. People do attack and kill others in the name of their religion.
HOWEVER, they still need the actual weapons to do so. Last I checked there have not been mass killings of people beaten with a sturdy King James.
And finally, it is fucking disgusting and the highest level of selfish to imply that gun ownership is a freedom worth protecting more than the lives of 30,000 humans a year.
Do children choose what they eat? If and when they are driven somewhere? Do online communities of pedophiles not exist? Sharing ideas about how to hurt or kill children?
Or heck, have ideas not been spread about how to kill adults online? Terrorist attacks not planned?
There is risk in EVERYTHING.
Let's get rid of all of the freedoms we have that can cause the death of innocent people. We will be so safe. SO SAFE.
Do you also think speed limits are a symptom of acceptance of a paternalistic government? What about income taxes? Because unless you really do think guns are a means of defending oneself against the government, that argument is kinda bullshit.
This is why democracy is awesome. We all get to draw our own line in the sand. There's no point to society if it's not used to draw us all back from chaos and provide a relatively safe environment. I happen to think banning firearms is going too far. Others disagree.
Obviously no one is changing anyone's mind.
I guess I don't see how a "relatively safe environment" is one in which Joe Schmoe can walk down the street holstering God knows what, able to fire at will if someone pisses him off. Of course, I'm sure he's just wearing it for protection and expressing his personal liberty. Meanwhile, I just have to hope he doesn't deem me a threat.
Goodness knows trained law officers NEVER misjudge a threat and kill innocent people. Lets hope armed citizens don't either.
Well, when you stack up benefits vs risks, I'm not seeing many benefits for gun ownership apart from the hypothetical government takeover and an abstract and warped concept of freedom. Not the same for driving, internet and eating.
This is why democracy is awesome. We all get to draw our own line in the sand. There's no point to society if it's not used to draw us all back from chaos and provide a relatively safe environment. I happen to think banning firearms is going too far. Others disagree.
Obviously no one is changing anyone's mind.
I think the parents of Sandy Hook would also probably disagree with you. What if it was your kid's kindergarten class? Would you still fight tooth and nail for gun rights?
I don't know. I think you know me well enough to deduce that I do not take violent deaths lightly whatsoever. If it were my child I would probably want to light their murderer on fire. I would be (and am) incensed that these things were allowed to happen. That this is where we are as a people. I would wish deeply that the guns that the killer used had never been accessible to them. But would I wish that no civilian in this country were allowed to have a gun? I don't think so.
I pray that I never find out. I pray that no one else ever finds out. I wish we could stop this horrible "trend" forever. But I don't think taking guns away from law abiding citizens will stop it.
This is why democracy is awesome. We all get to draw our own line in the sand. There's no point to society if it's not used to draw us all back from chaos and provide a relatively safe environment. I happen to think banning firearms is going too far. Others disagree.
Obviously no one is changing anyone's mind.
conundrum. That or your definition of a relatively safe environment and mine are different.
I don't know. I think you know me well enough to deduce that I do not take violent deaths lightly whatsoever. If it were my child I would probably want to light their murderer on fire. I would be (and am) incensed that these things were allowed to happen. That this is where we are as a people. I would wish deeply that the guns that the killer used had never been accessible to them. But would I wish that no civilian in this country were allowed to have a gun? I don't think so.
I pray that I never find out. I pray that no one else ever finds out. I wish we could stop this horrible "trend" forever. But I don't think taking guns away from law abiding citizens will stop it.
They already have found out.
In fact, they have found out 74 more times since Sandy Hook happened (and that is just the number of SCHOOL shootings and doesn't even include Columbine or the other ones prior to SH)
But as long as it's not your kids, amirite?
I'm aware.
Why don't people acknowledge that this is a modern issue and guns are so not?
Guns are not what has changed. It's not like guns suddenly became legal and the school shootings started.
I've eaten up a crazy amount of time here today, so i'm going to stop responding in here now.
Post by callalily on Sept 30, 2014 13:46:52 GMT -5
At the end of the day, kids are being killed in schools. In a place where they should be safe and secure. And what the fuck is happening about it? Nothing. Kids continue to get killed, and there are no better laws in regards to guns nor better funding for mental health issues. When will it be enough?
Why don't people acknowledge that this is a modern issue and guns are so not?
Guns are not what has changed. It's not like guns suddenly became legal and the school shootings started.
I've eaten up a crazy amount of time here today, so i'm going to stop responding in here now.
So, you have stats to back up that guns have not changed, let alone the sheer number in production?
Guns today are not the clunky old things of yester-year. Population has increased exponentially.
I would also argue that media coverage has increased and is more widely available. The media coverage is more available for everyone to see including impressionable kids or adults that are unwell.