SO MANY SHOOTING

[dsvochak]

I'd bet my last cent that this particular crew won't be visiting my neighbourhood again

Unfortunately, there are a lot of places in this country you could well lose that bet. And they would return prepared well armed and dangerous. Or perhaps just drive by and empty a few clips from MAC-10’s into your house. It's somewhat difficult to get a conviction when witnesses and/or victims are afraid to testify

People get into cars drunk and run people over and we don't take their license away from them.

In Michigan, it’s highly likely doing the above would cause the felon to both lose his license and go to prison.

those who want to take the right to keep and bear arms away from the american people will seize upon gun violence to make their case..

Is there really an unfettered right “to keep and bear arms”? Or is it limited? Is the right (thanks Gom) limited to flintlock muskets and black powder and other “arms” the founding fathers could have envisioned? Or does “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,” somehow create a limitation? Is there a grammarian out there who can parse the sentence that is the 2nd Amendment?

[BillMorrow]

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,” somehow create a limitation? Is there a grammarian out there who can parse the sentence that is the 2nd Amendment?

each will take the meaning he wants from the second amendment..

so lets all agree that those of us who believe in the inherent goodness of all men will wish to deny any type of gun from the general population..

and those of us who feel there are violent and strong people who would redistribute the wealth of others to themselves extant in the world would not deny those of us who are weaker or fewer in number to even out the odds with a gun..

i understand that in switzerland, every household is required to be prepared (i.e. armed)..

i think my position is clear..

i want the right to go down to a gun shop and buy a gun, be it a shotgun for hunting or a handgun for self defense, to not be infringed upon IN ANY WAY, be it by taxing the gun or ammunition or any part thereof in such a way as to limit gun ownership to the wealthy..

fortunately the 2nd amendment has been interpreted to allow me that right..

and no, i don't think many are going to want to buy a bazooka or a battle tank just due to the cost..

p.s. I should add that the right to bear arms comes with the obligation to be trained in the proper use thereof and especially in methods to retain possesion so that your gun is not taken away and used against you..

[ajkula66]

dsvochak wrote:

And they would return prepared well armed and dangerous. Or perhaps just drive by and empty a few clips from MAC-10’s into your house. It's somewhat difficult to get a conviction when witnesses and/or victims are afraid to testify

You're absolutely right. That's why I made sure that they were spoken to by their own kind and that it was explained to them (with a few necessary details that I'll spare the forum readership from) that they will wish they were shot dead the first time around should they ever choose to return.

I can't be more specific, but will say that the message was understood...and taken seriously...

[craigmontHunter]

folks with bad intentions from picking up a knife, a hammer, an axe, a crossbow, etc.........

Nothing is stopping them, but it is a lot harder to go on murdering sprees when you have one shot, then you need to stop and reload, like a crossbow. If you just want to kill someone, than you can do it with just about anything, and there is not a single way to prevent it if the victim is unaware. My grandmother has an old saying "A gun is dangerous without lock, stock or barrel, because a man killed his wife with the ramrod." That fundamental fear of firearms has been lost, since (at least in canada) so few people have acess to firearms. In one of my classes, out of 22? people, only 2 of us had guns in our houses. Admititantly I was in a high school, university level (academic) course which consisted mainly of people from rich, suburban families, with no need to own a gun, so they do not go through the motions of owning a firearm. I will admit that there are circumstances where you would want to own a firearm for self defence, and I am not saying that it is wrong, I am just saying that people need to reconsider what they really need. I know that I am young, and I have lived a life that is pretty much free of violence, and I understand that diffrent circumstances call for diffrent reactions and preparations, some of the people who have posted have very ligitimate reasons for owning firearms for self defence.
I do not agree with punishing legitimate gun owners for owning guns (my family does), but I think that the general public should require more training in gun safety and other options rather than be able to walk into a store and buy a firearm.The canadian firearms course has some very easy to apply case studies and senarios, which help people to learn the best way to manage their anger, and who to talk to, instead of resorting to violence.

[beGi]

WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG?

You (society) reap what you sow...

And that is why you can not be compared with Switzerland...

Your (not TPF users, but general population) whole perception of weapons is wrong...

More/less I agree with GomJabbar...

To buy a weapon as simple as that is way to hell...

You can call it whatever you like (right, freedom etc) but if you think about it and think about the consequences (in every possible way), you will conclude the same (hopefully)...

And this comes from me, a nobody who held his first gun at age of 8 (eight), and used/seen tons (literally) various types of weapons...

If you didn't understand: WEAPONS ARE WRONG...

Question for ALL of you: How many people do you actually know who used his/her gun in "right purpose" (someone broke into his/her house or in self-defense)

[bill bolton]

i understand that in switzerland, every household is required to be prepared (i.e. armed)..

Switzerland does truly have a "well regulated militia" in the sense that US Consitution intended, but which the US appears to have been unable to achieve.

Cheers,

Bill B.

[spuddog]

Question for ALL of you: How many people do you actually know who used his/her gun in "right purpose"

The point is the gun is an object, it does nothing on it's own.

Question for ALL of you: How many people do you actually know who used his/her life in "right purpose"

Question for ALL of you: How many people do you actually know who used his/her money in "right purpose"

Question for ALL of you: How many people do you actually know who used his/her knowlege in "right purpose"

Question for ALL of you: How many people do you actually know who used his/her automobile in "right purpose"

This discussion is pointless

Scott

[Marin85]

What is the right purpose of a gun?...

[rkawakami]

The only two that I can think of is "self defense" and "sustenance". As soon as it's used for an "offensive" purpose then that's where the legal (and moral) line is crossed. Some would say that it can be used rightly for sport hunting. My idea of a "sportful" hunt is that if the human doing the shooting has the same risk of injury or death as the animal being hunted . Wielding an AK-47 against a deer does not sound fair at all to me.

(a non-owner of any firearm but have taken some target practice as a youth)

[skitty4gzus]

I mean seriously what is the major argument against the right to own a gun. I mean the #1 point against it? check out gunsafe.org for interesting facts about guns. Like there are 43x more accidental vehicle deaths per year than accidental gun deaths. Or the fact that assault weapons account for less than 1% of all guns used in a crime. Or out of the approx. 3 million defensive gun uses a year, 92% percent of them end in no shots fired. And out of the 3 million cases 82% of them consisted of a criminal with no weapon. Pretty interesting facts and arguments they bring up about banning guns and what that will cause and what not.

[moronoxyd]

Like there are 43x more accidental vehicle deaths per year than accidental gun deaths.

Now put this number into relation to the number of people owning vehicles resp. guns and you get a number that's actually telling something.

Just throwing around random numbers doesn't prove anything.

[ajkula66]

moronoxyd wrote:

Just throwing around random numbers doesn't prove anything.

While I completely agree with you, that's exactly what the gun-control advocates have been doing for at least a decade...probably a lot longer than that...

[skitty4gzus]

Now put this number into relation to the number of people owning vehicles resp. guns and you get a number that's actually telling something.

approx. 235 million civilian gun owners vs. approx 251 registered vehicles. numbers closer than you probably though, you do the math

[GomJabbar]

I mean seriously what is the major argument against the right to own a gun. I mean the #1 point against it? check out gunsafe.org for interesting facts about guns.

I would say that either side (pro-gun or anti-gun) can "cherry-pick" statistics to promote their agenda. Let me just point out some FBI statistics.

In 2007, there were 14,831 murder victims, 10,086 by firearms, and 7,361 by handguns.
In 2007, there were 247 justifiable homicides by private citizens, 203 by firearms, and 163 by handguns.
Hmmm...

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2007/offense ... le_07.html
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2007/offense ... le_14.html

* Of the homicides in 2007 for which the type of weapon was specified, 72.9 percent of the offenses involved the use of firearms. Handguns comprised 87.8 percent of the firearms specified.

* SHR data for incidents of murder in which the relationship of the victim to the offender was known showed that 22.2 percent of victims were killed by family members, 24.1 percent were murdered by strangers, and 53.7 percent were slain by acquaintances (neighbor, friend, boyfriend, etc.).

Easy access to firearms does very little to protect the general population from becoming a victim of crime. It does much to allow any Tom, Dick, and Harry to have a firearm at hand to commit an act of violence with little forethought. It allows people that have not been properly trained to own firearms. It allows emotionally unstable people to own firearms. Again, I am not saying firearms should be outlawed in general. I am saying that the sale of them needs oversight, laws, and regulations. Regulations are currently too lax IMO.

I still wonder why the religious right sees such a need for "the right" to own a "sword". The "sword" in this case being any sort of firearm (including assault weapons and handguns). As far as the population in general, I do understand why they might feel this way, considering all the violence we read and hear about in the news.

[dsvochak]

there are 43x more accidental vehicle deaths per year than accidental gun deaths.

Lets pull out the calculator.

According to the FBI there were 10,086 intentional gun deaths in 2007. If the ratio holds true when the comparison shifts from “accidental” to “intentional”, there should have been 433,698 (10,086 multiplied by 43) intentional vehicle deaths in 2007.

In 2007, 41,059 people were killed in motor vehicle crashes. (This is a total number. There’s no distinction between “accidental” and “intentional".) Of the 41,059, 23,482 deaths resulted from single vehicle crashes. The fatality rate per vehicle miles traveled was 1.36 deaths per million VMT. (http://www.nhtsa.gov/portal/nhtsa_stati ... 811034.pdf)

Apparently, in round numbers, there are 4x more deaths in motor vehicle crashes than in intentional gun deaths. I believe it’s reasonable to assume there are about 10,000x more intentional gun deaths per year than intentional vehicle deaths.

The FBI counts 10,086 murders with firearms and 203 justifiable homicides by firearms. So, if you’ve got a firearm, you’re 49x more likely to commit murder than protect yourself by a justifiable homicide.

Is this a wonderful country or what?

[skitty4gzus]

I do agree gun laws should be stiffer. Crimes involving firearms should be tougher. Longer waits to purchase a firearm. More training to conceal and carry a firearm, etc........... As far as from the Christian standpoint there are so many sriptures that talk about providing for your family, protecting those who can't protect themselves, defending against the thief. Your right Gom there should be no civilians taking up arms and flexing vengeance against others, thats not a civilians job or duty. But, there are no scriptures that tell you to let evil happen in your presence without defending yourself. There are scriptures about turning away wrath with soft words and turn the other cheek and let God deal out judgment. But, this is not the same situation as a self defense scenario. Nobody is saying all Christians should go out and purchase a firearm. Im simply saying from a Christians standpoint that its wisdom to be prepared, and to protect yourself, your family, and the weak. If protecting yourself means having to shoot an intruder in your house, or defending somebody being victimized than so be it, its not a sin and your actions are justified.

[bill bolton]

its not a sin

Exodus 20:13 doesn't have any exception clauses.

Cheers,

Bill

[killer]

Bill,

You have, as usual, made a succinct response that is full of merit.

[skitty4gzus]

you cant take scripture out of context. murder is an unlawful killing of another with malice or malicious intent, not self-defense. The Bible does not contradict itself.

[carbon_unit]

Those who are going to commit a violent act will do so no matter if they have a gun or not. If they don't have a gun they will use a knife, a baseball bat, a rock or their bare hands.
Criminals will have guns whether they are legal or not. Outlawing guns will have no effect on criminal gun possession what so ever. As long as people are violent they will kill each other with anything they can find.
With that being said I will say that I do not possess any guns but I do know how to handle them but I do believe in the right to bear arms (reasonable arms).
I also see no reason in the world for civilians to own assault rifles or any other military equipment and I do not support owning them.
There are so many different weapons out there it is tough to draw a line between what should be legal and what is not. Still as I said earlier, the criminals will own any weapon they want, legal or not.

[bill bolton]

you cant take scripture out of context.

Huh?

The Hebrew word ratsach which is in the original text for the Exodus 20 passage, though often translated as "murder", in fact has a much wider range of meanings than you seem to want to attribute to it.

For instance Proverbs 22:13 ("The lazy person claims, 'There’s a lion out there! If I go outside, I might be killed!'") also uses ratsach, which clearly cannot be "murder".

Anyway, its already evident that you are quite happy to put whatever context suits your purpose on scripture, so I'll leave you to it!

[GomJabbar]

Matthew 26:52 (King James Version)
52 Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.

Revelation 13:9-10 (King James Version)
9 If any man have an ear, let him hear.
10 He that leadeth into captivity shall go into captivity: he that killeth with the sword must be killed with the sword. Here is the patience and the faith of the saints.

you cant take scripture out of context. murder is an unlawful killing of another with malice or malicious intent, not self-defense. The Bible does not contradict itself.

I am not saying the Bible contradicts itself, but it did evolve. In the Old Testament times (pre-Christian), the Israelites were told to fight and defend themselves. In the New Testament times, things changed. You never saw the early Christians take up arms against either against the government or against their neighbors. The early Christians practiced what Jesus taught. Unfortunately this did not continue. The Catholic-Protestant conflict is but one example where some "Christians" thought carnal weapons were "needed".

2 Corinthians 10:1-5 (New International Version)

1 By the meekness and gentleness of Christ, I appeal to you—I, Paul, who am "timid" when face to face with you, but "bold" when away!
2 I beg you that when I come I may not have to be as bold as I expect to be toward some people who think that we live by the standards of this world.
3 For though we live in the world, we do not wage war as the world does.
4 The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world. On the contrary, they have divine power to demolish strongholds.
5 We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ.

I've made my points, so I will shut up now.

[skitty4gzus]

just the opposite mr bolton. i am trying to bring context to scriptures that are being butchered on here by folks trying to make moot arguments. The Bible does not contradict itself. In that there are scriptures supporting self-defense and being in the military and police. So how can Exodus 20:13 sum up all killing, murders, intentional, unintentional and deem all situations worthy of sin? It doesn't. I have spent a decent part of my life so far abiding by the scriptures, researching scriptures, and learning all that I can about the Word. So, I don't necessarily appreciate your jab at me mr. bolton insinuating I am a lazy Christian who bends scriptures to make my walk easier. Anyways, im leaving this conversation go its own way, it's clear there is no room for correct interpretation of the Word

[beGi]

So if some book says it is OK, then it is OK (or not) ? Please...

In general, Bible and majority of other books in that category gave me (and millions of others) more problems than solutions...

Sure, it helped a lot of people, but I "blame" the process itself for that, not the content...

In the end (if you're sane enough), you will not ask forgiveness from your God, you will ask it from people around you, you will ask it from yourself...

[killer]

Great post, beGi.

However, if you, "ask it from yourself" then that is talking to yourself which is a sign of madness.

How do I know? Because I am busy counting the hairs on the back of my hand.

Don't give me a gun. Don't give anyone a gun. We are all potentially mad, and real life isn't a wild west film.

The lunatic is in the hall, etc, etc. (Apologies to Pink Floyd.)

[Marin85]

1) IMO, a gun has only one "right" purpose: to kill or cause harm. However, I don´t think this is right (in the moral sense). Anything else is just some moral(ized) derivative of this primary purpose. Apart from moral, there is some simple math here: the more guns there are, the higher the probability that people get killed, resp. the more people get killed. What kind of people, good or bad, on what side etc., doesn´t matter and cannot be actually concluded here. Of course, no one wants to be from the killed ones. That´s why everyone wants to have a gun. Here one can see some first discrepancy between group behavior and individual behavior (regarding guns). Such discrepancies are in general actually something common...

2) Possessing a gun makes most people (individuals) feel safe and thus happier (than if they feel unsafe). Feeling safe (very different from being safe) thus belongs, according to some economists, to human welfare/prosperity/living standard (just like this is the case with health, free time etc.). Banning guns would have controversial effects on this: some will feel unsafe, other will feel safer knowing that there are less guns in the society (?). Social benefit is inconclusive. Besides, not everyone is skilled enough to turn that "feeling safe" into "being safe".

3) When deciding to ban guns in a country/society like U.S. (where possessing a gun is extremely widespread), one have to consider the status-quo and the consequent transition period of applying these changes. In most cases, it´s the transition period that takes most of the pain untill those changes receive the nature of "established" or even "institutionalized". Anyway, it´s up to the individuals to decide for themselves if they are willing to pay the price for the (questionable) benefit for future generations. That´s some second discrepancy between individual and group interests. What would be the nature of such transition period? People would have to submit/return their (legal) guns. Some would refuse to act lawfully and would be probably prosecuted for possessing illegal guns, others would just buy and hide illegal guns, in fact that would be great opportunity for the market of illegal guns, it will bloom and bring fruits. There is no point in banning guns without some major strike against this market. And to be honest, I could hardly imagine such effective strike in the case of U.S. (big country with high criminal rates), and it will certainly cost a nice sum from the national budget... Now, buying illegal guns actually encourages criminal behavior, even in good citizens, and it would raise the criminal rates (both from side of buyers and suppliers as suppliers will have to satisfy the great demand). Furthermore, the lack of this safety feeling would increase social tense, which is in direct relation to criminal rates. To sum up, during this transition period the criminal rates would significantly increase, and there is no way to prevent this as human beings are just that, human beings, which basically tend to irrational behavior under the appropriate circumstances.

4) Banning guns would lead to significant decrease in the official gun demand in such a vast gun market as U.S. This would hurt many interests! Furthermore, there are (and being produced) excessive amounts of guns in U.S. no matter what. Such amounts always find its way of "redistribution" and "market realization". As a political measure, go persuade the weapon industry that they should produce significantly less guns than what is currently the status-quo... In any way, excessive amounts of guns will be redistributed more or less officially to the rest of the world. For homework, one can think of other compensation mechanisms too...

5) Moral derivative of guns main purpose (the way I see it): threatening, manifesting I´m dangerous, so stay away from me, in other words prevention. That reminds me of Dr. Strangelove, the "ultimate" weapon is to show off with, not to be used. Sort of true provided most criminals do realize the "danger" or believe that in every American home there is a gun that can be used against him, so he might get killed, or every American bears a gun. That´s still not the case. To be preventive, a gun must be shown, more or less just like in the Wild West. I´m not sure though what would be the benefit of such social "constellation"...

Wielding an AK-47 against a deer does not sound fair at all to me.

(here I should next be giving some cliche comment on human nature and human´s place in the kingdom of animals ).

Cheers,

Marin

[GomJabbar]

Just heard this on ABC news tonight:

Mexican authorities say 90 percent of the weapons seized in Mexican criminal investigations were purchased in the U.S. and smuggled over the border.

The Mexican president argued that the killing in his country increased sharply in 2004, when the ban on the sale of assault weapons in America expired. He suggested the ban should be renewed.

Mexican President Vows to Win Drug War
Calderon Calls for Renewal of U.S. Assault Weapons Ban, Points Out Shared Blame for Drugs

[ajkula66]

@GomJabbar:

You should know by now that I hold you in the highest of regards, but regarding youe last post there's only one thing I'll say:

Look who's talking

Lovely combo...lawless nation and a far-left media outlet

Please excuse me while I do a Melvin Purvis on myself and help the cause...

[dsvochak]

The information that most of the guns in Mexico are coming from the US was initially provided by that far-left media outlet, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, in a story dated April 22, 2008.

It's a war going on in Mexico, and these types of firearms are the weapons of war for them," said Bill Newell, the special agent in charge of the Phoenix field division of the ATF, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, which has primary law enforcement jurisdiction for investigating gun trafficking to Mexico.

"It's virtually impossible to buy a firearm in Mexico as a private citizen, so this country is where they come," said Newell.

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4695848&page=1

[GomJabbar]

ABC News - "far-left media outlet"
["far-left media outlet" Not sure about that, but anyway.]

Fox News - far-right media outlet

Actually, I rarely listen to ABC news. Someone else I work with happened to have the channel on. I get most of my news from the Jim Lehrer News Hour, on PBS. I also try to watch Washington Week, on PBS.