Gun Banning perspective...
 

There are those in this country, perhaps even some on this board, that think a complete ban of all firearms is the way to go after the shootings last week. Even though I don't think it will happen in my lifetime, the country is headed down that road with each new piece of legislation and regulation concerning firearms...give an inch, take a mile.

Anyway, we know from government numbers, that there were 9,484 firearm related homicides in 2008. Source

According to that mentality, banning guns would have saved roughly 9,500 innocent lives in one year.

What if I were to tell you that I know how to save 13,846 lives from violent deaths?? What if there was something else we could ban from society's use that could actually save roughly 47,000 lives each year?? Would you be willing to ban that item in hopes of saving these lives??

Click here to see what I think would help society more than banning firearms...

It's certainly something I could completely do without, and never miss it.

JP,

We have already had this conversation in the other thread. The purpose of a gun is to kill. . Alcohol is a food. Sure it can be abused but so can anything else.

Instead of focusing on bans which most of her have acknowledged don't work perhaps your time would be better spent on advocating the idea we agreed upon in the other thread. If the gun folks do not get out in front of it, bans will be put into effect, they will be unproductive for the people because they will not affect homicide rates but the prices will go up for the guns.

I do not consume any form of this product, but the US is dependent on the taxes generated from its' sales.

A Probation Officer I know says that 50% of all crime could be eliminated if this product were banned, at least in the rural Texas area he worked in.

Since when did you begin worrying about where I focus my time??

It is sadly just an agenda of mostly the left. It might get more votes than whatever the new "crisis" garners. I was amused by a certain contingent of congress members who commented about the "trite" comments of the NRA. EG, guns don't kill people, people do and how that comment is really "trite." Well, can the same be said about automotibles? Do automobiles kill people or do people ? Most folks would most likely say people when using autos but insert guns, and it's now guns. We really don't need cars, or booze, or tobacco, and the list goes on. We crossed off pot, however. It's just what appears to be popular among the politicians at the time and what the media pimps. It is horrible that 26 folks passed away because a deranged young man went on his rampage. However, how many people die of starvation every minute of the day ? Around 15-18 depending on whose counting noses and their funding source. I rarely if ever hear the media comment on this. That certainly sounds a lot worst than once crazy guy and his AR-15. I just hope the "right" and the NRA get their act together and protect the citizens' right to bear arms, and that includes an AR-15 with a 100 round drum magazine.

I consume it in very limited quantities. My neighbor brought over a quart of eggnog made with Southern Comfort which I found to be quite tasty. I could go the rest of my life never touching a drop, if I decided to. I'm content with a drink once every couple of months or so.

I'd be inclined to agree with the probation officer you know, at least in some parts of the US. Other parts, drugs are the issue.

I'd be willing to agree if someone would claim that 75% or divorce is alcohol related as well.

:deadhorse::deadhorse::deadhorse:

http://www.peachparts.com/shopforum/open-discussion/332054-wth-wrong-some-people-shooting-ct-elementary-school.html
http://www.peachparts.com/shopforum/open-discussion/332274-teachers-carrying-guns.html
http://www.peachparts.com/shopforum/open-discussion/332272-criminals-ignore-gun-laws.html
http://www.peachparts.com/shopforum/open-discussion/332327-course-most-sane-safe-logical-answer.html
http://www.peachparts.com/shopforum/open-discussion/332205-last-two-days-gun-shop-sales-through-roof.html

No...you're refusing to see this for what it is, a compromise. You regulate firearms to keep them out of the hands of kids and irresponsible, and we get to do the same to keep alcohol out of the hands of kids and irresponsible. How hard is that to take??

I wonder if there were an armed adult or two in that school the poor bastard would not have needed to kill himself.

Like hell it is.

- Peter.

I agree.

Many physicians will agree that technically, alcohol is a poison for the body.

Hey, schools of thought exist that consider meat a poison for the body etc. etc. etc.

:)

Which is more deadly to the populace?? Guns or alcohol??

Some would claim the Freedom of Speech as being more deadly than either...

x2, lets see how many parallel conversations we can have at once!

Hey, if you want to have more bans on guns have at it. I thought you were against the idea. Go figure.

I'll give up my gun - Steve Lee - YouTube

To many rules in the world.

Well what's the point of fast cars than? All you can do is break the law and probably kill people as well.

Lets ban Corvettes, and anything AMG!

Okla. Woman Shoots, Kills Intruder: 911 Operators Say It's OK to Shoot - ABC News

heres a self defense story.


so by your argument, its been proven that alcohol can be a good thing. By my argument, its been proven that guns are a good thing. they both kill, and they both save lives. right?

whats wrong charlie brown? did someone pose a valid argument?

If the gun folks do not get out in front of it, bans will be put into effect.

No problem is solved by ignoring it. A line once spoken by John Wayne went something along the lines of 'This is a problem and picking at it will not make it much better'. The NRA had a golden opportunity to get out ahead of this problem, but I think they blew it.

They could have easily said they would move to restart gun training programs for Boy Scouts and that they would try to impress everyone that guns are a needed tool, but one that must be handled correctly. This would have, in reality, accomplished little, but it would show the world the NRA was trying to offer their expertise to make the world a better place and that while they might be wrong in their thinking at least they were trying.

But instead they claim that more guns are the solution, and they want Congress to pay for it. This makes them look like they think the answer is to throw money at the problem.

And putting armed volunteers in schools? This would last a week or two before something went wrong. Hiring retired police officers might be a solution, but with the pension most retired police officers draw I doubt there would be many takers.

I, myself, have no answers, but then I am not expected to. The NRA could have taken the leadership position on this and controlled the conversation, but they did not and now likely never will.

I don't know who their PR firm is, but they need to start casting about for a new one.

The question we might ask ourselves is how do so many other countries, first, second and third world, get along without guns? Most of Europe has very stringent laws regarding gun ownership and their societies seem to function fairly well.

No, pretty sure that was not it.

......

This.

well, by all means, lets hear your argument.

Most of them do have guns. They don't have a NRA. Of course it's more complex than that, but there might be some lessons learned from them if we can just let go a little.

I have never argued that guns are good or bad much less if alcohol is good or bad. The only thing I have been arguing is that gun owners and sellers need to be held accountable for their weapons. Had you read any of my posts you would have seen that and not asked me to repeat my self yet again.

Geez... what did pot ever do to anybody??:confused:;)

I agree that there are a lot of other things that kill people, drunks in cars, malnutrition, hard drugs... these all point to an underlying sickness in our society.
Until we address the crumbling of our collective moral fiber, we will see increased demand to limit the tools utilized by the unhinged.
I believe that a huge part of the slow collapse can be directly attributed to the ever increasing gap between the haves and the have nots. Many people are born into situations with no hope, no opportunity, no real education, and no access to proper medical care and attentio.
This is an area where we need to focus attention. As long as our schools are underperforming and having to play surrogate parent for kids whose parents, or parent, are working 60 hours/week to keep a roof over their heads, the youth of this nation will not grow up to be well adjusted, productive members of our society.
Our funding for education is woefully inadequate, and it is a yearly struggle to get even a consistent level of funding.
We cannot expect our young to surpass or even keep up with the older generation if we do not take their education seriously. Our people need access to quality health care as well. We cannot just keep throwing up our hands and proclaiming that the latest mass murderer was mentally ill, and blaming those closest to them. We need to find a way to provide assistance to these people. To get them the help they need before they go off the deep end.

Random thoughts and comments of a Gun owner:

All of our Freedoms in the USA are abused by Peoople. Should your freedom to do something be taken away because someone else abused it.

"Guns are only made to Kill"; none of mine have unless you claim Targets or Cans as Kills. I suppose that means that you can shoot without killing something else with them and still have a good time.

I can't remember the details but back in the 70s or 80s a Man lit a Night Cub on fire and killed over 200 people and there was no call for a ban on Gasoline Cans or Gasoline.

People are frequently Bludgeoned to death (beaten with a blunt object) and we don't try to ban the objects that People frequently use to do that.

Lots of Stabbings every year but We don't attempt to ban Knives over a certain size so they would be less deadly.

Banning Guns would give the Criminals another product to sell. If Criminals can smuggle in tons of Weed they can bring in tons of Guns.
Criminals need Guns to protect themselves From other Criminals as well as to ply their trade so some of them are always going to have Guns.

A Ban on Guns would remove part of the deterrent to Crime and Home Invasion type Robberies would escalate as well as other Crimes.

Do you want to count on the Police as your sole means of protection?

The Mother/Victim of the latest Mass Murder allowed Her Son who She knew was disturbed access to Her own Guns; at least I have not read that the Son broke in and took the Guns.

Lots of talk about Gun Bans but less about School Security; and that makes sense to many People.

Some of the People often quoted as "Our Founding Fathers" wrote in their various Papers that one of the reasons for the Right to Bear Arms (Guns/Firearms) was to prent the People from being opressed by the Government. Is this reason no longer valid?

Should a Country say I cannot own a Gun but require Me to carry one in the Military?

If a Gun Ban was declared and somehow enforced what real protection would it offer; meaning would you or your Loved Ones be better protected by a Gun Ban?

Who or what group would a benifit from a ban on Guns?

Like all safety related stuff it depends on the People. If People are willing to do unsafe things or go out and want to Kill other People they cannot always be stopped.
That is why that "Guns don't Kill People; People Kill People" comment has meaning because a Gun has no evil or will to it.

I could go on and on............

Please don't.

Unless you wish to speak with reason and research on your side, you will only make matters worse.

RULE 5: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions.


Watch out for rule seven though,

RULE 7: “A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.” Don’t become old news.



iPhone 4

As a former Scout Leader with the Dan Beard Council, I can state with certainty that the BSA and the NRA have had a very close relationship for the last 102 years. The NRA never ended any programs with the BSA, and the BSA still offers a Rifle Shooting badge.

However, all too often, parents petition the council to end the program, and less kids sign up for the badge, because their parents refuse to allow them to pursue the badge.

Quite often, it's the mothers that become troop leaders that steers the troops away from that badge...preferring sewing over the rifle.

With bumbling Biden at the helm what could go wrong. He has a great relationship with law enforcement.

http://img.tapatalk.com/d/12/12/22/6emutama.jpg


iPhone 4

Now that is a funny picture!

Good thoughtful post. The NRA had a chance to do something positive but blew it with a statement that blatently promotes more gun sales...no credibility at all there.

"Please don't"; Please clerify what you mean by this.

Research verses common knowlege.
People kill or attack other People for reasons that are simple to multiple complicated reasons with an there is long list if items they used as weapons to do so.
This thread concerns the banning of one of the possible Weapons and if a ban on Guns would actually fix the above mentioned problems.

My own opinion is that the part in red above is not going to change if there was a ban on Guns and that we would lose the right to use a Gun to protect ourselves.

Added: The only possible thing that has any chance of preventing someone from getting into a School and comitting a mass murder is if the School Security was so tight that that it was not possible to do so.

Increasing Security at Schools also has a plus to it in that it might also decrease the the amount of Drugs in a School.

This is an interesting perspective from the admittedly conservative judge who sentenced Gabby Giffords' shooter.

The conservative case for an assault weapons ban - latimes.com

So what's the alternative? Bring back the assault weapons ban, and bring it back with some teeth this time. Ban the manufacture, importation, sale, transfer and possession of both assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. Don't let people who already have them keep them. Don't let ones that have already been manufactured stay on the market. I don't care whether it's called gun control or a gun ban. I'm for it.

I say all of this as a gun owner. I say it as a conservative who was appointed to the federal bench by a Republican president. I say it as someone who prefers Fox News to MSNBC, and National Review Online to the Daily Kos. I say it as someone who thinks the Supreme Court got it right in District of Columbia vs. Heller, when it held that the 2nd Amendment gives us the right to possess guns for self-defense. (That's why I have mine.) I say it as someone who, generally speaking, is not a big fan of the regulatory state.

I even say it as someone whose feelings about the NRA mirror the left's feelings about Planned Parenthood: It has a useful advocacy function in our deliberative democracy, and much of what it does should not be controversial at all.

And I say it, finally, mindful of the arguments on the other side, at least as I understand them: that a high-capacity magazine is not that different from multiple smaller-capacity magazines; and that if we ban assault weapons and high-capacity magazines one day, there's a danger we would ban guns altogether the next, and your life might depend on you having one.

But if we can't find a way to draw sensible lines with guns that balance individual rights and the public interest, we may as well call the American experiment in democracy a failure.

You just trotted out every hackneyed, wore out, pathetic excuse which has been spouted by gun owners and the NRA for decades, then announced that you could go on and on...

So, please don't go on and on.

As a responsible gun owner, I see the need for us to collectively quit with the BS, knee-jerk, redirection talking points that have been beaten to death and proven to be disingenuous at best.

We need to speak about these things with reason and facts, all the while listening to the argument from the other side and actually responding directly to the points being raised. Screaming 'SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!!!' does not help our case.


My own opinion on what is in red is - Huh?? Could you rephrase the statement please?

A voice of reason.

Thanks for the link!

It is not the guns fault no matter how loud it is screamed. This angle is weakening your position.

Education and protection of the children is whats at hand. Access to the schools must be secured and personnel must be trained to do so. Its a brave new world and no amount of control laws will change that.

"Gloria: Do you know that sixty percent of all deaths in America are caused by guns?
Archie Bunker: Would it make you feel any better, little girl, if they was pushed out of windows?"


iPhone 4

That is why most of us are not talking about bans because we know they do not work. Most of us here are talking about holding gun owners responsible for their weapons, regulating the sale and resale of weapons and the storage of weapons.

Conveniently, seems most of the gun folks on this site do not seem to like that idea either. Go figure. Their solution is more guns but do not address the issue of the wrong people getting easy access to guns.

My original post wasn't for those that are willing to come to some sort of reason, it was for those that say ALL guns should be banned.

Most of the guns that are available in the USA are also available here. You need a licence to own one or you are breaking the law. You need a special licence to own restricted weapons such as hand guns and the one used in the recent shooting, or you are really breaking the law. Full auto is banned here - there's no need for anyone in the general public to own one.

Self, or home defense, really isn't on the radar here because the average Joe isn't walking around packing a Glock. We have sensible regulations that both work and at the same time don't infringe upon the rights of hunters or sportsmen. Most of the guys I know who don't hunt also don't own guns which backs up my belief that people arn't worried about personal protection all that much.

For the most part, people here tend to trust, but not always like their current govenment. The Conservative majority that we have right now was elected with about 35% of the popular vote so that's understandable. However, there's none of this rabid '' I'm gonna be armed to the teeth just in case they try to take over '' kind of thinking here. There may be a few people like that around but they're quickly dismissed as being a bit crazy.

The 2nd Amendment has done more to screw up America than it's done to help. It hasn't made you free nor has it made you safe. If anything, it's turned some of the populace into paranoid and fretful victims that have to have a gun to protect themselves from others who have guns.
We have plenty of guns here but we never had a 2nd Amendment. Our gun deaths this year stand at 135. How are you doing?

Having said all of this, I feel very badly for those that lost those little kids. There will be no future for them - it's over.




My only child, who has mental problems, might have killed my wife one day during one of his '' episodes '' had he been able to access my firearms. They were safely locked up as were the ones next door at my parents. The police arrived very quickly. I was gone at the time and arrived home to find 6 police cars parked in my driveway and some parked in the front yard next door.
The cops asked me if I had any firearms and I said yes. After they found out everthing was locked up they relaxed a bit but were still on full alert.
Even though there had been a history of mental problems he was still charged with mischief, assult, uttering death threats, cruelty to animals and posssion of a controlled substance ( pot ) but at leat he wasn't charged with attempted murder or murder. He spent a month in hospital in a mental ward before being released to the police.

There was no free ride for him in court. It put me in a really awkward position of having to defend my son but protect my wife. ( not his mother ) In court, it became clear to me that close to half of the people charged with various things all had mental problems. Most of them breach their probation which is a criminal offense and land back in court again. None of them will ever own guns, like never!

My younger brother took his own life with a hunting rifle back in 1975. My father found him - he never got over it. He never touched a gun for ten years after that. He eventually got past it enough to hunt with me again. Last year he got a button buck at over 100 yards with a 12 gauge using 000 buck at age 85 - so he's a good shot.

So, I'm not anti gun........ I'm pro safety. It's where things should start. Be responsible with your stuff because if you aren't part of the solution, you're part of the problem.

Gun people help me understand...

Why do you want to have assault rifles and high capacity magazines? Should your desire to own these guns trounce safety concerns with all the nut jobs?

I'm honestly having a hard time wrapping my head around this. I am not interested in second amendment arguments like, "because I can" or "because 'Merica", nor am I interested in the cars, drugs, people kill people argument or somesuch. Just wondering what is your motivation to own one of these killing machines, despite them being so easy to fall into the hands of crazies.

Unlike a handgun you can't use it for defense, unless its in your home, but I'd think you'd do lots of damage to your house or risk hitting a family member should you unload a magazine when the adrenaline is pumping. I have some experience with guns and would think a pistol would be much better for protection and home defense. Its not a practical gun for hunting either; the only use I can see is for fun at the shooting range.

All assault weapons are good at is killing large amounts of people, plain and simple. Is it just fun to have that kind of power in your hands, are you preparing for a zombie apocalypse, or what?

Banning Assault weapons and high capacity magazines makes perfect sense. The nutties can still get guns but they won't be able to kill as many people.

I don't, but that's personal choice. I don't find military styled guns, for lack of a better description, attractive or useful. Expensive toys and nothing more.

No. I'm not afraid of some imaginary slippery slope.

I'll let the fans of these arms answer. There are groups and websites set up to prove to the disbelieving anti-gun crowd that people actually hunt with these weapons, but the mods necessary to make them hunting friendly weapons are not what the guns were originally designed for. In my opinion anyone who needs more than a couple of rounds to kill a coyote probably shouldn't be allowed outside of a shooting range with a loaded weapon. My own take: I see these guns all the time. Many of the guys I routinely shoot with have them. Sometimes they bring them to our shoots for after-match show and tell. There is great storytelling and much oohing and aaahing and everybody gets to try out a round or two. It's a showoff deal from the get go if you ask me. Nobody who has a practical use for a firearm, whether it's for protection or hunting needs one and IMO they are not the first or best choice for either activity. It's sort of like seeing some numbnuts using a foot long serrated Rambo styled survival knife to gut an 8 inch hatchery trout. That there is machismo involved is beyond arguable.

The sticky wicket for me is how high capacity magazines are defined. There would have to be a line drawn somewhere. Only a set number of rounds or any legislation would be meaningless. I posted this conundrum early on somewhere in this discussion. Take two pistols that I own. One is a 1911 designed to hold 8 shots of 45ACP. The other is a Sig Sauer 9mm pistol designed to hold 16 rounds. If I am practiced and trained, I can arguably do more damage with my 1911 than I can with the Sig, as a 45 is a potentially much more damaging bullet. It makes a bigger hole. Where is the line? This is what perplexes me and however it's drawn, I'm afraid it won't be fair, and won't protect the innocent from the crazies. The extreme magazines; 100 round drum mags, 30 round extended mags for pistols like the one G. Giffords' shooter used. If they were banned tomorrow it wouldn't bother me. It is notable to me that THESE are the kinds of accessories the mass shooters are using.
Any time you get a slippery slope argument from somebody you are at that point on a fool's errand and might as well quit. There is no reasoning with those individuals. Their argument is based in fear.

So they're worried if Rambo guns get banned it will eventually lead to a ban on all firearms? Are these the same people that believe Obama is a Muslim anti-christ?

You're right, its impossible to argue with someone who's that far gone...

(I did not make this up) ...the head of the NRA said people need a 100 round magazines so they don't have to reload at the firing range.

something I have not seen here is mention of the armor piercing guns. I heard of them on the radio a couple of days ago. 5.7 i think they called it. The bullets are very small diameter and very high velocity and they pierce body armor.

They were developed for LEO I believe and the mfgr promised not to let them out on the streets for ordinary folks. Naturally thye did not honor their promise and they are now fairly common amongst the criminals. I believe they have been sold in quantity to Mexico so they also come back across the border too.

Regulation of personal choice is not the issue. Trying to ban or regulate a right is the issue. Regardless of the belief of a slippery slope or the insults directed at those that believe there is one, the weapons style or capacity had NO bearing on the school shooting. The weapon is not to blame or the access to the weapon.

It is dishonest to set that tone. Keep saying "its to save the children" when events like the school shooting are tiny in comparison to other events as car accidents, etc.

This is about gun control and that is all. Just using the recent event to force hands.

And this from those that say repubs are the fear mongers. " We are going to have an economic collapse! Pass the stimulus or else!" "They're trying to control your privates! Get them!"

Now its "Save the children! Ban guns now!"

Why do all of your laws and regulations need fear to push them through?


iPhone 4