What the writer says is true, guns do allow faster killing than knives, even
though there are other ways to kill people quickly. The point is that guns are
morally neutral. They don't decide whom to kill. The fact that they're
efficient can be a good thing as well as a bad thing, it all depends on how
they're used.I notice that the guy who shot the firemen in New
York was illegally armed. Too bad the existing gun control laws didn't stop
him. It isn't clear how more laws or tougher laws might have changed the
outcome. It seems that only law-abiding people are affected by gun control laws.
It was already illegal to bring a gun to school anyway what would gun control
do? That evil man in New York that shot the firefighters was out of prison
after murdering his own grandmother I believe. If someone was afraid of capital
punishment murder would go down. Likewise if someone feared a gun or if there
was a gun more innocent people might have been saved. I beleive a concealed
carrier stopped a good deal of innocent people from getting killed in Oregon.
Guns can save lives. Besides criminals will find a way to get guns anyway.
Blaming guns for crime is as illogical as blaming spoons and forks for obesity.
A gun in my hand is better for me and my family than a cop on the phone.
Have shootings become so commonplace that they merit very little attention? Have
they become as routine as auto accidents and obtain no news coverage beyond a
mention unless they are as horrific as the school shootings?Notice
how little attention is being paid to the firefighter deaths in New York and how
little coverage has been given to two recent Utah shootings that left two dead
and two wounded. Have Americans in general become so accustomed to shootings
that they stir no real concern?Apparently there is no one keeping
good records of shootings. The few sites I can find are usually badly slanted to
either extreme. There is little information about how many guns used are
"legal" versus "illegal." The New York shooter was
"illegal." The two in Utah were apparently "legal." Based on
what I've been able to find, it appears that the majority of guns used in
shootings and suicides are "legal."We have a serious problem
that we've ignored far too long.Solutions are out there -- but
finding them might be very hard unless both sides soften their stances.If absolutely no regulation was intended, why is that word in the Second
Homes with guns in them are twelve times (12X) more likely to be used against a
family member or a family friend than homes that do not have guns in them. Over
17,000 people, each year, commit suicide with a gun. This is a national
disgrace. The NRA will label people like Adam Lanza as "Monsters" or
"Predators" in order to scare and dehumanize these individuals. In the
NRA's warped thinking, there is a criminal class and a good citizen class.
They want everyone to buy a gun to protect themselves from their made up
"criminal class." This is a fantasy and deflects clear thinking. Most
murders occur in the home. Guns are used in domestic violence much more offend
that the are used to protect a family against an intruder. The Sandy Hook
School shooting has exposed the NRA's weak thinking. Good editorial and on
Mountainman is the epitome of the issue.."a gun in my hand is better than a
cop on the phone"..only if that's the only consequence of brandishing a
gun..and only if it's probable that you will some day be the victim of a
face to face criminal who intends on physically killing you or yours. Fact is
reality doesn't meet either of those requirements. This is the
danger of violent movies, tv shows, etc. it helps create this fantasy of a
boogey man around every corner so I need to be ready at a moments notice to blow
his head off. Fact is 99.9% of everyone we know will go through
life and never go face to face with a malintentioned gun..and I have been in a
face to face robbery and a concealed weapon wouldn't have done me any good
at all. Spout all the trite macho saysing you want..but the world just
doesn't fit into your little fantasy world.
@ pragmatistferlife; Macho? You completely misjudge me! Not many years ago a man
with a criminal history moved to this area and broke into a family's home
and brutally murdered both parents and one older son with a hammer. He took the
two remaining children to a remote area and raped them both for days. He
eventually killed the young boy and took the young girl to a restaurant in town.
A waitress recognized the girl and called police. That man is still in prison
wasting taxpayer money with appeal after appeal. If only the parents of that
family had a gun, it is highly likely their family would not have been destroyed
by an evil man. Has nothing to do with being macho as you suggested, has to do
with protecting my family.
"Guns Kill People Too Quickly"So we prefer a long slow
death? Being stabbed repeatedly, strangled, or bludgeoned? How about
ripped apart by a dog? That was my experience. Had it not been for someone
intervening, I would be dead. If I had had a gun, I would have had one bite
instead of rips all over by body.Facing an aggressive dog is much
more likely than facing an armed nut job. Dog bites are much more common than
shootings. Irresponsible people get dogs, big aggressive dogs, for their
"protection". Unlike a gun, dogs can go off without the aid or someone
to pull the trigger. Shall we outlaw large dogs because a few owners are
irresponsible? Even I, the victim, say no. Don't punish the good dog owners
because of the bad ones. But let me, the responsible gun owner, have my gun too.
Again, don't punish the responsible gun owners because of the irresponsible
owners.Now all the liberal naysayers will probably call me a liar.
They have done that to others who post their experiences. There is no provision
here to post pictures of all the scars, but I have them, inside and out.
Re: "If absolutely no regulation was intended, why is that word in the
Second Amendment?"The Second Amendment talks of a well-regulated
militia, not of well-regulated arms or ammunition.There is no
mention whatever of regulating arms in the words, "the right of the people
to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."You gave it the
old liberal college try -- but no cigar.
@ MountanmanSounds like you think about this a lot. But since you
are about a million times more likely to be injured or killed in a car accident
then by a gun wielding home invader, then by your logic shouldn’t you be
driving a vehicle with Nascar like protection? Also, your
“spoons” logic only goes so far – would that logic apply if a
terrorist were to nuke NYC? “Nuclear bombs don’t kill people,
terrorists do.” What about fighter jets, tanks, rocket launchers,
etc…?The point is that simplistic “logic” never
tells the whole story, let alone provides all the answers. We need pragmatic
sense to know where to draw the lines. Obviously we draw the line at nuclear
weapons and tanks. Maybe assaults weapons and high capacity clips should fall on
that side of the line and not on the “musket” side. Either way, it is worth discussing rather than thinking a bumper sticker is
the place to find wisdom and public policy.
So let me get this straight....Republicans think it's OK to
attack and invade a country over weapons of mass destruction that do not exist
and never killed or threatened a single American, butWant that very
same over-reaching Government to NOT ban or restrict it's own citizens who
possess weapons of mass destruction that DO exist and DO kill Americans.BTW -- Conservative All-or-Nothing extremeistsNone of are saying
ban ALL guns, confiscate ALL guns, arrest ALL gun owners...Just the
assualt weapons (yes, an AR-15 is a weapon first that just so happens to be a
gun second) of mass destruction.
Procura, have the Founding Fathers come to you in your dreams to explain to you
exactly what they meant when they wrote that?
@ Tyler. I agree with most of what you said. However, rocket launchers and
machine guns can be purchased on the black market, by those who can afford them
subject to supply and demand.I take no offense from people who CHOOSE not
to own firearms, just at those who tell me I can not!I would support any
gun law that guarantees criminals can not get guns, even high capacity clips! To
me, that is logic in action, not just words!
This is true. Guns kill too fast. Lets opt for more drought, starvation, knife
wounds and slow poisoning. Get real you nincompoop, PEOPLE shoot PEOPLE.
Remember that the purpose of a gun is to "kill" something or someone.
They are not designed to be a threat, but to make good on a threat. If you have
a gun but are unwilling to actually use it and "gun down someone" they
will take it away from you and use it on you. The problem isn't people who
keep the laws (that is very obvious), but those who are "fixated with
killing" and can't wait for the supposed attention and glory that think
such action brings to them. Anyone or anything that glorifies killing shares in
the blame, too, whether it be hollywood, the media, gun shows, violent games,
etc. To glorify killing is to desensitise the value of life, either human or
animal, and reduces ones ability to think clearly. Killing animals for food is
indeed justified and proper. Killing animals for the thrill of killing
something is not moral, ethical or praiseworthy.
MountanmanHayden, IDI take no offense from people who CHOOSE
not to own firearms, just at those who tell me I can not!I would support
any gun law that guarantees criminals can not get guns, even high capacity
clips! To me, that is logic in action, not just words!10:11 a.m.
Dec. 27, 2012============== As former military soldier,
How do you feel about my 2nd amendment right to keep and bare Nerve Gas,
Blood agents, Coughing agents, Blistering Agents (Chemical weapons)orBoubonic plauge, Typhoid, Malaria, Anthrax, Ricketts, Shingles, and Yellow
Fever (Bio-Weapons)I have no problem when my friends and neighbors
CHOOSE not to posses them, just those of you who say I can not.orare you only going to support laws if you could only guatantee they
not get into the hands of criminals?FYI Weapons of Mass
destruction -- Assault rifles and high capacity clips fall into these
categories as well, for exactly the same reasons.One person -- Mass
killings.Not safe in the hands of common citizens.
"As former military soldier, How do you feel about my 2nd amendment
right to keep and bare Nerve Gas, Blood agents, Coughing agents, Blistering
Agents (Chemical weapons)orBoubonic plauge, Typhoid, Malaria,
Anthrax, Ricketts, Shingles, and Yellow Fever (Bio-Weapons)"I
don't believe you have any such right and it strains logic to use such
examples in the present discussion. Why would I think you are being rational
about the issue?
@MountanmanSounds like we are closer than it seemed at first.
It’s a complex problem that will likely require a number of different
approaches… and even then there’s no way we’re going to stop
every shooting.My problem with groups like the NRA is that gun
restrictions (better background checks, assault weapons, gun show loop hole,
high capacity clips, etc…) are simply off the table before the
conversation even begins. And the Left (Hollywood) does the same regarding
censorship (violent movies, video games, etc…). When I see some of these
actors (who have done horrible acts of violence on screen, often gratuitous and
without merit) lecture us on values, the hypocrisy makes me nauseated. None of these rights (free speech, guns, etc.) are absolute and when
they begin to trample on other’s rights – like to life, liberty and
the pursuit of happiness – the law allows for some restrictions (e.g., you
cannot yell fire in a crowded theater). Of course the elephant in
the room is mental illness… no easy answers there.
@ Tyler, I also do a lot of backpacking in wilderness areas where I pack a .44
mag handgun. I have never used it but I would rather have it and not need it
than need it and not have it! Wolves are getting aggressive up here, had them
howling outside my campsite many times.Thanks for your civil discussion.
Happy New Year to you and yours!
Ah, MM, my congratulations to you. You've had the chance to finally know
the thrill of hearing that deep, throaty wild sound echoing through a wild
place. It has been gone from our land far too long.Now if we can
only help some of our fellow Americans to put aside their irrational fears and
learn to appreciate what is truly of value. We can only hope that not so many
of our neighbors have become citified to the point that they recoil in senseless
fear when they hear the cry of canis lupus echoing through a wilderness
night.But for those of us who live for the times when we can
disappear into truly wild places with a backpack or string of horses, there is
nothing better than that wildly wonderful sound.Don't you feel
sorry for anyone so cowardly that they find themselves cringing in fear and
feeling in the dark for the handle of some kind of weapon?
Then they will just use chainsaws in the future. People will die in even greater
agony with a chinsaw than a gun.
@Why would I?Farmington, UTI don't believe you have any
such right and it strains logic to use such examples in the present discussion.
Why would I think you are being rational about the issue?10:46 a.m.
============Do you know the terms sarcasm or trial
test?Of course no "normal" person would feel safe with my
having such dangerous weapons stored at my house or garage.But this same
2nd amendment rights fails by those saying they need assault rifles and high
capacity clips for defense as to my choosing to have chemical and biological
weapons in my defense.Name for me ONE instance of anyone anywhere
"protecting" his family or property against dangerous criminals or evil
bad guys attacking them, and his thworting their attackers and saving the
day due to his use of an assault rifle?ZERONow -- How many times have you read about some nut-job getting ahold of and using
these same weapons and going on a rampage shooting indicriminately at innocent
by-stnaders, movie goers, mall patrons and litte kids in schools?Almost weekly.It's about time we do something.because I
serious don't want to make my own weapons.
What is the price of FREEDOM? We have the RIGHT to keep and bear arms. The
Supreme Court has ruled, upholding that amendment.How many people
have died so that the GOVERNMENT cannot take away our firearms?8,000
- Revolutionary War1,056 - Northwest Indian War2,260 -
War of 18121,733 - Mexican American War212,938 - Civil
War919 - Indian Wars1,020 - Philippine American War53,402 - WWI291,557 - WWII33,686 - Korean War47,424 - Vietnam4,977 - War on TerrorYet, even
with precious blood spilt, many Americans are first in line to give away their
Freedoms. They're first in line to TAKE AWAY our Freedoms. So many preach
"anything goes", then when someone decides that anything goes, they want
to use governmental force to keep us from doing wrong. That plan was voted down
long before we were born. Why do so many think that Lucifer was right and that
Christ was wrong? Christ gave us agency. Lucifer uses force to take away our
agency.At least those who want to take away our freedom can
truthfully say, "the devil made me do it".
I hate gunsBut that didn't stop me from noticing that the
"monster" at Sandy Hook only stopped shooting others (and turned to
himself) when the police showed up with a GUN Or that the heroic
principal may have been alive now if she had a firearm, instead of sacrificing
her bodyOr that the firefighters killed in a Christmas Eve ambush
were killed by a man who was prohibited by law from having a gunOr
that despite it being illegal to own one in DC: David Gregory brandished a
high-capacity ammunition magazine on Meet-the-Press.Seems that
criminals (and liberal elitist journalists) think that gun laws don't
really apply to them - merely to me.
airnautWe likely agree on several things, among them that a regular
person has absolutely no need for an assault rife. Since you like
sarcasm, how about this: We mount an assault rifle on our car as a hood ornament
and if someone tries to steal the car the rifle swings around, pointing at them,
and a recorded message declares "You have 5 seconds to exit the vehicle or
this weapon fires." (Of course it would only be in one language as their
wouldn't be time to press 1 for english, 2 for spanish, etc.)When it comes to guns, there are two observations: 1- A rational discussion
is almost impossible, and 2- Yes, we do have a problem in this country.
Probably Nancy Lanza also believed the rhetoric we hear from pro-gun
enthusiasts.But nothing can change the fact that there are 20
children who are dead from guns she bought and introduced to her troubled son.
The ATF has not had an official director, only acting directors, for
several years because Republicans changed the way ATF directors were appointed
to require Senate confirmation. As a result, Senate Republicans/NRA refuse to
confirm someone as ATF director. ALL gun/ammo purchases should
require background checks and a waiting period. There should be a limit to the
number of guns one can purchase on a monthly/yearly basis--to reduce the
likelihood of "straw purchases," just as decongestants are
tracked/limited for meth manufacturing. /
@Mike RichardsSouth Jordan, UtahThey're first in line to
TAKE AWAY our Freedoms.That plan was voted down long before we were
born. Why do so many think that Lucifer was right and that Christ was wrong?
Christ gave us agency. Lucifer uses force to take away our agency.At
least those who want to take away our freedom can truthfully say, "the devil
made me do it".2:14 p.m. Dec. 27, 2012==============
Mike, This is hilarous! -- Are you serious?This coming from the same guy who wants to take away; Smoking, Drinking alcohol, R-rated movies, shopping on Sunday, short
skirts, and yet here you are going off on another rant about arming
paranoid citizens to the hilt -- able to gun down less armed Police and thinking
they are somehow entitled to be on par with our Military, who have at least been
thoroughly Trained, back-ground checked, Certified and keeping arms firmly
secured and away in gun safes 24/7/365!Private citizens are NOT that
"well regulated Militia" you right-wingers dream you are.Thanks for trampling the Constitution.
@toosmart"They are not designed to be a threat, but to make good
on a threat."Not sure I agree completely with that sentiment.
Usually the threat is sufficient to ward off attacks. But you are correct that
one should not brandish a weapon unless one is prepared to use it. Good firearms
training is essential, which is one reason why I support the NRA.
@Truthseeker"ALL gun/ammo purchases should require background
checks and a waiting period."Nancy Lanza obeyed the laws on the
books when she acquired her firearms, laws which are more strict in Connecticut
than most other states. The background checks and waiting periods did not change
the outcome. Tracking her purchases would not have changed the outcome. Having
an "official director" of ATF would not have changed the outcome. I
don't understand your line of reasoning.
I have YET for someone to provide an example of someone ever using an assault
rifle to defend his family or property from evil criminals, or deadly
attackers.Yet -- in just the last several weeks we have case after
case of a nut-job after nut-job using them to indiscriminately open fire on
innocent by-standers, Mall patrons, and little school children. There has
probably hundreds of this sort of instance happen over the last few years.It's time to take them away -- from your cold dead hands...For the good of this nation.BTW - If you want an assault
rifle -- join the military.A pick-up truck, gun rack in the rear
window, and target practice a couple times a year is not the "well regulated
militia" the Constitution makes allowances for.
@airnaut:"So let me get this straight.... Republicans think
it's OK to attack and invade a country over weapons of mass destruction
that do not exist and never killed or threatened a single American."I'll try to help you out... Saddam Hussein DID have WMD. He used
them to kill Kurds in northern Iraq. And he was in the process of developing
more effective WMD such as what his neighbor, Ahmadinejad in Iran is now
doing.As for invading... Bush invaded Iraq because Saddam invaded
Kuwait and then refused to honor a no fly zone requirement after the war. What
was Bush supposed to do, send Saddam a nasty note of some sort?
re:PopsMy overall point is that we have been too lax about firearms
in this country. Too many gun fanatics (not all gun owners) hold
unrealistic, naive, mythical views about the safety risks poised by firearms in
the home and in society. Unfortunately, it appears Nancy Lanza fell into this
category. Perhaps she kept the guns locked up? We don't know. At one
time I had 3 teenaged sons living at home and would never presume they
couldn't get figure out a way to get into a gun cabinet if they were
determined to do so. I erred on the side of caution, choosing to not have any
guns in my home. Granted, if one of my sons was determined he could figure out
another way to procure a gun. But why make it easy? After all, burglar alarms
don't deter all burglaries either. Perhaps additional
questions need to be asked for gun purchasers--such as who is living at home and
do they suffer from any type of mental illness? Perhaps the Nancy Lanza's
could still own guns, but be required to keep them at a shooting range in a
@Why would I?:"We likely agree on several things, among them that a
regular person has absolutely no need for an assault rife."No
one needs an assault weapon. The only thing an assault weapon is good for is to
assault someone. And no one should be assaulting anyone. Especially with a
gun.But, on the other hand, the US Constitution authorizes guns in
the hands of citizens in the event we need a militia in case the government
needs to be overthrown... and that would include assault weapons. And perhaps
many other types of weapons.Perhaps we need to analyze whether we
need a militia to overthrow the government in the first place. And more
importantly, whether we need to use force these days when we have a ballot box.
Certainly the current government needs to be overthrown and those in government,
including the White House, needs to be thrown out. But I doubt a militia with
assault weapons are going to be able to overthrow our current government
considering that it has ships, guns, tanks, airplanes, large bombs, including
(gasp) H-bombs, and a million man professional military.
@beverlyover 17,000 suicides are committed every year by other than
guns. Are you going to call for outlawing the other methosds used? You say the
NRA is going to label the shooter a monster, as if every other group, news
agency, and civilized person has not already done that. He was a monster.
@Mr. Bean – “Perhaps we need to analyze whether we need a militia to
overthrow the government in the first place. And more importantly, whether we
need to use force these days when we have a ballot box. Certainly the current
government needs to be overthrown…”Wow, my head hurts!
So let me get this straight… you question the very idea of force because
we have a ballot box, but then (with no apparent irony) you say the current
government – which was elected by a majority of the people, and a big
majority of electoral votes… TWICE! - needs to be overthrown? Maybe overthrowing the government is not the only reason the Founders drafted
the 2nd amendment…
Re:Jsf"Are you going to call for outlawing the other methods
used?"Is anyone calling for all firearms to be
"outlawed"? Of the other methods of suicide, how many
involved items whose sole/main function is to kill?More people die
from suicide by firearms than by car accidents in the U.S.
All this noise about how more guns will make us safer from "bad guys"
begs the question: Who are these bad guys you're talking about and why
should I trust you not to be one of them? Should I buy a gun to protect myself
from you just in case you are not who you claim to be?As for keeping
the mentally ill from obtaining guns, what makes those on the Far Right of the
gun issue sane when they sound like paranoid psychotics about having to fight
the government someday?Finally, is the gun lobby really suggesting
that we have paramilitary forces patrolling our streets, neighborhoods, and
business areas with automatic, military, assault weapons like they do
totalitarian regimes we currently distain for their political system but
apparently worship for their security acumen? Where are the libertarians on
turning the country into a police state where everyone is armed and gunning for
Dear Mr. Washington,"I was outraged. in the wake of the Oklahoma
City tragedy, Mr. LaPierre, V.P. of N.R.A., defended his attack on federal
agents as "jack-booted thugs." To attack Secret Service agents or A.T.F.
people or any government law enforcement people as "wearing Nazi bucket
helmets and black storm trooper uniforms" wanting to "attack law abiding
citizens" is a vicious slander on good people.....I am a gun
owner and avid hunter. Over the years I have agreed with most of N.R.A.'s
objectives, particularly your educational and training efforts, and your
fundamental stance in favor of owning guns.However, your broadside
against Federal agents deeply offends my own sense of decency and honor; and it
offends my concept of service to country. It indirectly slanders a wide array of
government law enforcement officials, who are out there, day and night, laying
their lives on the line for all of us.You have not repudiated Mr.
LaPierre's unwarranted attack. Therefore, I resign as a Life Member of
N.R.A. Please remove my name from your membership list. Sincerely, George
Bush"(5/3/1995 edited for brevity)
@Truthseeker Suicides by firearms is about 17,000, total suicides are about
34,000, annual car deaths are about 36,000, per the cdc.Of the other
methods of suicide, how many involved items whose sole/main function is to kill?
All of them. they were used to kill. That is why using suicides as an
argument for gun control is not a valid arguement. We could argue that because
certain vehicles sole design was to kill. Outlawing assault vehicles as any
vehicle over a certain weight and number of passengerslike maybe five. After
all look how many tragedies have been committed by such. Right here in utah.
There have been a lot of disparaging remarks about "assault weapons" and
semi-automatic weapons. Does the fact that a firearm is semi-automatic qualify
it as an assault weapon? Does that include handguns, many of which are
semi-automatic? Does it include weapons that use non-gas methods to chamber the
next round, such as revolvers or the Winchester lever-action rifle? What about
bolt-action rifles with magazines? Or do assault weapons have to have
scary-looking stocks or bayonet mounts?The obvious downside of
banning weapons on the basis of rate of fire is that it is saying, in essence,
that it's okay to defend oneself against one attacker, but not against
multiple attackers. Does that make sense?There is already a
compromise in place, a dividing line between what is generally viewed as
sufficiently safe and what is not (e.g. automatic weapons). Has the general
public evolved to the point where we are too incompetent to be trusted with
semi-automatic weapons? Or are we trying to solve a mental illness problem with
gun control laws?
"The obvious downside of banning weapons on the basis of rate of fire is
that it is saying, in essence, that it's okay to defend oneself against one
attacker, but not against multiple attackers. Does that make sense?"...Yes
it does. My point to mountainman yesterday was not that criminal attacks
don't take place..I've been in one..it's that the probability of
you being in such an attack and being able to defend yourself is very very low
and their are consequences to guns other than your unlikely self defense. So
once again it does make sense to not allow high volume weapons and mags because
the probablility that they will be used for anything other than mayhem is
probably about zero.
It's contemptible when people distort, misrepresent, and lie to promote
their point. It shows how weak their point is. Truth always stands on its own.
It doesn't require misrepresentation. It doesn't require distortion.
It doesn't use sarcasm or mockery. The truth about guns in
America is that we have a right to keep and bear them without government
interference. The truth is that no one, including anyone in the government, has
the authority to take away that right. The truth is that people with weak
arguments will continue to tell us that citizens have no rights - except those
granted to them from the government. Can't they read? Can't they
comprehend the Constitution. Don't they know what, "shall not be
infringed" means?If you want to argue against our freedoms, have
the decency to tell us that you don't believe in freedom. Your lies, your
distortions, your misrepresentations do not help your cause.There
are over 300,000,000 of us who are mostly law abiding and decent, yet there are
some of you who would enslave 300,000,000 people because a handful commit
criminal acts. Just what does it mean to you to be an American?
Bill of Rights Preamble:THE Conventions of a number of the States,
having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in
order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further
declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground
of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of
its institution.Amendment 2A well regulated Militia,
being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep
and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.Well stated Mike. If you don't know the words in the preamble, look them up. In
summary, in order to keep the federal government from misusing and abusing its
powers, and to keep this government doing what is good for the people and the
nation, the rights of the people need to be guaranteed.The bearing
of arms is one of those rights. So if bearing arms keeps the
government from doing bad things and keeps it doing good things, don't we
need more people bearing arms right now? Our government needs all the help it
Last postRe:JsfI misspoke. Firearm deaths do exceed auto
fatalities in some states, UT for example.2010Suicides: 38,364
(CDC/National Center Injury Prevention and Control)Car accident
fatalities: 32,788 (NHTSA)A 2007 study that grouped the 15 states
with the highest rate of gun ownership alongside the six states with the lowest
(each group had a population of about 40 million), Hemenway and his associates
found that when it came to all nonfirearm methods, the two populations committed
suicide in nearly equal numbers. The more than three-times-greater prevalence of
firearms in the “high gun” states, however, translated into a more
than three-times-greater incidence of firearm suicides, which in turn translated
into an annual suicide rate nearly double that of the “low gun”
states. (NY Times)Furthermore, often people who attempt
suicide, unsuccessfully, don't have a 2nd suicide attempt. But suicide
using firearms is 82-95% successful the first time. CA has a lower
firearm death rate/100,000 people than UT.
@Mike RichardsSouth Jordan, UtahCan't they read? Can't
they comprehend the Constitution. Don't they know what, "shall not be
infringed" means?@Christian 24-7Murray, UTAmendment 2A well regulated Militia...Can't you read?
Can't you comprehend the Constitution. Don't they know what, "A
well regulated Militia" means?The Constitution ONLY refers the
2nd amendment to be the State's individual National Guard.Those who
meet One weekend a month for Military training, Those who meet ALL Federal
requirements for Deployment, Those who meet all conditions for Active
Duty, Those who actaully are deployed once a year on Temporay Duty.Those who actually ARE the people living next door to you, working a regual
9-5 and attend your Church.Those who ARE actually the true Minute Men.Not some Billy-Bob Joe citizen and his AR-15 high capacity .223 assualt
rifles in his pick-up truck.
Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution states:To provide for
organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part
of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the
States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of
training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.Can't you read? Can't you comprehend the Constitution.
Don't they know what, "A well regulated Militia" means?I repeat, Guardsmen --A well regulated Militia...Not
some Billy-Bob Joe citizen and his AR-15 high capacity .223 assualt rifles in
his pick-up truck.
New York Times, June 28, 2010 "Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., writing for the
majority, said the right to self-defense protected by the Second Amendment was
fundamental to the American conception of ordered liberty. Like other provisions
of the Bill of Rights setting out such fundamental protections, he said, it must
be applied to limit not only federal power but also that of state and local
governments."The 2nd Amendment is clear. Some twist it. Some
misrepresent it. Some lie about it. The Court ruled. The 214 page decision
was clearly and concisely summarised by the New York Times. ALL levels of
government are bound by the 2nd Amendment.Upholding the Constitution
is the duty of every American. Unfortunately, there are many who desire to do
away with liberty. They use any excuse to distort and misrepresent that
contract. They twist the words and add their own interpretation.The
greatest danger to our freedom, is people who think that they have the right to
change the Supreme Law of the Land without the consent of 75% of the States - as
required."Shall not be infringed" means that nobody has
authority to "infringe" that right.
Beverly, you are flat wrong. While there are a lot of people that committ
suicide by firearm in the US, it isn't 17,000. In 2009 it was less than
12,000 which is still too high.I know at lest 12 people over the
years, that have foiled a night time home burglary without even having to fire
their gun. Just the threat of use is enough to get the burgler to leave.You are not 12 times more likely to have your own gun used against you.
Why don't you cite some specific examples? I know people that have had
guns stolen, mostly hunting rifles, from their homes while they were not home.
I know of exactly no instances where a bad guy took a gun away from a home owner
and shot them with it.Guns have to have human interaction to work.
Whithout it, they don't work.Look at the video of the Bear Man
that got ate in Alaska by bears. I'll bet he now wishes he had a gun to
defend himself in the wild.
Toosmartforyou, I was a cop and had occasion to point my weapon at many people
over the years. I never once had to fire it at anyone, but nearly had to a few
times. You say guns aren't designed to be a threat. The intimidation
factor and the threat of shooting the bad guy made them back off every time. The
threat of use of deadly force is way better than having to use it. That is why
proper training is so important for those that choose to have weapons. There
are many classes out there for anyone to take. The Utah Shooting Sports Council
offers them all the time.
I don't want to sound like I'm agreeing or disagreeing with anyone but
I have to say this: an arm is a gun, it's not a thermonuclear device so
the analogy people have used to suggest that is insipid.
I had no idea that the constitution, when put in context, was so inflammatory.
Some people really don't like the Preamble of the Bill of
Rights. It doesn't support their narrative. They would rather hyper focus
on 4 words than read it all. They don't want the holistic insights, and
they don't want you to have them either.They even misconstrue
the tax section of Article 1 of the constitution as a definition of militias. It
is the section on taxing authority of congress and what taxes can be used for.
("The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes..." and then a
list of To's) That is all. It does not prohibit or define what legal
militias are. It only tells which ones federal taxes can be used to fund.The Constitution is best read fully, not in bits. You won't find it
all here, with a 200 word limit, but clearly you can find it online. Here you
will find those who will cut out the smallest bits to wrest them to their
viewpoint. Even with the 200 word limit, including passages before
the one you are drumming, is important. Context does matter.
I find it laughable that there is the cult of weekend hunters that think their
AR-15 is even slightly effective against a modern military and the weapons
available to it. If these people who at best shoot and kill a defenseless dear
are even a slight match against even such groups as the Taliban who have been
fighting not against antlered combatants, but those who actually fight back,
they are sorely over estimating their skills. It is only the morals of our
military that have kept them from using enough force to eradicate the Taliban.
Dear hunters would be no contest for the US military.I have no
problem with citizens owning weapons. I also find it laughable that some
believe that holding gun owners responsible for crimes committed with those
weapons is unconstitutional. Securing your weapon should be an absolute
requirement for any gun owner. Any crime or "accident" committed with
these weapons, stolen or not, the owners of these weapons should be held as
accessories for not safeguarding their weapons. Owning a gun is a
responsibility. As harsh as it sounds, none of these events would have happened
if these guns had been secured. Freedom requires responsibility.