Gun Control Anyone?

[thriftyandboringinohio]

Re: Gun Control Anyone?

If every driver thought that way my husband would still be alive, along with a lot of other people. Add "watch out for motorcycles and pedestrians" to your list.

Relating this persective to guns, if everyone knew and followed the four rules of gun safety the world would be a safer place:

1. Treat every gun as a loaded gun, every time you pick it up. (even if you only put it down a moment before and you "know" it's unloaded.)

2. Never point a gun at anything you're not willing to destroy.

3. Never put your finger on the trigger until you're pointed at your target and ready to shoot.

4. Always be aware of your target background. (if you miss, who's behind the target that could get hurt?)

Every shooting tragedy, every gun "accident" involves the breaking of at least one of these rules. To parents I'd like to say:

Learn these rules and teach them to your children- even if you don't have guns and don't like guns, because sooner or later your child will come across a gun and you won't be around. And if you ever come across a gun, you need to know how to handle it safely.

When you watch TV or movies with your family, if guns are involved have a contest to see who can count the most violations of the 4 rules.

Teach kids that guns are not toys. Don't let kids play with toys that look like guns.

When my stepson was little he wanted a squirt gun. His father bought him one that didn't look anything like a real gun. He wasn't allowed to yell "Bang! Bang!" He yelled "Squirt! Squirt!" instead.

When he was seven, his father took him to the shooting range to show him the difference between a toy and a real gun. Without putting ear protection on the boy, he blew a watermelon to smithereens with his .45. Then he explained once again that "guns are not toys". The message sunk in.

For very small children, teach them that if they ever see a gun to:

1. STOP!

2. Don't touch!

3. Leave the area and tell an adult.

Recent events at Newtown would suggest another good gun safety rule.

If you live with someone suffering mental disabilities or illness, it may be best to not have guns in your home, because your son may use your guns to kill you and 26 other people and himself.

[LazyBoy]

Re: Gun Control Anyone?

If you look at the statistics the murder rate in the US is largely a factor of black on black crime in major metropolitan areas, Chicago,DC,New Orleans. Poverty,drugs,high unemployment all these socioeconomic factors lead to crime and violence.

When you live with poverty and high unemployment, illegal drugs offer the double whammy of escape into a drug addled mind and escape from poverty.

The country needs JOBS and FUTURES for all.

BUT I think it represents a means for one party to distract the public and logjam the other party.

The distraction is working here too. All we're talking about is gun control. Most of those who've posted are in agreement that gun control is a bad or unworkable idea. So let's move beyond to what could help.

• Decriminalize/legalize some drugs to remove the profit motive.
• Jobs that get people out of poverty and provide some hope of mobility to the middle class.
• More support or a different approach for mental illness?
• Video games/TV culture?
• ??

These are hard problems. I don't have the solutions. But maybe there should be a conversation about them.

[flintlock]

Re: Gun Control Anyone?

I have guns and have generally not been in favor of gun control. I also appreciate what I see as sensible arguments here on the forum from sensible people arguing against gun control. But I admit to some introspection on the subject in light of recent events. So let me throw out some random thoughts.

- on the issue of an armed citizenry resisting a despotic government: practically how does anyone see this taking place? Is there no other means to resist the increasing despotism? And if not, what is the catalyst to resist it via armed resistance? Frankly its hard to see how it comes to pass.

- related to the above point - my understanding is that the Nazis instituted gun control as they took power. When the NRA mentions this, the implication is that if they had not done so, the good German people would have overthrown the Nazis before they got out of hand. I don't buy it.

- how do we reconcile the generally higher murder rate in the US vs other developed nations? Is it purely a matter of culture, and is it totally wrong to blame any of it on the availability of guns? Sure people can and do murder using knives and axes and gasoline. But as hard as it is to kill someone with a gun because of the innate human/animal aversion to killing its own kind (I imagine that even your typical sociopath has to work himself up to it the first time), its got to be a hell of a lot easier than to do it with some other weapon. Further to this point is the glorification of all things 'tactical' amongst a subset of the gun-liking population, and I have to think that indeed guns make it easy and make it seem cool.

- is there absolutely no room for consideration of any different approach regarding guns than what we have now? Sadly its like most other subjects, the issue is framed in a bilateral way with 2 and only 2 sides, and real discussion doesn't happen.

You make some good points, but what is really wrong with America and it's murder rate is as much about AMERICANS as guns. There is a general lawless segment of the population that has armed itself, often illegally. There is a desensitization to murder. There is a rash impulsiveness to our culture. There is a somewhat softness towards criminals and their "rights". We have created a chronic welfare state and a war on drugs that perpetrates most of the murder stats that sets America apart. Throw out the daily drug dealer shootouts and my guess is the US comes back into line with other industrialized nations. I at least partly blame the politicians who want to create an impoverished, desperate block of voters who will keep them in power.

As for your points.

History is full of nice stable societies that slowly turned into totalitarianism. Like lakedaemonian said, it doesn't happen overnight, but it happens. The stand we take today on gun control may very well not be beneficial today, but might be for our children. History doesn't record the potential dictator who's plans never got off the ground. Its not always easy to see things turning, but history tells us over and over that there are evil men out there who will take advantage of any weakness. I'm not so sure I trust those in power today to look after my best interest.

Contrary to popular belief, there was serious resistance to the Nazis. But its almost impossible to say what would have occurred without gun bans in the mid thirties after they seized power. There was certainly a lot of intimidation going around. Resisting this was impossible without weapons. Hitler never did have complete control over the military. By mid war many Germans were secretly rooting for Hitler's overthrow, including some in the German High Command. Would an armed citizenry have tipped the balance? Perhaps. But by then most of them were off in Russia or some other theater anyway, fighting for their lives.

The war on drugs in America accounts for a lot of the murder rate discrepancy. But yes, guns make murder easier and more tolerable to the killer.

There will always be a cost to the 2nd Amendment, but I don't agree it has to be so high. It would be interesting to see how much the murder rate drops if we could drop the war on drugs and provide decent productive jobs to our people.

[flintlock]

Re: Gun Control Anyone?

On your first point, I see what you're saying and have wondered the same thing myself. How could an armed citizenry ever take up said arms and hope to win against a government force equipped with the high-tech crowd control weapons they have today? We couldn't. But OTOH, how much worse would the government overstep its bounds against our privacy if we weren't armed to the teeth?

On your second point, I don't think the Germans would have overthrown the Nazis if they had been armed, because most of the Germans supported the Nazis. (it's not PC to say that, but it's the truth) But with only a handful of weapons, the starving Jewish resistance in the Warsaw ghetto held off the German army for a month. Imagine if they had all been armed.

It isn't the guns in this country causing the high murder rate, it's the culture of violence. Most of the murders are criminals shot in the commission of crimes. No gun control laws will stop those guys from getting guns, so what's the point of considering more gun control? I'd rather legalize drugs and take away the profit motive that drives the crime. And give every law-abiding citizen free training in gun safety and a concealed carry permit after they pass a competency test.

Switzerland requires every male citizen to have an "assault rifle", does it not? And it's a peaceful country.

Violence on TV, violent games that desensitize people to killing, the HUGE illegal drug trade, gangs related to the illegal drug trade, a HUGE percentage of our population taking anti-depressants and other mood altering drugs that can actually cause the behavious we've seen lately... ALL of these things need to be addressed.

The question is not can an armed citizenry take up arms against a modern military. Of course it can't. The question may be, can an armed citizenry tip the balance into the military switching sides? Look at recent events in the Middle East. A lot of the "rebels" are former military. I know in Libya the rebels were made up of "militia" which were nothing more than armed tribal units, with a smattering of military units that swapped sides.

You also have to look at an insurrection vs traditional war in terms of weapons that are usable. The US is (hopefully) not going to send in airstrikes when some rabble takes over the town hall.

But more than anything is an armed citizenry a deterrent to the idea that some faction can just seize power illegally a la Banana Republic. In most cases the military IS the people. At least in this country I don't see many service people being that strongly loyal to any particular politician. They can generally be expected to mirror the loyalty of the people. Now Federal law enforcement, that might be another issue. But then they don't fly gunships and strike jets, at least not yet!

I was going to bring up the Warsaw uprising until I saw you already had. A horribly armed, starving resistance tied up thousands of German troops for weeks. But of course by then Hitler had bigger problems like the Russians to deal with.

All this talk is silly, but you can see how just the possession of arms might make some tinpot dictator think twice. We take for granted a stability in our government that many other countries would love to have. Are we really just so superior or does the 2nd amendment have something to do with this? Those who will bring up Europe as an argument need only remember the number of dead in Europe in the 20th century. Just the illusion of peace is not the same thing.

[flintlock]

Re: Gun Control Anyone?

Yes I've also wondered about the lock and hide strategy. My wife is a teacher of young kids around the age of the victims of Sandy Hook and I quizzed her what she was supposed to do and about the quality of the doors and locks. Just lock the door and put black paper over the tiny window. She used to be a substitute teacher and said substitutes didn't even have a key to lock the doors!!! I told her that if possible get the kids the F out of that school if something like that happened. But I can understand how its not always possible to get out and why they have the policy they do. Shame we have to even be considering this issue isn't it?

[raja]

Re: Gun Control Anyone?

- on the issue of an armed citizenry resisting a despotic government: practically how does anyone see this taking place? Is there no other means to resist the increasing despotism? And if not, what is the catalyst to resist it via armed resistance? Frankly its hard to see how it comes to pass.

It happens the same way it has always happened . . . .

The government imposes rules on the People, and the People don't like it.
When some resist enforcement, TPTB brings out the guns, for example armed raids on those selling raw milk or medical marijuana, or in the case of the American Revolution, the imposition of taxes without representation.
Some of those being coerced by the government are mad as hell, and they're not going to take it any more. Shots are exchanged.
If the "unfair" rules affect large segments of the population, other incidents of armed resistance start occurring. Pretty soon, you've got a rebellion.
Syria may be a good current example . . . .

- related to the above point - my understanding is that the Nazis instituted gun control as they took power. When the NRA mentions this, the implication is that if they had not done so, the good German people would have overthrown the Nazis before they got out of hand. I don't buy it.

It all depends on who the affected parties are.
If the Nazis had unfairly imposed their will on a unwilling majority of the German people, and they had guns, there would have been a rebellion.
What happened is that the Nazis attacked a minority group, and the majority of the Germans ignored it.

- how do we reconcile the generally higher murder rate in the US vs other developed nations? Is it purely a matter of culture, and is it totally wrong to blame any of it on the availability of guns? Sure people can and do murder using knives and axes and gasoline. But as hard as it is to kill someone with a gun because of the innate human/animal aversion to killing its own kind (I imagine that even your typical sociopath has to work himself up to it the first time), its got to be a hell of a lot easier than to do it with some other weapon. Further to this point is the glorification of all things 'tactical' amongst a subset of the gun-liking population, and I have to think that indeed guns make it easy and make it seem cool.

I would agree that the murder rate is probably due to the presence of guns. If the nut-job who committed the recent atrocity only had a knife, he could of done far less damage. A bunch of teachers would have attacked him with chairs or something, and overpowered him before he killed 26 people.
But it's a double-edge sword. Guns not only have the power to harm, they can also protect.
I like the idea that if some armed drug-crazy fellon breaks into my house, I have a gun that gives me a "fighting chance" to prevent this guy from stealing my possessions, killing me, and raping my wife and daughter.
I don't need an assault rifle to defend myself against a lone intruder, but I might need one -- along with my neighbors -- to protect against a government "enforcement" squad.

- is there absolutely no room for consideration of any different approach regarding guns than what we have now? Sadly its like most other subjects, the issue is framed in a bilateral way with 2 and only 2 sides, and real discussion doesn't happen.

1. Keep guns out of the hands of mental patients and anyone under 18.

2. My kid's high school has an armed policeman (probably off-duty) on guard everyday. If that's not possible, keep a weapon in a locked box at all the schools, and have at least two faculty members trained in using it.

3. Bullet-proof glass at school entryways. All entraces locked. Metal detectors just outside the inner, locked entrance door to check everyone who enters. (They do this at my local courthouse.)

If you did at least #3, you would never have school massacres.

[thriftyandboringinohio]

Re: Gun Control Anyone?

The question is not can an armed citizenry take up arms against a modern military. Of course it can't...

Having lots of citizens with small arms is a sufficient first step. If a few dozen citizens decide the situation is worth risking their life, they can raid the local national guard armory and take the heavy weapons and armored vehicles. Two or three such moves get to heavy tanks and aircraft. Our citizens can achieved battlefield parity using an informal election mechanism with very high stakes.

[Ghent12]

Re: Gun Control Anyone?

Excerpt from "Trained to Kill" By Lt. Col. Dave Grossman
Christianity Today, August 10, 1998



More at Killology.

Grrr, it's not what the media is doing to them! The media doesn't give them "splatter" movies to watch--the child's parents do. Parents and only parents are responsible for their children.

We must be logical about this, for we have so much to lose in erring either way. All calls for "gun control" are emotional and seriously shallow in logic, while all implementations of gun control are completely devoid of logic. No "gun control" law that could have ever passed in Connecticut or at the federal level would have prevented or even lessened the school shooting, hence the entire issue of "gun control" offers no "solutions" to this situation by anyone's standards. We may as well pass a law requiring all citizens to be sane; it will be just as effective in stopping crazy people from doing insane things.

[unlucky]

Re: Gun Control Anyone?

I'm very pro 2nd amendment, but I'm not unreasonable on the assault weapon issue. I don't own an assault weapon and don't intend to own one.

It's worth noting that the Portland mall shooter was confronted by a guy carrying a firearm. Potentially helped save a bunch of lives... http://www.kgw.com/news/Clackamas-ma...183593571.html

I want my right to be able to protect my family and home with a firearm. I don't necessarily need an assault rifle to do that.

The AR-15 rifle, equipped with enlarged ammo clips, seems to be weapon of choice for mass-shooters. It was also used in the Denver and Oklahoma shootings. Back in 1996 it was used by Martin Bryant to perpetrate the Port Arthur mass killing in Australia. Opening fire with this weapon in a crowded cafe, Bryant killed or injured 22 people in 15 seconds of shooting (he went on to kill 35 in total). The rifle is not fully automatic but being semi-automatic obviously helps. The intermediate/high muzzle velocity means that with the right ammo it's possible to kill 2 or more victims with one shot, especially in a crowded environment.

It's not the only possible choice for the mass shooter though. Anders Breivik of Norway used the Ruger mini-14 semi-automatic assault rifle, also equipped with large 30-round ammo clips.

[DSpencer]

Re: Gun Control Anyone?

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

This is the bottom line for me. All these people making irrational and emotional appeals claiming that "it's time to have this debate" simply don't get it. Those of us who believe in the founding principles of this country are as open to that debate as one about whether free speech is too dangerous or being innocent until proven guilty lets too many murderers go free or whether we should convert to a religious monarchy.
It's reassuring to see how many people came forward in this thread to defend our rights with logic, facts and common sense. For those that don't understand the importance of citizens owning guns, please consult the history books.

[BadJuju]

Re: Gun Control Anyone?

That's how I feel, DSpencer. This is just another knee-jerk reaction to a tragedy, like 9/11 and look what came of that.

[LorenS]

Re: Gun Control Anyone?

3. Bullet-proof glass at school entryways. All entraces locked. Metal detectors just outside the inner, locked entrance door to check everyone who enters. (They do this at my local courthouse.)

If you did at least #3, you would never have school massacres.

Really???? In Britain after their gun ban it was common for criminals to ram a building with a large vehicle in order to gain access to the unarmed occupants.

In Denver a guy shot the security guards and ran through the metal detectors.

It's not like guns are the only tool of crime. Many (if not most) school shootings are significantly facilitated with a motor vehicle. There is no guarantee they'll leave it in the parking lot.

Besides, you can always set a large portion of the building on fire, trigger a gas leak, break a water main..... then the occupants must exit and the glass/doors are irrelevant.

Just like posting an armed security guard at the front door is basically putting a target on the guy's chest.

Navy seals could probably come up with some workable ideas for school security. Politicians usually end up making things worse (and why not, they're in the business of exploiting problems, not solving them).

[unlucky]

Re: Gun Control Anyone?

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

This is the bottom line for me. All these people making irrational and emotional appeals claiming that "it's time to have this debate" simply don't get it. Those of us who believe in the founding principles of this country are as open to that debate as one about whether free speech is too dangerous or being innocent until proven guilty lets too many murderers go free or whether we should convert to a religious monarchy.
It's reassuring to see how many people came forward in this thread to defend our rights with logic, facts and common sense. For those that don't understand the importance of citizens owning guns, please consult the history books.

There is no way to eliminate the risk of incidents such as Sandy Hook, but it is reasonable to look for measures that can incrementally reduce the risk - such as better school security, improved mental health care, etc. Incremental gun control measures -such as banning large ammo clips or assault rifles - can reasonably be included in that debate.

Some European countries - eg. the UK - have gone down the road of very tight gun control in an effort to eliminate mass killing incidents. I can't imagine that US would ever go as far as the UK. Nevertheless even in the US it is not possible to obtain any weapon you may desire - the question is where the line should be drawn.

[thriftyandboringinohio]

Re: Gun Control Anyone?

Really???? In Britain after their gun ban it was common for criminals to ram a building with a large vehicle in order to gain access to the unarmed occupants.

In Denver a guy shot the security guards and ran through the metal detectors.

It's not like guns are the only tool of crime. Many (if not most) school shootings are significantly facilitated with a motor vehicle. There is no guarantee they'll leave it in the parking lot.

Besides, you can always set a large portion of the building on fire, trigger a gas leak, break a water main..... then the occupants must exit and the glass/doors are irrelevant.

Just like posting an armed security guard at the front door is basically putting a target on the guy's chest.

Navy seals could probably come up with some workable ideas for school security. Politicians usually end up making things worse (and why not, they're in the business of exploiting problems, not solving them).

We seek a practical plan for a lone madman gone berserk.
We don't need to protect our schools against a team of professional commando's just yet.

[LorenS]

Re: Gun Control Anyone?

The rifle is not fully automatic but being semi-automatic obviously helps.

The bitter irony of unintended consequences... It's almost certain if the Conn shooter had used a fully automatic instead of a semi auto he'd have had less victims in spite of using more ammunition. The US Army agrees, since the M4 now has no fully automatic mode anymore.

Yes in a crowded hallway with little time available, a fully auto could have produced more injuries (but likely less fatalities), but given 10 minutes and fairly dispersed victims there was not a terrible need for haste.

The intermediate/high muzzle velocity means that with the right ammo it's possible to kill 2 or more victims with one shot, especially in a crowded environment.

According to the news he used varmint ammunition, which means virtually no pass through and even FMJ ammo is designed to fragment. Classrooms aren't that crowded either.

Really, the main issue here was the time we allowed this guy to operate unopposed. He could have used a brace of .22 revolvers and a hatchet.

Cutting the phone and power lines would have made it worse and jamming cell phone signals isn't that hard either.

Some theaters have illegal phone jammers installed. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/04/te...mmer.html?_r=0