The Topic of Gun Control and How it Relates to Recent Mass Shootings

I can name one.


Jeffrey D. Sachs ‏@JeffDSachs
In 1996, Australia banned semi-automatics. In the 18 years before, there were 13 mass shootings. Since then, none.

Slippery slope indeed.

For those of you keeping count---

 

You bring up a good argument - technology may moot the problem in a few years. On Star Trek, you could set your phasers on "stun." When the effective stun phasers are invented, then everyone needs to turn in their handguns (other than trigger-locked collectibles).

Also, when we all have a chip in our ear that the police can track like a lojack, home invasions, robberies, burglaries and kidnappings will dramatically drop. If someone breaks in to your house, the police simply run a trace, and then go pick the person up. Someone abduct your child? Make one call, and the police will pick up the child and the perpetrator in minutes.

 

I was being facetious, sorry that it didn't come through. I believe that you only need a gun for self-defense when you will suffer harm or death. IMO, defense of property alone does not give you the right to extinguish someone's life. This comes from my Christian belief that all life is sacred; even those who are out of the womb. Obviously in the heat of the moment it is tough to distinguish and make rational decisions as to who intends to greatly harm you and kill you and who simply wants to take your stuff. But, given that the home invasion scenario where you will suffer harm or death are such a small portion of the actual home invasions, I believe that the need of a gun is diminished and the need for weapons, magazines, etc. that have in the past fallen under the rubric of "assault weapons" is even less.

 

Sorry I didn't catch it. Too much Christmas shopping and crowds makes me brain dead.

 

This is why guns need to be given only to people who professionally handle them I.e. pass a rigorous exam and training course.

I don't like the idea of a child getting killed over invading someone's home, I think guns should be used to immobilize someone not kill them. Keep in mind I'm referring to an unarmed invader.

When I was 18 it took me a year to get my drivers license, and only after I took drivers Ed, passed a written test and passed a field test. Cars are far less lethal than guns, they aren't made to be weapons.

These weapons should be regulated.

 

I know this is tragic for everyone, but until some of you tools in this thread become teachers like us, you don't understand our desire for gun reform.

I work in one of the most impoverished areas in my city in a school where 95% of the student population is mobile or in shambles. Guns, drugs, prostitution, crime, a racist Sheriff Arpaio destroying families....I deal with that daily.

When I go to work, my only ambition is to educate and care for the kids "you all' send me, but even after a shooting like this in another damn school, you want to talk about, "We have the right to have guns."

Yes, we know this. I understand where you get this reasoning from. But, I don't understand why the hell the gunslingers need to have guns that shoot so many rounds per second.

I've shot guns, I've been hunting, but I don't know too much about guns.

I used to believe that whole "Guns don't kill people, people kill people" mantra, but not anymore. Guns DO kill people, especially when they have the capacity to end lives within seconds.

People DO kill people too,but why is there such a fuss about reforming what types of guns that we make available to the public? Do we really need people over the age of 18 having weapons like this? Give me a good reason why, other than your Constitutional rights.

Stick with your regular 9 mm or something.

I am so angry for these kids, their parents and their families.

I am equally angry that these dedicated teachers protected and embraced these elementary students the whole time the shootings were going on without any coverage whatsoever. Well, very little, I guess.

We protect, love, teach and advocate for these kids until the wheels fall off, and even when 26 people are left dead, the proponents of having unlimited arms, even with a license, aren't willing to compromise. It sickens me.

Maybe I'm biased because my life is in teaching. Maybe I'm too involved in making sure none of my students are high school dropouts. Maybe I'm so angry because I know that one of my greatest strengths is teaching, identifying with kids and, at times, being "teacher,""mom," "dad," "auntie," "Tio," and "friend" 180 days of the year.

I'm not hoping that everyone gives up their guns. That would be unreasonable.

But, with all the blame and scrutiny that we receive as educators, I think it would be fair for "gun supporters"to help us out. If you want us to keep your children safe and provide them with constant academic and social opportunities, keep them safe by not allowing access to guns that are capable of wiping out our classrooms.

I've been praying for the kids, the families, the community and the teachers.

The majority of us aren't ever going to leave the classroom. We know that we'll never receive the salaries that we deserve, the respect we've earned or the resources we need.

You want us to shut up and do our job? Fine, help reform gun laws so our classrooms aren't targets.

For me, I do this for the kids, the block, the hood and all of the families in community.

Sending love to those in CT.


RIP +

 

it's a hard thing for me to say but if my girl being abducted can save 10 other children's lives, i'm all for it.

 

That is a subjective argument. Although I agree with you that a threat of tyranny in the USA is relatively very low, there's not way to prove that it will NEVER happen.

Again, for the record...just as how the 1st amendment is readily abused, the 2nd amendment will always be abused. Gun manufacturers will continually use fear as their primary marketing strategy. The original intent of the amendment is noble and worthy.

 

I never implied that it would be a pound for pound US military vs make-shift civilian military type conflict. Barring Govt using chemical/nuclear weapons, a significant amount of armed civilians would be able to prove a point and initiate a cascade of events.

You cannot say that there isn't a difference between a protest and an armed protest.

 

I agree with the premise of what you are saying. You just have to convince the majority of Americans that banning guns to prevent gun violence is worth giving up the right to bear arms in the highly improbable case we have to overthrow the Govt.

 

It's not an all-or-nothing scenario. There are plenty of happy mediums.

One proposal I've heard of is requiring military or police service (minimum 2 years) in order to own a handgun or anything above it. This idea has merits, in that those two organizations require 1) extensive training and 2) regulation and examination. Another side effect is we would see an increase in people volunteering for these kind of services.

If you're worried about overthrowing an out of control government, that is where state and local militias come in. I'm not sure how things are structured as of right now, but the idea is that if you have several smaller military installations that answer to their state or county govt, then you basically give yourself some kind of defense mechanism against Washington going apes*** and ruining everything.

Anyway, just spitballing. But you get the idea.

 

It's improbable today, but we don't know what the future will be like 100 years from now. You look at what happens in Egypt, and we think it could never happen here. And yet, look how politicians carve districts or pass laws to lower voter turnout and manipulate election results. It's not inconceivable for a power grab to happen someday. You can't say what will happen in a few hundred years.

The right to bear arms has a purpose. The idea wasn't so everyone had a gun in their house but rather to prevent tyranny of a central gov't. Our founding fathers understood the nature of power - and that it is indeed, something to be held in check and fear.

But the current power and lethalness of today's weapons were not conceivable back then. I think we need to find a solution that allows for local militias and weapons administrated by those local volunteer militias in emergency situations just like you have volunteer fire departments. This could help in situations where the federal gov't has collapsed, in unable to help in a crisis, or has been corrupted and revolution is indeed necessary. The National Guard is a state level militia, but I think a more local version beyond a police force is required. One that can work and support local police as necessary.

In that circumstance, I would support the complete ban of automatic and semi-automatic firearms.

 

I firmly believe everyone should be required to study martial arts particularly grappling martial arts.

This isn't about using martial arts skills to stop a gun wielding maniac but about learning to physically control someone before things get more out of hand, to recognize and be able to react to physical threats, to increase physical fitness to deal with all sorts of threats, and most importantly to learn how to deal with and respect the power to injure or hurt someone.

 

It wasn't just that. If you read the Federalist Papers while the right to bear arms was seen as a check on a potentially tyrannical federal government that check was meant as something for the states and not necessarily as an individual right. Further it was also a way at a time when there was no standing army for the states to call upon an armed militia to act in their own or collective defense. This is why the 2nd Amendment is worded the way it is:
[rquoter]A 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.[/rquoter]

Most discussions of the 2nd Amendment focus on the later part of the Amendment "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." When if you take the whole amendment the purpose of it is one of collective security and not individual.

This is important when we have a standing army and state National Guards. Those organizations have taken over the functions that were originally attributed to the state militias.

Police forces can deputize and arm private citizens in those situations and as noted there is a National Guard that can act. The situation you are describing is one government down to the local level has collapsed in that case there are going to be more problems than creating a local militia.

Anyway the idea of militia of private armed individuals fighting off the government was flawed even in the days of the Whiskey Rebellion. Even with private individuals having fully automatic small arms such as assault rifles against a military that has drones, attack helicopters, fighter jets is a fantasy.

 

The concept of gun free zones is insane when guns are readily available outside those zones. All of these shootings happen in gun free zones.

Even if the 2nd Amendment did not exist, if you want any hope of gun control you would need to outlaw their production and sale to anyone outside law enforcement. Even then you have to figure out a way to get 300 million guns in circulation out of the hands of private citizens.

The 2nd Amendment exists because people have a right to a reasonable means of defending themselves. If that end can be achieved without guns, I'm all for it. But how does a woman defend herself from a bigger/stronger male aggressor without a gun? A bat? A knife? A taser? Perhaps (imo advances in nonlethal weaponry could lead to a phasing out of guns as a necessary means of self defense).

 

Sounds reasonable, but as everyone knows, reasonable ideas when it comes to gun control is totally useless. Maybe if events like this happens every day for 10 years running it might have a chance.

 

That's incredibly disingenuous. People have guns to protect themselves and their family, not to overthrow tyrants.

Debate should be honest.

 

It's only disingenuous if the pro-gun lobby didn't hang their hat on a poorly written amendment to the constitution which says nothing about protecting yourself or your family.

 

So where in the Constitution does it state a citizen has a right to bear arms for personal protection?

 

the constitution says a citizen has the right to bear arms. the 'for' or 'why' has no relevance. A 'right' needs no justification. Something either is or isn't a 'right'.

Your sentence makes no sense.