The goal isn't to take away all guns.

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-09-2011
The goal isn't to take away all guns.
123
Mon, 01-07-2013 - 11:48am

Despite the scare tactics so typical of the right - see health care - there is no desire to take away all guns amongst most on the left. That is how the right wants to define the debate, as all or nothing. It knows it wins in that case.

All we want is common sense, but listen to, see the howls and declarations of 'you won't take away my gun!'

Which position is actually rational and reasoned?

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-09-2006
Fri, 01-18-2013 - 9:30pm

Are custodians too incompetent to carry guns? Absolutely. Are teachers too incompetent to carry guns? Absolutely. Law enforcement involves a lot more than a couple of weekends at the shooting range and a gun safety class. The other day a person hired as an armed guard at a school left his loaded gun in a restroom. That's the tip of the iceberg of mishaps that will happen if we turn our schools into armed encampments. Would I want the custodian armed if a shooter went to my kid's school? Sorry, but that's the wrong question. The worldview of those that think that it ought to be normal for ordinary citizens to carry around assault rifles assumes that shooters will get into schools, and that this is perfectly okay because if the good guys are armed, they can take out the bad guys. In real life, the bad guys have the element of surprise and the best that can really be hoped for is that the bad guy doesn't kill any more people than the good guy. In my worldview, the perimeter of the school is secured in such a way that the bad guy doesn't get in, and more importantly in the long term, insane psychopaths can't get guns as easily as they obviously do now. If you choose to carry a gun in my neighborhood, you are making our neighborhood less safe. I'm not making you less safe by not carrying a gun. If my neighborhood isn't safe enough without private citizens taking law enforcement into their own hands, we can hire people who are trained in law enforcement to solve the problem, rather than making it even more dangerous by arming people who are absolutely untested in the event of a crisis. The numbers say that the person most likely to be killed in a house that contains guns...are the people who live in a house.  People defend themselves against home invasions with guns.  This does NOT mean that people who don't have guns cannot defend themselves: baseball bats and skillets and knives and other objects have all been used successfully to repel invaders. 

By the way, that bit about the second amendment that keeps getting trumpeted around here is a total fabrication: neither Obama nor all those libruls want to inactivate the second amendment so the government can "control" people.  But we're hundreds of years from the era of single shot muskets, and the problem of crazy people getting their hands on guns needs to be addressed...and to pretend that all will be well if we arm a few custodians is pure fantasy.

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-17-2012
Mon, 01-21-2013 - 8:30pm

Are custodians too incompetent to carry guns? Absolutely. Are teachers too incompetent to carry guns? Absolutely.

 I’m sure there are a few custodians and teachers who might feel somewhat offended by you declaring them too incompetent to carry a gun…especially since many of them do…but no one is asking a custodian or a teacher to be a law enforcement officer.  All that’s being asked…if they volunteer… is that they use their weapon and training to defend the lives of their students…something the unarmed administrators and teachers did in vain during the Newtown shooting.  This requires only that they have the “competence” to identify the person who is killing people in front of them, and have the skill to target and shoot that person if necessary.  Personally, I don’t think that is beyond the capabilities of most people…especially among people who have already made the personal choice to own a gun.

 And that security guard who left his loaded gun in a restroom…first, I would wonder if the story was true.  The guns of security officers are usually holstered on a heavy belt, which is not something that would go unnoticed for long. But if we assume that it is true…what does that prove?  You didn’t go on to tell us about the student who found the gun and ran amok in the school killing classmates and teachers, so I’ll assume that it was a “learning moment” for that particular guard rather than the “tip of the iceberg” in a series of Armageddon-like mishaps.

We have multiple security guards in most of our buildings, both public and private…a high percentage of which are armed…and yet, no “iceberg” to be seen.  It also may surprise you that many schools in this country already have armed security…but no stories of children appropriating these arms and going on a shooting rampage.

Would I want the custodian armed if a shooter went to my kid's school? Sorry, but that's the wrong question.

That’s precisely the question that haunts the parents of the dead students at Columbine and Newtown…”if only…”

The worldview of those that think that it ought to be normal for ordinary citizens to carry around assault rifles assumes that shooters will get into schools, and that this is perfectly okay because if the good guys are armed, they can take out the bad guys.

First, I should clarify that most people don’t believe it’s appropriate for the average citizen to “carry around assault rifles.”  No has suggested you be able to go shopping at WalMart with an AK-47 slung over your shoulder.  We do, however, have concerns when the government imposes arbitrary limitations on our Constitutional rights.

Second, we also don’t think it’s “perfectly okay” for wanna-be mass-murderers to get into our schools…but we do recognize, aside from turning every school in the country into a hermetically-sealed prison, that it’s impossible to keep them out.  The Newtown shooter shot out a window and walked in…the Columbine shooters were students who just walked in…and even if there were some magical way to seal the actual building, a person intent on mayhem would only have to hop a fence, if there even was one, to wreak their havoc on the children in the schoolyard.

The only defense against such an assault is to stop the perpetrator…and without a gun, how do you suggest we accomplish that?

In real life, the bad guys have the element of surprise and the best that can really be hoped for is that the bad guy doesn't kill any more people than the good guy.

I’m sorry, but that’s a ridiculous assessment, and one devoid of the facts.  In real life, the bad guys INITIALLY have the element of surprise.  In the cases of Columbine and Newtown, the teachers and students were aware of the shooters and the threat they posed, seconds or minutes after the assault began.  Plenty of time for someone with a gun to intervene before the shooters completed their casual progress through the school.

And equating the harm caused by “bad guy” and the “good guy” is simply nonsense.  The “good guy” only has one target…the shooter…and  he’s usually pretty isolated with people trying to get AWAY from him…while the shooter’s goal is to kill as many people as possible.

…and more importantly in the long term, insane psychopaths can't get guns as easily as they obviously do now.

And how would you accomplish this?  Prior to the shootings, what was known about the Columbine or Newtown shooters that would have identified them as “insane psychopaths?”  Right…nothing.  But even if they were identified as “dangerous” by their respective families or therapists, how would a gun-seller get that medically protected, private information in order to prohibit them from buying a gun?  Right…they couldn’t.  And even if all those issues had been resolved, what would prevent the “insane psychopath” from stealing the guns from sane, upstanding people who purchased their guns legally, as happened at Newtown?  Right…nothing.  So we’re back to the original question…how would you accomplish this?

If you choose to carry a gun in my neighborhood, you are making our neighborhood less safe. I'm not making you less safe by not carrying a gun.

How does a person lawfully carrying a gun in your neighborhood making you less safe?  Do armed police make you less safe?  Does the armed security guard at your bank make you less safe?  And yes, if you and I were confronted by a criminal with a weapon, you would make me “less safe” by not carrying a gun.

If my neighborhood isn't safe enough without private citizens taking law enforcement into their own hands, we can hire people who are trained in law enforcement to solve the problem, rather than making it even more dangerous by arming people who are absolutely untested in the event of a crisis.

You hear stories from policemen every day saying they’ve gone their entire careers without ever pulling their gun from it’s holster in the line of duty.  What makes these officers, any more “tested in the event for a crisis” than your average gun owner?  What makes a rookie cop, patrolling the mean streets of Main Street USA “tested?”  And yet there you are, content in the belief that they are making you “secure.”

And the people who advocate teachers or custodians be allowed to carry a concealed weapon have done so with the caveat that the permit come with required training.  But most people who support armed school security, suggest that retired police or non-active military be hired for the job.

The numbers say that the person most likely to be killed in a house that contains guns...are the people who live in a house. Arming oneself increases the risk

A skewed statistic…because while domestic violence may result in murder, people that don’t own guns will accomplish their intent with a knife or a bat or with whatever else his handy, so naturally, if a gun is in the house, it's the more likely weapon to be used.  The issue there is the violence, not the gun.  But your non-statistic-statistic doesn’t bother to mention the multitude of people who were able to defended themselves, and their families, against domestic violence, or from armed intruders BECAUSE they had a gun.  It is the left's "inconvenient truth."

As I mentioned before…just a week ago a woman was able to protect her life and the lives of her young children BECAUSE she had a gun.  And even then, she managed to hit the intruder FIVE time in the face…and he was still able to walk out and drive away.  What if there had been two, or three, intruders?  The left’s attempts to take away that woman’s gun or limit the number of bullets she can have would have had tragic consequences for that family.

iVillage Member
Registered: 11-13-2008
Tue, 01-22-2013 - 4:50am

Deenasdad, EXCELLENT post.

 

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-03-2009
Tue, 01-22-2013 - 7:04pm

To all:

iVillage still hasn't gotten its act together to make posting here a decent or easy experience.  I write this post using two devices because the composition window doesn't include the post to which I am responding.  Pretty pathetic, IMHO, considering the length of time they've had to work out bugs and get things right. 

That said, many have been illogical and emotional on the topic of firearms control. I cannot resist making some points.

First, the Second Amendment says diddly squat about personal self-defense.  This is its exact wording:  " 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."  People have argued (very often the same ones who complain about judicial activism) that there is a history of self-defense and the priority is implied.  Huh.  It's not in the Second.  One wonders:  Why not?  Over and over again, I see the NRA and their lackeys behave as if their individual rights were paramount.  They ignore the introductory clause with its clear indication of the context of both REGULATION (and not just "regulated" but "well-regulated"!) and STATE freedom.  

Secondly, if the preppers and the paranoid think that "big" government is their foe, what the heck good do they think a measly assault weapon would do against drones, bunker busters, etc?  We have standing armed forces with nuclear devices capable of inflicting widespread damage, and tactical weapons systems more than sufficient to take out any piddling little semi-automatic weapon.  Duh. 

Moreover, many of these same people are those who take any cut to our "defense" budget as though it were an act of treason--do they NOT understand?!  The nation's founders considered a standing army to be anathema because a tyrant could command that army to turn on a nation's citizens.  Our citizen soldiers were meant to bear their arms only in times of war, then disband.  James Madison said “A standing army is one of the greatest mischief that can possibly happen”. One wonders how many of the "gunrights" crowd regularly drill with a well-regulated militia.  Likely, very few!  By definition, they'd have to be National Guard members. 

 Third, the rhetoric about posting guards in schools and "good guys with guns" taking out "bad guys with guns" is so demonstrably short-sighted and illogical that only the unthinking and/or foolish would give those proposals more than a minute's consideration.  Sure, there have been school shootings.  There have also been shootings at malls, in theaters, in various work place settings.  Having a "need" for armed guards in all settings is appalling for a society that considers itself "civil".  As for the "good guy" characterization, God give me patience.  A cop just shot his wife and child. http://gantdaily.com/2013/01/22/nevada-cop-fatally-shoots-wife-son-and-then-himself-in-burning-home/   The quiet son of a minister killed his parents and three siblings not twenty miles from where I live.  http://www.philly.com/philly/news/nation_world/20130122_ap_authoritiesnmteenplannedmoreshootings.html  Who defines "good", based on what criterion, and how do you predict, before that "good guy" buys serious weaponry, whether or not she/he will go screaming yellow bonkers? 

But in their self absorption, the RKBA crowd takes exception to just about ANY common sensible limits.  Armed to the teeth with whatever, whenever, where ever they damn well please, seems to be the credo.  Airports and national parks?  Gotta have those firearms........  One is reminded of the definition of paranoia: 

par·a·noi·a  

/ˌparəˈnoiə/
Noun
  1. A mental condition characterized by delusions of persecution, unwarranted jealousy, or exaggerated self-importance, typically worked...
  2. Suspicion and mistrust of people or their actions without evidence or justification.

I'm left wondering how mentally healthy these people are in the first place! 

Sure, there are people out there who actually need a firearm.  Well trained law enforcement officers need them.  Hunters who feed their families with game have a reasonable case to make (though I've NEVER been able to stomach such an argument for the "sports" hunter who has a fancy-dancy blind, ATV, pickup and/or RV--it would be far less expensive to buy a side of beef or, pun intended, go whole hog).  There are ranchers and farmers who have to be wary of varmints (not the human kind). 

I read a piece in the NYT which expressed my greatest fear, beyond that of random violence.  It deserves a reading by responsible citizens.  An extract: 
Our gun culture promotes a fatal slide into extreme individualism. It fosters a society of atomistic individuals, isolated before power — and one another — and in the aftermath of shootings such as at Newtown, paralyzed with fear. That is not freedom, but quite its opposite.  http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/16/the-freedom-of-an-armed-society/

Jabberwocka

Avatar for xxxs
Community Leader
Registered: 01-25-2010
Mon, 01-28-2013 - 4:42pm

It is the lack of the other side.  Assault weapons are good in the flyover states pistols are better in the urban landscape.  We need better laws allowing self defense.  statistics on people who used a gun to prevent or defend are hidden.  The anti-gun media has a long history starting with the late. Bill Paley.  The cities where gun violence in most likly to occur have the "toughest anti gun anti defend yourself laws. 

http://www.pulpless.com/gunclock/stats.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defensive_gun_use

chaika

Avatar for xxxs
Community Leader
Registered: 01-25-2010
Mon, 01-28-2013 - 4:51pm

Militia was at he time of revolution was all men in a town.  They all had weapons sometime state of the art rifles.  What is necessary is to strenghten the rights to state of the art weaponery.  Urban Americans generally have little training and experience with firearms.   Nor has the Urban American had the safety been drilled into their heads since childhood.  Yes training is needed.  But it does mean that people can defend their loved ones, businesses, and homes. 

http://1389blog.com/2012/12/23/larry-correia-refutes-the-gun-controllers-once-and-for-all/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defensive_gun_use

chaika

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-03-2009
Tue, 01-29-2013 - 10:21am

To Xxxs:

Why are assault weapons "good" in the flyover states?  This isn't the wild west anymore!  Shootouts of any kind, with any firearms, in urban areas, suburban areas, or rural areas, make no sense.  We have laws and law enforcement officers. If they're not doing their job,  the best answer is to work for reform, not go jungle and call for "better laws allowing self defense ".  God give me patience! 

Taking the "self defense" route is one step away from "might makes right".  We cannot have a civil or complex society when that path is chosen because the weakest, the oldest, and those lacking a will to kill won't last.  Might as well go back to the Dark Ages. You think that was so peachy, look at the way people lived!  Then read "Leviathan" by Thomas Hobbes, considered to be the father of political science. [more at http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl302/texts/hobbes/leviathan-c.html:] Here's an excerpt: 

.....every man is enemy to every man, the same consequent to the time wherein men live without other security than what their own strength and their own invention shall furnish them withal. In such condition there is no place for industry, because the fruit thereof is uncertain: and consequently no culture of the earth; no navigation, nor use of the commodities that may be imported by sea; no commodious building; no instruments of moving and removing such things as require much force; no knowledge of the face of the earth; no account of time; no arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.

Apparently, gun-rights groups have also done their best to prevent the Centers for Disease Control from researching the impact of widespread firearms owning on the health of others.  Mark Rosenberg, former director of the CDC’s National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, had even stronger words. “The scientific community has been terrorized by the NRA,” Rosenberg said.  http://www.ajc.com/news/news/cdc-politics-affected-gun-violence-research/nTZnf/  That's damning, in my estimation, particularly since an overall adverse impact would substantially undermine the whole "self defense" schtick. 

As for the Second Amendment's militia, I will point out AGAIN that the adjective "well-regulated" is there in black and white.  Not so easily brushed away.  Says diddly squat, the Second, about self defense. 

Jabberwocka

Avatar for xxxs
Community Leader
Registered: 01-25-2010
Wed, 01-30-2013 - 11:51pm

  Do these "buy backs" check to see if the guns were stolen?  Used in a crime?  I doubt it.

chaika

Avatar for xxxs
Community Leader
Registered: 01-25-2010
Thu, 01-31-2013 - 12:23am

  Assault weapons as used by civilians are military look alike not actually the same thing.  Law enforcement happens AFTER a crime is committed

Why are assault weapons "good" in the flyover states?

.  In many areas of the country (non urban) it could take 45 min or more for help to arrive.  Now perhaps you live in an urban area where perhaps 10-30 minutes help may come.  The help will not get there in time to save you and yours.  That is up to you.  Now what do you want to use?  Some effective tool of something dreamed up in a hero fantasy. 

   Assault weapons are modular, one rifle can be easily converted to different calibers.  Varmint hunting do deer hunting with the same gun.  Because the stock adjusts for size different people can use the same gun safely and comfortably.  The pistol grip aid is accuracy  (and these are very accurate). 

  I disagree he is wrong. Hobbes could be talking about the financial sector(and was)

  The facts are always printed from one point of view.  But the truth is that people do use guns to defend themselves.  The modern rifles is far superior to it's ancestors. 

   A shootout makes plenty of sense when it is you trying to save your life or the lives of your loved ones.  No one who survived a criminal's attack says "I wish the criminal had won".

http://1389blog.com/2012/12/23/larry-correia-refutes-the-gun-controllers-once-and-for-all/

http://www.military.com/video/law-enforcement/police/65-year-old-woman-shoots-5-robbers/2125027516001/

http://www.military.com/video/forces/marine-corps/a-marines-thoughts-on-gun-control/2129824318001/

chaika

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-09-2006
Thu, 01-31-2013 - 11:34am
Every man for himself...or at least every gun nut for himself. I will not respond to an emergency at one neighbor's house. The risk is too great.

Pages