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

Deenasdad, EXCELLENT post.

 

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: 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
Thu, 01-17-2013 - 5:26pm

Well, gang violence, domestic violence (which involve guns), suicides are a growing problem too... The commonality of it all is guns!

Guns are not a "commonality" of the situations you mentioned and all would continue to occur, and have occurred throughout history, even if you were able to confiscate every gun in existence.

Yes, Of course mental health needs to be looked at but if we step back and crack down on guns, who has them or/and where we should allow them then that is a step in the right direction, right?

No. The only people who would be affected by legislation are law abiding citizens who aren't committing crimes or shooting up schools.  The anti-Constitution left is simply fear-mongering and offering right-crushing policies that will accomplish nothing.

My state is having these buy back gun events, Is this happening in other areas too? Is that a good thing IYO or no?

Of course not.  No one who wants their gun is going to give it up for a supermarket coupon.  All a buyback does is waste taxpayer money collecting guns from people who don't want them (and those people probably inherited them and were never going to use them), or guns that are broken or have been stolen.  Did it remove a single gun from the hands of a criminal or someone with a demonstrable mental problem?  No.  It's just a ridiculous dog and pony show that, again, accomplishes nothing.

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-23-2001
Tue, 01-15-2013 - 7:01am

Well, gang violence, domestic violence (which involve guns), suicides are a growing problem too... The commonality of it all is guns! Yes, Of course mental health needs to be looked at but if we step back and crack down on guns, who has them or/and where we should allow them then that is a step in the right direction, right? My state is having these buy back gun events, Is this happening in other areas too? Is that a good thing IYO or no?

 


 


iVillage Member
Registered: 10-17-2012
Mon, 01-14-2013 - 8:41pm

Recently I read of a plan to arm school custodians. I'm wondering about the critical thinking skills of those who came up with the plan...and the critical thinking skills of the parents who do not withdraw their kids from that school...

First, why do you feel that a school custodian is too incompetent to be trained to handle a gun?

And second...if it was one of your children who was hiding in the closet while a gunman walked, unobstructed, around the school killing people at random, would you still think it was a bad idea if the custodian or the teacher hiding with them had a weapon?  Why is that?

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-17-2012
Mon, 01-14-2013 - 8:35pm

Well, first, there is no cancer of a problem.  You stand a better chance of being hit by lightning than you do being a victim of a mass shooting.  As for gun violence in general, less than 2% (as reported on the new today) involve "assault rifles."  So banning assault rifles now will accomplish exactly the same thing it did when they were banned for a decade...nothing.  You should also be aware that when liberals quote "gun violence" statistics, they're also including suicides and gang violence, not law abiding citizens running amok with their legally purchased firearms.

And what will compulsory registration do, even though it's already compulsory in the vast majority of cases?  It might keep convicted criminals from getting guns, but most criminals don't purchase their weapons legally and won't be spotlighted by registration.  It also won't flag people with mental health issues because medical records aren't public and no criteria has been established that determines what level of "mental health" would be sufficient to prohibit someone from obtaining a gun.

In other words, EVERYTHING the Democrats are proposing is a sham to limit people's Second Amendment rights.

Regarding mass shootings, the real issue is addressing mental health.  In every case the people who knew the shooters intimately were expressed long-time concerns for their mental health, but either didn't know how to address it, or were told that there was nothing that could be done.  I don't have the answers here, but it seems plainly obvious that a complete revamping of the system is required.

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-09-2006
Sun, 01-13-2013 - 10:01pm
"They simply want to take away people's guns and rescind the second amendment." Really? I haven't heard anyone say that...it seems like sheer wild speculation. I think there is concern that the US is taking a step backward to a sort of pioneer situation where people seem to think they have to be armed to be "safe". Recently I read of a plan to arm school custodians. I'm wondering about the critical thinking skills of those who came up with the plan...and the critical thinking skills of the parents who do not withdraw their kids from that school...
iVillage Member
Registered: 10-23-2001
Sun, 01-13-2013 - 7:52am

I agree there are other issues that need to be addressed but what do you propose deenasdad....  What is the solution to this cancer of a problem?  And if the second amendment gets rescinded it will happen under this administration, They've showed they can do that to the first one..

 


 


iVillage Member
Registered: 10-17-2012
Sat, 01-12-2013 - 11:15pm

Are we really using them to protect ourselves in our homes?

A woman in Georgia did just that a few days ago,  protecting her own life and those of her two children. I think some of the  Newtown teachers, hiding with their students in closets as the shooter hunted them, might have wanted a gun to protect them, instead of luck and prayers.  If a criminal broke into your home tonight threatening your family, would you want to have a gun?  I would.

http://actionamerica.org/guns/guns1.shtml

How many armed guns do you need to shoot a deer in the woods?

All of the guns would need to be "armed," otherwise you're just carrying a club, and it's tough to club a deer to death.  But hunters don't usually limit themselves to just hunting one type of animal.  You really wouldn't use a deer rifle to shoot a pheasant and there are a variety of guns to choose from based on what and where you are hunting.

Are guns really a work of art that people should be allowed to possess and hang behind glass?

Certain weapons of all types have been considered works of art for centuries.  Why shouldn't someone be allowed to own these pieces?

Stiffen the cost to license them perhaps

What would that accomplish?  It would simply make law-abiding citizens pay more to exercise their Constitutional right.  Would you also be in favor of having people pay for the privilege of free speech?  Raising costs only ensures that the wealthy and criminals will be able to protect themselves.  If that had been the case a few days ago in Georgia, I shudder to think what might have happened to that mother and her two children.

Pages