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: 04-16-2009
Wed, 02-13-2013 - 1:44pm

Excellent post

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-17-2012
Wed, 02-13-2013 - 4:04pm

My engineer DH ...wants them to get the hell outta there, immediately.  No futzing around with an extinguisher.  A building, DH points out, can be rebuilt.  A human life cannot.

So why are fire extinguishers required in buildings and recommended in homes if the consensus of "professionals" is that they not be used?  And are you seriously going to tell us that if someone were to see a fire in a trash can or a grease fire in a kitchen that the recommendation from "professionals" is to "run away" rather than try putting the fire out with the FIRE EXTINGUISHER sitting nearby?

First responders have specialized training.  Most civilians do not.  Where long distance from first responder services is a factor, having the training and equipment makes some sense.  Otherwise.......not so much.  One would think that would be obvious, but apparently not.    One wonders why it seems necessary to keep pointing out the obvious.

Maybe the "obvious" isn't so obvious.  What is the significant difference between a Glock that can be purchased at a gun store down the street and the Glock carried by Police officers that makes the "Police Glock" superior equipment?

And beyond pointing and shooting, what skill or training is required for an armed teacher or security guard to be able to intervene effectively in the event of an attempted mass shooting?


Firearms owners have effectively manipulated politicians and public opinion, by omitting or trying to obfuscate the introductory clause of the Second Amendment.

You're mistaken.  The introductory clause of the Second Amendment does not define the "right to bear arms," it only specifies the reason the Federal government cannot INFRINGE upon that right.

And since you want to be such a stickler for the actual language of the Second Amendment, why are you so frivolous with the definition of "infringe?"  The Second Amendment states quite unequivocally that the government shall NOT Infringe...to restrict, limit, curb, check, encroach on, undermine, erode, diminish...the RIGHT of the people to KEEP and BEAR arms.  And yet, that is exactly what so many on the left are, and have been, trying to do for years.  A hypocritically convenient reading at the very least.

Your claim that the Second...And you left out, again, the “well-regulated.”  One wonders.  Why?

"Well-regulated" by whom?  Why do you think the Founding Fathers left that distinction out?  At the time of the writing, militias could be "well regulated" by the Fed, the state, the county, the town, even by private citizens.  In DC v Heller, the Supreme Court specifically recognized "militia," to include both Federal and civilian organized fighting force.

Also at the time of the writing, militias were not standing armies, they were called up as needed.  And so the POTENTIAL need for an armed citizenry...and it does not specify who has the need or a specification of what that need must be...is the only justification required by the Second Amendment to limit the power of the Federal government.

The number of homicides BY FIREARMS...highest of all developed nations.

2/3 of all gun deaths in the US are suicides.  Guns are probably used because they're simple and effective, but there's no evidence that someone intent on killing themselves would be deterred because they couldn't do it with an assault rifle or a gun with a large capacity magazine.

If you want to push the "more gun deaths in the US" argument, then factor out the suicides and mitigate the host of other differentials until you have an equitable comparison.  Until then, you're just offering a disingenuous argument over apples and oranges.

And the number of mass shootings has risen.  2012 was the worst year in U.S. history, in terms of total victims.

It's a coincidence.  There is no upward trend in the number of shootings, the number of victims or a propensity to use "assault rifles."


The Atlantic Magazine piece also notes that during mass shootings, "there were no cases where an armed civilian fired back".  

All of the shootings took place in "gun free zones"...there was no armed civilian to "fire back."


Unless a firearms owner is trained intensively and practices regularly, she or he is very unlikely to know how to respond in a crisis setting.

Yes, "point and shoot" can be difficult to remember, whereas "hide under a desk and pray the shooter doesn't kill you" has proven to be a much more effective strategy.

My point, AGAIN, is that a "possible situation" is not near enough justification to own or carry a lethal weapon.

The teachers hiding in closets with their kids at Sandy Hook and Columbine might disagree...heck, you might even get a nod from the poor woman being dragged into an alleyway, getting beaten and raped, who's only defense is "I hope he doesn't kill me when he's done."

At the very least, there should be a national license required to show some degree of knowledge about safety precautions, mental health status, and how a weapon is used properly.

I agree, but that would, again, only affect lawful gun owners.  It would not stop ciminals, it would not prevent suicides and it would have done nothing to stop the Newtown massacre.  Btw, how would a background check determine the state of one's mental health?  How would it reveal someone's intention to cause mayhem?

Seems likely that they would shriek about infringement (and ignore the introductory clause again).

The "introductory clause" only defines the reason the Federal government cannot infringe on the right to bear arms...it does not define the right to bear arms.

The "life has no guarantees" comment shows that a "responsible law-abiding" gun owner such as yourself is not anywhere near responsible enough to own and bear a lethal weapon.  If you cannot guarantee that it will never be misused, then you have no business owning it, particularly considering the purpose for which it was designed and manufactured.

Can you guarantee that your car will never harm another person?  What about the knives in your kitchen?  The poisons stored under the sink?  The hammer in the toolbox?  If you cannot guarantee that all of your possessions will never be misused, then you have no business owning them.  You're right, that kind of thinking is ridiculous.

To the best of my knowledge, there is NO well-regulated militia to which most firearms owners belong and with which they drill, with their own weapons, on a regular basis.  If you have proof to contrary, by all means, serve it forth.

Your understanding of the Constitution, and militias, is flawed.  As definied by the Supreme Court..."the 'militia' [in colonial America] consisted of a subset of 'the people'—those who were male, able-bodied, and within a certain age range"...the militia as a defacto organization exists as long as the society exists.  There is no requirement, in either Colonial America or the 21st century, for a militia ro drill or train on a regular basis in order for it to exist or to be protected by the Second Amendment...only that there be a POTENTIAL need for the citizenry to be armed at some time to defend "something."

BTW, active members of state National Guard units do meet regularly (talk about "presenting false information") but when they practice with firearms, those arms are NOT the personal weapons of the soldiers.

The National Guard is part of the US military, not a civilian militia, so it is appropriate that the US government provide it's soldiers with the equipment that the US government feels is appropriate for their training and to accomplish the goals established by the US government.

Every once in awhile, the lunatic fringe (most recently in the form of "teapartiers") decide to contest federal firearms laws, using the "unorganized militia" argument.

Yes, those crazy Supreme Court justices are quite the lunatic fringe. ; )

Their actions don’t seem directed at containing a criminal element.  Rather, it looks to me as though they contemplate a possible uprising against a duly elected government.  That ain't democracy, nor even a republic.   And one doubts that the writers of the Second intended such action when they incorporated it into the Bill of Rights.

They didn't need to as they had already stated quite clearly in the Declaration of Independence...

"...Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

IMHO, the NRA has pursued a similar reckless course, demanding rights to carry in places where your "possible situation" is unlikely.

Like a mall, or a movie theater or your workplace or...shudder...a school?  Nah, what could happen in those places?

Their posit is that we will all be safer if more weapons are around.  Again, pointing out the obvious, it didn’t work with MAD!

Here's a fact...gun ownership is up...and gun violence is down...except in Chicago, Obama's hometown, a gun-free zone with very strict gun laws...that is, unfortunately, the murder capital of the world.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-03-2009
Wed, 02-13-2013 - 8:56pm

To Mom-Faith3 Firearms are designed and manufactured as tools of physical injury and death. The threat of injury or death is a secondary effect. PERIOD. Comparisons to other products or situations such as bathtubs or drunk drivers are patently absurd. When gun rights supporters needs must resort to such silly arguments, it leads me to believe that they either lack mental acuity or have no better way to justify just how destructive firearms are. Maybe both. And their premise that armed guards or armed teachers will magically protect the innocent is equally devoid of critiical thought. Just because the vengeful or crazed have targeted schools in the past is no reason to believe that future attacks or mass shootings will be confined to those settings. Perhaps the intent is that people carry firearms everywhere. Children too. Not much of a way to live and when untrained people use those firearms in high density settings, the likelihood of "collateral damage" increases. Nobody addressing that issue either. In short, there are major flaws with the RKBA positions and their talking points fail to address those flaws.

Jabberwocka

Avatar for xxxs
Community Leader
Registered: 01-25-2010
Wed, 02-13-2013 - 11:14pm

  Answering Jabberwocka:   

               The expert only rule does not work. " The "life has no guarantees" comment shows that a "responsible law-abiding" gun owner such as yourself is not anywhere near responsible enough to own and bear a lethal weapon.  If you cannot guarantee that it will never be misused, then you have no business owning it, particularly considering the purpose for which it was designed and manufactured.  "

         That makes no sense what so ever. Life actions cannot be guaranteed.  In fact assuming life will never have bad times is unreasonable.   You cannot guarantee anyone absolute safety.  Now you it seems never have been in life or death situations.  That lack of experience shows in the idealized writing.  I too have taken CPR.  but I too have taken years of gun training.  Where I lived it was necessary since we used guns as tools.  Now not having training is the big thing for many people.  Get the training it is available.  Most wise people learn by attending classes.  

    Responding in a crises?  Individual no matter how well trained will act the same in crises.  Some will be frozen, others will run away,some will do the right thing.  That is being human. 

     In WW2 an allied soldier was court marshaled for cowardice in face of the enemy.  His life was saved by Allied Intelligence who needed a real coward for a operation they had planned.  He was given a packet of (what he thought was real) information.  He was parachuted into Nazi controlled Europe ( the information was false and the Allied intelligence wanted him to reveal what he "knew").  He was captured tortured but never gave up the information.  That is the way humans are.

      The Swiss carry guns.  It is part of their culture.  In many parts of America people do carry guns many use them to fend off criminals.  Is the gun that frightens you? 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KztkvfeyO80

      Do you have guns?  Do you know how to use them?  

Real life:

 The murders by hammers:

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/01/03/FBI-More-People-Killed-With-Hammers-and-Clubs-Each-Year-Than-With-Rifles

Defending oneself:

Attackers use their size and physical strength, preying on women who are at a severe disadvantage.

Defensive Gun Use Statistics.  According to the National Self Defense Survey conducted by Florida State University criminologists in 1994, the rate of Defensive Gun Uses can be projected nationwide to approximately 2.5 million per year — one Defensive Gun Use every 13 seconds.  Among 15.7% of gun defenders interviewed nationwide during The National Self Defense Survey, the defender believed that someone "almost certainly" would have died had the gun not been used for protection — a lifesaved by a privately held gun about once every 1.3 minutes.

http://www.akdart.com/gun3.html

   Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest.
Mahatma Gandhi

 

   

dragowoman

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-17-2012
Thu, 02-14-2013 - 4:20am

Comparisons to other products or situations such as bathtubs or drunk drivers are patently absurd.

Absurd?  Hardly.  The anti-gun crowd claims to be interested in public safety and then goes on to push an agenda that will do nothing to improve public safety or to prevent mass shootings.  Your arguments are so full of holes a swiss cheese maker would find them defective...and everyone knows it...including you.  It's a shame that ideology prevents liberals from seeking real remedies to real problems.

When gun rights supporters needs must resort to such silly arguments, it leads me to believe that they either lack mental acuity or have no better way to justify just how destructive firearms are. Maybe both.

This lack of "mental acuity" is why the anti-gun crowd's arguments fall flat.  Firearms are destructive?  Really?  that kind of deserves a big "DUH!"  They're designed to kill things...enemies of war...animals to eat...etc.  What they're not designed to do is be used my mental patients to kill innocent people.  But the fact that they're not designed to do that,  like cars aren't designed to kill people, doesn't mean that they'll never be appropriated, and used illegally for just such a purpose.  If the anti-gun crowd would put a little more reason and a little less emotion in their arguments they might get a little more support.

And their premise that armed guards or armed teachers will magically protect the innocent is equally devoid of critiical thought.

Right, because people who lack "mental acuity" like to ignore the FACT that there are already police or armed security in a substantial percentage of schools.  And they also like to conveniently ignore the FACT that, as a society, we protect most buildings and businesses with armed security.  Again, the swiss cheese makers are having convulsions laughing at how ridiculous the anti-gun arguments are.

Just because the vengeful or crazed have targeted schools in the past is no reason to believe that future attacks or mass shootings will be confined to those settings.

Because Columbine wasn't a clue that schools might be a target for disgruntled students?  Or maybe the FACT that schools have been targets for nearly a hundred years?  But why let a hundred years of precendent get in the way of the anti-gun crowd lying to take advantage of a tragedy?

Perhaps the intent is that people carry firearms everywhere.

Imagine the drop in crime if criminals feared being shot by law abiding citizens?  I guess it's not a shock that that nearly all of the mass shootings in the past decade have taken place in "gun-free zones."  Again, a FACT that the anti-gun crowd doesn't have the "mental acuity" to comprehend.

Children too. Not much of a way to live and when untrained people use those firearms in high density settings, the likelihood of "collateral damage" increases.

Like banks, public buildings and businesses where people come and go every day without "collateral damage?"  Speaking of "mental acuity"...

Nobody addressing that issue either. In short, there are major flaws with the RKBA positions and their talking points fail to address those flaws.

Like poking even more holes in the swiss cheese that is the anti-gun, anti-Second Amendment agenda.

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-08-2006
Sun, 02-17-2013 - 10:11am

Jabberwocka,  

Yes, firearms are designed and manufactored as tools for physical injury or death.  I believe the the absurd "bathtubs and cars" kill more people argument is the quinnessencial All or Nothing debate.  If something out there can kill you then nothing at all should be banned/and or regulated.  Secondary effect to them does not comes into play at all.  A potential hazard to the public by pure design be damned  They put aside all reason because it doesn't work well with their very narrow 'all or nothing' point of view.  

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-09-2006
Sun, 02-17-2013 - 12:45pm
Yup. There's always the old "you have a better chance of being hit by a meteor" argument...;) The actual issue is an Entitled crowd that groupthinks that their rights to own increasingly deadly weapons (with increasingly deadly results the frequency and scope of mass shootings has been escalating in the last few years) trumps our right to life. Period. A while back in this debate there was a painstaking response to one of my posts that was a fail on absolutely every point...it was so badly misunderstood (or misconstrued) that there was no point responding. One of its arguments was purely emotional: we are supposed to care about the custodians whose feelings might be hurt if they found out that I think that they are what they actually are: incompetent to protect my child in the event of a school shooting. (My short term suggestion, to find ways to really secure the perimeter, was totally ignored...I guess because the notion of the custodian who only has to "point and shoot" to save the day from the ravages of a delusional psychopath wearing protective gear, armed to the teeth with a rapid fire weapon and carrying enough ammunition to kill everyone in my town...the romantic fiction of the downtrodden savior is so much more appealing to the Entitled among us.) Here's what happened in my neighborhood last night. Electricity was lost for three houses. The occupant in one didn't answer the phone, was asleep. So the occupant woke up to a cold house and a warm refrigerator because no one wanted to set up a generator without occupant's permission. They didn't knock on the door. Why should they, when a middle of the night knock can be met with a bullet? Welcome to Tea Party Nation, where you can't be neighborly because your neighbor can shoot without asking questions. The Entitled asked for it...the rest get to enjoy. Here's the good part: if the Entitled have their way, it's going to get worse. Those of us who believe in the Rule of Law have no part in the Armed New World of the Entitled.
iVillage Member
Registered: 10-17-2012
Sun, 02-17-2013 - 7:09pm

I believe the the absurd "bathtubs and cars" kill more people argument is the quinnessencial All or Nothing debate.  If something out there can kill you then nothing at all should be banned/and or regulated.

It's not an "all or nothing" debate at all.  They are simply examples that demonstrate the absurdity of the liberal argument that claims to be interested in public safety and children's safety, and then make inane proposals that reveal themselves to be either fools, or that expose their true anti-gun, anti-Second Amendment agenda.

If the safety of children or the public was their real interest, then they would focus on those things in society that actually kill significant numbers of people and propose ideas that might actually aid in saving lives.  Instead, they prop up false arguments, deny facts and try to strip away our Constitutional rights.

iVillage Member
Registered: 02-17-2013
Sun, 02-17-2013 - 7:19pm

LIFETIME OPPORTUNITY!
Are you tired of going office daily? Make money working from home with Google! I get paid over $87 per hour with 2 kids at home. I never thought I'd be able to do it but my best friend earns over 10k a month doing this and she convinced me to try. The potential with this is endless. Here is what I've been doing, GOOGLE CASH
(click on ‘Home’ for details)

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-17-2012
Sun, 02-17-2013 - 9:16pm

Yup. There's always the old "you have a better chance of being hit by a meteor" argument...;)

A rational that never seems to bother liberals when reason and ideology are at odds. You can find similarly deficient thinking with their arguments on green energy and global warming as you do with their irrational hatred of guns.

The actual issue is an Entitled crowd that groupthinks that their rights to own increasingly deadly weapons (with increasingly deadly results the frequency and scope of mass shootings has been escalating in the last few years) trumps our right to life. Period.

Well, you're mistaken on two points...first, the "frequency and scope of mass shootings" has not been escalating...and it isn't an "Entitled crowd that groupthinks their rights," unless you're referring to the Founding Fathers who "groupthinked" the Constitution.  And it's your attack on that Second Amendment that is infringing on the rights of law abiding American citizens to honor their traditions, exercise their rights and defend their lives and the lives of their families.  Liberals should be ashamed.

One of its arguments was purely emotional: we are supposed to care about the custodians whose feelings might be hurt if they found out that I think that they are what they actually are: incompetent to protect my child in the event of a school shooting.

The ignorance of that comment is difficult to comprehend.  First, no one has ever suggested that you simply hand a gun to a custodian and tell him to guard the school children.  Second, anyone, even a custodian about whom you seem to have such contempt, can be trained to handle a firearm properly and safely.  And could be the difference between life and death if a shooter with murderous intent should enter your child's school...but then, in keeping with your ideology, you'd probably rather the shooter be allowed to have his run of the school, killing at will, until the police arrive, rather than have an "incompetent" custodian be empowered to intervene.

(My short term suggestion, to find ways to really secure the perimeter, was totally ignored...I guess because the notion of the custodian who only has to "point and shoot" to save the day from the ravages of a delusional psychopath wearing protective gear, armed to the teeth with a rapid fire weapon and carrying enough ammunition to kill everyone in my town...the romantic fiction of the downtrodden savior is so much more appealing to the Entitled among us.)

Your suggestion was not ignored, it was discussed and proven to be nonsensical.  There is simply no way to secure the perimeter of every school in every town in the country.  Not even close.  In Newtown the shooter simplyl shot through the glass and walked in.  At Columbine, the shooters were students.  And even if you did manage to turn every school into a steel fortress, a shooter could still kill students by attacking them in the schoolyard...or in front of the school when it lets out...etc, etc, etc.

Another fact you conveniently ignore is that the shooters, in every case, first chose targets that were gun-free zones, and also stopped their rampage and killed themselves at the first appearance of armed opposition.  So naturally, you're insightful solution is to give more freedom to the shooters and to limit the armed opposition that might deter them.

Here's what happened in my neighborhood last night. Electricity was lost for three houses. The occupant in one didn't answer the phone, was asleep. So the occupant woke up to a cold house and a warm refrigerator because no one wanted to set up a generator without occupant's permission. They didn't knock on the door. Why should they, when a middle of the night knock can be met with a bullet? Welcome to Tea Party Nation, where you can't be neighborly because your neighbor can shoot without asking questions.

Again, how ridiculously absurd.  No one walks around handing out generators in the middle of the night just because the electricity was out for a few hours.  I do, however, offer you condolences for having to live in a neighborhood where politely knocking on your neighbor's door will get you shot.

Pages