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: 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

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

Excellent post

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-03-2009
Wed, 02-13-2013 - 12:30pm

 

Jabberwocka

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-17-2012
Wed, 02-13-2013 - 1:51am

So, in order to have a free society we can't ban dangerous and deadly products?

Like cars and bathtubs that kill exponentially more people each year than assault rifles?

As I said, your argument left logic standing by the side of the road long ago, and has devolved into a purely emotional rant.  That won't convince anyone.  It's already been shown time after time after time that banning "assault weapons" won't do a thing to prevent mass shootings, nor will "universal background checks," and that the same number of people could have been killed in any mass shooting if the shooter only used handguns with low-capacity clips.

So why keep pushing the same tired, old anti-gun arguments?  If lives, not guns, are your real concern, then why not start focusing on, and addressing, the real problems?

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-17-2012
Wed, 02-13-2013 - 1:32am

Let's test out that logical fallacy.  Let's stop banning lead paint in products because acid rain is dangerous to human health too.

Was lead paint or acid rain used by psychos to kill masses of Americans?

Avatar for xxxs
Community Leader
Registered: 01-25-2010
Tue, 02-12-2013 - 11:12pm

  The Congo referance was Deenasdad:   But perhaps looking at what happens to unarmed people in many countries and the suffering they endure.  Millions of people wish they had the right and the means to defend themselves.

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

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacon%27s_rebellion

  

dragowoman

Avatar for xxxs
Community Leader
Registered: 01-25-2010
Tue, 02-12-2013 - 10:55pm

   Guns are perfectly safe.  So we also allow poisonious food in the US we allow food with hormones and additives that are banned by most of the advanced countries. 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andrew-gunther/would-you-like-extra-ract_b_2206643.html

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/feb/11/russia-bans-beef-and-pork-imports-us/

http://www.nbcnews.com/business/dispute-over-drug-feed-limiting-us-meat-exports-174014

dragowoman

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-08-2006
Tue, 02-12-2013 - 6:56pm

sorry double post 

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-08-2006
Tue, 02-12-2013 - 6:55pm

Oh really xxxs, like the Congo?

Pages