Washington Fly Fishing Forum banner

musings on the gun control issue

8K views 110 replies 26 participants last post by  speyfisher 
#1 ·
I was ruminating on this over my morning coffee after reading about Giffords' plaintive appeal in the paper this morning: I agree that something should be done, but it's not the firearms that cause the problem any more than it's that machete lying dormant in your basement.

First, universal background checks aren't a bad thing, BUT the NRA has a valid point: what's the purpose of the check, if you're not going to prosecute those who lie on the form (a felony, by the way). If a universal requirement was also followed by universal prosecution for falsification, I'd favor it. And it should be applied to private sales as well. Let's leave the "inheritance" issue alone for now.

Second, this "mental health" issue is a red herring; medical people are ALREADY required to report those who they believe will go bonkers to law enforcement (shrinks, chime in here?)

Third, a storage requirement would pretty much eliminate the utility of any firearm to be used for defense within a home, so that won't work,either. This brings me to my thought on the actual question of the debate: is this for lunatic/criminal control as a means of preventing this outrageous violence, or is it's purpose to disarm a society completely so the people who have a phobia about guns will "feel safe"?

I don't have any answer here if the question's to prevent the loony tunes from whacking people, but... the availability of firearms I don't believe is at the heart of the issue. When I was a kid, you could walk into any hardware store in the nation and walk out with an M1 Carbine, hi-cap mags and all, or a Garand, both battle rifles with a decent capacity and quick reloading ability. There were NO crazies blowing kids away in schools, so this looks like it's some sort of cultural or sociological issue. The crazies were there, for sure, but something else is going on now that wasn't present then.

The sad thing is: while a University study to determine if the bubble curtain in a glass of Guinness actually goes down received a grant, but effects of violent video gaming? Haven't seen any. this may not have anything to do with the issue, either. Another thing that has drastically changed is the way we educate our kids. When I was a kid, and you were bullied, it was up to you to defend yourself-the school wouldn't do anything about it. If you did smack the other kid, nothing usually happened to you. Now, the school really doesn't do anything about bullying, but God forfend if you smack the asshole-you're outta there! Has society deteriorated so far, with unwed mothers all over the place, schools punishing those who try to stand up for themselves, Tuba Man murderers repeatedly let go after they commit yet another crime, little or no consequences for criminals of all stripes.

Then, there's Switzerland, where the military is primarily housed in their own homes, along with their fully automatic weapons. Their military is all able-bodied men; it's a national requirement. Don't hear about a lot of gun violence there, do we. Why is that, do you think? Just wondering... And musing.
 
See less See more
#36 ·
Gofish101,

We can agree that one child killed is one too many, and then look at the statistics. Oh, one or more children are killed every day in the U.S. We can say it's too many, no matter the number, but the genie is out of the bottle. There are between 250 and 300 million firearms in circulation in the U.S., with 311 million people. The genie cannot be put back in the bottle, short of massive gun confiscation. And no politician is proposing that. Instead measures that will have no measurable effect in reducing firearm murder are proposed by often well-intentioned people who have to be thinking with their hearts and not with their heads. That's why I called it emotional, feel good measures. Except one. Universal background checks for all arms, not just handguns, and private as well as dealer sales, does have the potential to reduce firearm fatalities, but most likely the number would be small. And then only if the law is well enforced. As Alex points out in his initial post, the existing requirements are not consistently enforced.

It's not that many, if any, of us don't want to address the issue. It's just that we are thinking logically and don't want to pretend to address firearm murder with feel good emotional measures that clearly will not measurably affect the outcome.

Sg
 
#38 ·
but the genie is out of the bottle. There are between 250 and 300 million firearms in circulation in the U.S., with 311 million people. The genie cannot be put back in the bottle, short of massive gun confiscation. And no politician is proposing that. Instead measures that will have no measurable effect in reducing firearm murder are proposed by often well-intentioned people who have to be thinking with their hearts and not with their heads. That's why I called it emotional, feel good measures. Except one. Universal background checks for all arms, not just handguns, and private as well as dealer sales, does have the potential to reduce firearm fatalities, but most likely the number would be small. And then only if the law is well enforced. As Alex points out in his initial post, the existing requirements are not consistently enforced.
Sg
This is the point I keep coming back to in my thinking. That ship has sailed. Even if another gun was never purchased ever again, how long till we'd actually see a reduction? Decades? Centuries?

On top of this we have the simple fact that banning things rarely works well in this country. Prohibition brought us organized crime. The 'war on drugs' has brought us gangs (and cartels in other countries). I'm not saying the reverse--unrestricted access-- is always the best case. But it's hard to make the case that if millions of americans want something, making it illegal reduces crime.

There's also the minor fact that most of the gun violence in this country is crime-related--criminal on criminal or otherwise involving criminal enterprise--drugs, trafficking, etc. So we're talking about a segment that already disrespects the law and/or specializing in trafficking illegal things. I bet a ban is really going to help there.

I'd like to see mental health care become much more widely available and much more affordable. I would like to see an honest attempt to enforce existing laws, and ratchet up the punishment for trafficking of guns--straw purchases, family/friends buying for or giving to others, etc. I realize that's asking something from the same agency that shipped guns to the cartels in mexico, but I digress.
 
G
#40 ·
If you really what to end all the senseless whole sale killings in the world all you need to do is ban religion. In all the centuries of recorded history more people have been killed in the name of god than for any other reason. Thats what our current war on terrorism is all about, the oil is just a side bennifit
 
#103 ·
If you really what to end all the senseless whole sale killings in the world all you need to do is ban religion. In all the centuries of recorded history more people have been killed in the name of god than for any other reason. Thats what our current war on terrorism is all about, the oil is just a side bennifit
Absolutely none of which has anything to do with Newton, Connecticut; which has fueled the current political fire and emotive angst over gun control....which happens to be the subject of this particular thread.
 
#44 ·
Blaming a gun for a shooting is like blaming a pencil for a misspelled word... balderdash! No one in their right mind condones the violent acts of the very relative few, any more than we condone shamelessly taking advantage of situations to promote an agenda.
 
#47 ·
I agree with everything you said with the exception of: who is shot, with what, under what circumstances, & why. These ***** politicians somehow feel their lives are more important than ours. BS! Dead is dead. What difference does it make who is dead, whether it was a baseball bat or a .50 cal fragmenting bullet, or why? "Thou shalt not kill" includes no exceptions! PTSD, PMS, screw loose, nothing. Hang the SOBs in full view of the public, and leave them for the crows to pick at for a week as a reminder of the consequences! And as far as I'm concerned, if you "reached out" to these whacko's by turning them loose on society, you should be held accountable.
I like the "crows" idea! But if you capped some shitbag who tried to carjack you, or rape your daughter, for example, you should be praised rather than included in the "no" column. I view that as part of the solution, not part of the problem. But I gotta say, Speyfisher, that your thoughts on dealing with those pinheads "reaching out" to scum, well, my hat's off to you, sir!!! I'll give that thought at least five thumbs up!!!!!
 
#48 ·
I like the "crows" idea! But if you capped some shitbag who tried to carjack you, or rape your daughter, for example, you should be praised rather than included in the "no" column. I view that as part of the solution, not part of the problem. But I gotta say, Speyfisher, that your thoughts on dealing with those pinheads "reaching out" to scum, well, my hat's off to you, sir!!! I'll give that thought at least five thumbs up!!!!!
Well yeah, that's called justifiable homicide. :D
 
#52 ·
I was buying a pistol at the Lacey Cabela's store, nice little Smith and Wesson 22A so I could teach my wife to shoot pistols without frightening her. When I was filling out the forms on the computer I asked the clerk what prevented people from lying on the form. He said "it's against the law". Laws are for the law abiding, and the law abiding only. Stripping our rights to own a firearm that we deem suitable to protect family, home, and country from those who would do harm to them is a slap in the face to the founding Fathers of this country. Never again will a potential invader warn against such a foolish act because there will be a rifle behind every blade of grass.

If a felon gets a 20 year sentence for a crime, then they should do 20 years, not be out in 7 for good behavior. No easy time served either, work their asses off even if it's making small rocks out of big rocks. Yes, I'm a fan of Sheriff Joe.

Alex, like you I've found that 155 grains of lead (I prefer mine jacketed) between the headlights or through the blood pump suffices to end all hostile intentions. Okay, with my 1911's it's 230 grains.
 
#53 ·
... work their asses off even if it's making small rocks out of big rocks.
When I was kid in Florida, we use to see them in striped overalls cutting the saw-grass along the turnpikes...left an indelible impression on us youngsters. But them came the ACLU and the statist's hell bent on making America better...so far so good :rolleyes:
 
  • Like
Reactions: speyfisher
#54 ·
Alex I don't see it as a cultural issue, it's a health one. Folks bring up the drunk driving parallel like it's a knockout blow, it's not. Road fatalities are declining due to laws, liability, safety standards,education and enforcement. In our own State of Washington Firearm deaths now outnumber road and traffic fatalities and have done so for several years. But there is little application of any of those same principles to firearms that have led to decreased road fatalities. Why not?

I for one am annoyed to have to pay for all the idiotic waste that follows gun morbidity. I already pay for it as do all of you through increased health premiums, Medicare, SS. We pay for it through lost productivity and lives cut short, for disability and chronic health costs.

Two out of three gun fatalities are suicides. By the gun owners or their family members...you guys are cool with that? You guys cool with subsidizing your fellow owners bad judgement and health costs? I'm not.

Jack up the liability, require competency testing and re-test it. Hold owners and manufacturers liable for the mess you and I pay for...

There's a huge bubble of baby boomers heading towards dementia. 50% of em will be there by age 85, demented that is. Paranoia's a calling card there. Paranoia and guns, a great combination for bad decisions...
 
#56 ·
Alex I don't see it as a cultural issue, it's a health one. Folks bring up the drunk driving parallel like it's a knockout blow, it's not. Road fatalities are declining due to laws, liability, safety standards,education and enforcement. In our own State of Washington Firearm deaths now outnumber road and traffic fatalities and have done so for several years. But there is little application of any of those same principles to firearms that have led to decreased road fatalities. Why not?

I for one am annoyed to have to pay for all the idiotic waste that follows gun morbidity. I already pay for it as do all of you through increased health premiums, Medicare, SS. We pay for it through lost productivity and lives cut short, for disability and chronic health costs.

Two out of three gun fatalities are suicides. By the gun owners or their family members...you guys are cool with that? You guys cool with subsidizing your fellow owners bad judgement and health costs? I'm not.

Jack up the liability, require competency testing and re-test it. Hold owners and manufacturers liable for the mess you and I pay for...

There's a huge bubble of baby boomers heading towards dementia. 50% of em will be there by age 85, demented that is. Paranoia's a calling card there. Paranoia and guns, a great combination for bad decisions...
"Why not?"

Because many of us are really tired of those that want to legislate every GD aspect of life. Driving a car is not a constitutional right...owning and using a firearm is. I for one do not support any changes that infringe on that right whatsoever.

No argument from me on spending more emphasis on treating mental health; folks not right in the head and driving around in congested neighborhoods and at freeway speeds... also not a good combination.

As for subsidizing fellow (gun) owners bad judgement...we've been doing that for years in the auto and home insurance sector and no one seems to give a shit. Hell, they hand out drivers licenses to folks who can barely manage a bowel movement. I'm curious why you would suggest singling out gun owners? How about parents who let kids handle fireworks which result in thousands of trips to emergency rooms, or participate in contact sports...also adding to costs. And, let's not forget to add more legislature and punitive costs to those cannabis users who WA state saw fit to endorsed :rolleyes:
 
#58 ·
I've said it before: I don't think anyone wants gun violence; I know I don't. So, we agree on that.

I'm merely suggesting that the very heart of your argument is flawed. First saying 2/3 of gun deaths are suicide and second saying that 2/3 of gun deaths occur in the home = an obvious correlation: suicides.

Yes, Japan has cultural differences, but the point remains that if someone wants to kill themselves they find a way. The cost to society remains and in some cases is greater.

For example, taking a bottle of Tylenol will not kill instantly, but wipes out the liver and kills slowly over an extended time during which medical costs add up. Or, death by train, that's no less expense to society. The list could go on.

I worked on a suicide hotline for several years. What I found was that when someone was ready to go as lethal as a gun, they had a plan B.

I completely agree with some ancillary points you make. Example: yes, absolutely, gun owners should responsibly store thier guns to avoid accidents in the home (i.e. assure guns are kept away from young children).

Bottom line for me remains that with the number of guns in our country, laws are only going to disarm law abiding citizens and most of the laws being proposed are feel good measures that won't stop the headline-making attacks.

They will, though, take away rights of a heck of a lot of people who enjoy target shooting or hunting: basic rights we have enjoyed in this country since before we were a country.
 
#60 ·
Regarding suicide: the research is clear that immediate access to firearms, usually handguns, results in suicide actions and an huge increase in successful suicide attempts. And here is my experience having dealt with several hundred individuals (at least) who were suicidal at some point in time during their treatment for chemical dependency and/or depression and/or PTSD:

Going through treatment means "things" are going to get worse before they get better. Addressing trauma experiences, withdrawal from substances, wreckage of the past, failed marriages, damaged or destroyed relationships with partners, children, parents, friends, etc is incredibly painful. This is magnified by the individual not having functional coping mechanisms (booze/drugs have quit working) and there comes a time when the individual feels helpless (overwhelmed), hopeless (no coping skills) and alone (no one knows what I'm going through and there is no help). This is the time they reach for the gun. If the gun isn't there, they are more likely to seek help.

I would ask my clients to give up their firearms (give them to family or good friends) or at least give up the ammunition if they weren't willing to give up their firearms. (Combat vets don't like to go through life without at least a couple of handguns) Not having ammunition handy means time must pass between the urge to kill themselves and their acquiring more ammunition, plus getting out to get the ammo seems to help alleviate the "helpless" sense. At the same time they would be in one of my treatment groups and talking about their suicidal thoughts. Hopefully they would agree to a short inpatient stay to get stabilized.

How well did this work? I had one client make a non-firearm suicide attempt (pills), no other client (or their family member) ever reported any attempts.

In other words, get the guns (or ammo) away from them VOLUNTARILY, get them working in a combat vet group, prescribe certain meds, monitor them closely, and there is a much greater treatment success

Many of my clients retrieved their firearms/ammo later as we had agreed and had no further need for self harm.

By the way, the Army, in its archaic approach to mental health treatment, is currently experiencing an average of one successful suicide per day.
 
#61 ·
Blaming guns for shootings is akin to blaming pencils for misspelled words. How about we start holding people accountable for their actions and quit looking for reasons not too. As for the suicide argument, that is yet another tactic of the anti-gunners. Take guns away and those intent on the act can use a car and a length of pool hose.

Certainly having family, friends and/or medical consultants attempt to remove access to weapons for those in a bad state of mind makes sense... but that does not/should not require legislation... just people taking care of people.
 
#62 ·
"Having firearms in the home results in more deaths by/from/to family members" What a crock-o-shit! Giving a kid a hi powered muscle car has resulted in more deaths than firearms in the home. But you won't see any statistics on that from the media or the politicians! They just keep pumping out the same old crap over & over. Truth has nothing to do with it. Repeat a lie often enough and it is taken for the truth. I, for one, am not buying into it.
 
#104 ·
"tell the people something often and long enough, and they'll believe it to be the truth." That's a paraphrase, but I believe it was one of Hitler's henchmen, Himmler perhaps, that made that statement. In the current anti-gun fever contagiously spreading across the USA, the pseudo science that goes into the arguments tends to fall under that principle 99% of the time.
 
#63 ·
Up here in the great frozen north it costs me $8.75 per year for $2,000,000 coverage to insure all my firearms through an insurance company affiliated with National Firearms Association of which I am a member. I wish that I could insure all my motor vehicles for the same rate, that low rate tells me that my firearms are way less of a danger to the public than my motor vehicles.:D
 
#65 ·
So Boot, let me ask what your position on drunk driving is. How about cigarettes? How about drugs? How about booze in general? There's always obesity too. I suspect none of those are quite as visceral as a gun, yet tens of thousands of people die from them every day. Are they any less dead than someone with a bullet in them? What are you going to do about those issues, where is the hew and cry about them? Do you think for a nano-second there's no cost to all of us on these issues.

Look what happened when they banned booze. How's that drug war going? Senate hearings on the cigarette makers did zip... Last time I checked people are still being killed by cars, every frikin' day...little kids too. Where's the demand for that to change? Irresponsible people make stupid, often fatal moves every day. Why should responsible people pay for their screwups?

Your comment about service member suicides...maybe if we'd stay the hell out of everyone else's business and stop the war machine that's been running since WW2 it wouldn't be an issue. Would it? Oh, BTW where's the bitch about all the arms that the US sells to any Tom, Dick, or Harry country? Do you think for a moment that innocent lives aren't lost? Thousands of them...probably tens of thousands. But we have to control those "assault weapons" at home. Two faced BS if you ask me.

These are all examples of public health issues that that at the feet of everyone. I don't know what the hell Pax et Lux means, but back at you.

By the way, none of the above have Constitutional protection, so it should be a walk in the park to "control" them. So, what are your proposals? Or are you just interested in "controlling" guns here at home from all us "gun nuts"?

I know I won't change your or any other persons mind on the gun issue, but I just have to call BS when I smell it. Or are you just myopic?

I gotta go clean my SXS so my wife can go shoot it off the balcony like Uncle Joe Biden says we should....
 
#72 ·
So Boot, let me ask what your position on drunk driving is. How about cigarettes? How about drugs? How about booze in general? There's always obesity too. I suspect none of those are quite as visceral as a gun, yet tens of thousands of people die from them every day. Are they any less dead than someone with a bullet in them? What are you going to do about those issues, where is the hew and cry about them? Do you think for a nano-second there's no cost to all of us on these issues.

... Last time I checked people are still being killed by cars, every frikin' day...little kids too. Where's the demand for that to change? Irresponsible people make stupid, often fatal moves every day. Why should responsible people pay for their screwups?

Your comment about service member suicides...maybe if we'd stay the hell out of everyone else's business and stop the war machine that's been running since WW2 it wouldn't be an issue. Would it? Oh, BTW where's the bitch about all the arms that the US sells to any Tom, Dick, or Harry country? Do you think for a moment that innocent lives aren't lost? Thousands of them...probably tens of thousands. But we have to control those "assault weapons" at home. Two faced BS if you ask me.

These are all examples of public health issues that that at the feet of everyone. I don't know what the hell Pax et Lux means, but back at you.....
Pax et lux means peace and light.

Roper - Domestic gun issues is where we differ. We're not different in how you and I feel on just about every issue you mention, including wars overseas and weapons missing.

Drunk Driving- Against it. What am I going to do about it- same stuff I always do, educate people. Oh and pay my taxes so that it is hopefully prevented, enforced and punished. Teach my kid that driving drunk is one of the dumbest and most dangerous things he can do.

Kids getting killed by cars- Against it, isn't everyone? Like I said before, road fatalities are on the decline, gun fatalities on the incline. There's no dichotomy there, just because I'm in favor of gun owners taking more share of the costs they incur, doesn't mean I don't care about road fatalaties.

Cigarettes- Against their use. What am I going to do about it- same stuff I always do, educate people. Oh and pay my taxes so all those cigarette smokers get the help their smoking caused- like heart disease, strokes and cancer (I'd far prefer to pay to see them quit and am perfectly happy to see heavy taxes on cigarette use so smokers bear their own costs, I am also completely OK with tobacco companies being held liable for selling dangerous products when they knew their product was dangerous.) (I'm also completely for research into positive effects of nicotine on the elderly, the demented, patients with epilepsy and sleep apnea. There's a hell of a lot of interesting stuff in smoke that if you can get away from the tars and monoxides and heavy metals- may have some big impacts in a whole bunch of things)

Booze- No problem if of age. Booze taxes so they can help enforce laws on drunk driving and education, I don't have a problem with those at all. Plus prohibition, when it was a constitutional amendement, didn't work and was repealed. There used to be a constitutional right to not drink. Now there is no constitutional right to drink. Hmm what to make of our rights...

Right to peacefully assemble- for it. What am I going to do about it? Point our constitutional right doesn't cost in disability, productivity lost, or health care costs.

Obesity- do my best to help people get their weight in order.

Guns- there's a right to bear arms. I understand that. Just as I understand there is no constitutional right to education, food, health care, to drive, to drink, to hunt or to fish. But if the victims of gun violence are disproportionately gunowners and their families what am I going to do about that? Point that fact out, again and again. Illustrate that fact has a massive public health cost. Show that all of us pay for it. Suggest that the cost burden there should fall more on those who choose to put themselves and their families at risk.

I know you are completely responsible and sane people. Just as you know there are completely irresponsible people in your ranks and within mine. But why should I pay for your risk, however small? I already do, you already do, and I will continute to do so, just as I do for cigarettes, booze etc. But I am sure as hell not happy about paying the same share of gun violence public health costs as a gunowner does.

If your point is to suggest all risk taking needs accountability, absolutely. Do we need effective ways to change behaviors that are risky? Absolutely. What's the one way that works better than others? Pocketbook + education + enforcement. Does that lead us to a nation of wussbags? Maybe, maybe not. Is a non smoker a wuss? A teetotolar a wuss? Is a gunowner more of a man than one without? Of course not. Monetize your risk, determine competency, enforce it, pay to play, so I don't have to pay (as much) for a gunowner's hobby and its health consequences. You can sure as hell be pissed at me for pointing that out, why you'd be pissed about it is for you to figure out.
 
#67 ·
Wow, Boot! First, you should be aware there's no "right" to drive; it's a privilege; That's precisely why it can be removed. The actual right to possess a weapon has to be restored by a judge after one's sentence has been met. No such problem with driving (and no, I didn't see this movie, sorry: too busy skiing hard!). My proposals in a bit here.

Second, what makes you think gun owners are incompetent idiots? What? This from the "hate is not a family value" party? My firearms haven't killed anybody (yet) and won't unless it's justified, and I'm the one pulling the trigger. I was forced to use my firearms five fucking times to defend my home and property while living in Sacramento. I never fired a shot then, but wouldn't hesitate, either. And yes, I know what it's like to kill. As far as the militia is concerned, google 10 USC § 311. We're right in the middle of the debate.

Why do you think you should have to pay for other peoples' indescretions. Why is it you have to pay the medical bills for people who refuse to wear a motorcycle helmet? Who smoke? Did you decide you should have to pay for this? Let the fuckers die if they make stupid choices (and I smoke the occasional cigar!). Human's aren't an endangered species: we can stand to lose a few and it won't make things worse. And Jesse Jerkoff's hat doesn't bother me so much as the fact that he stole campaign funds from people to do it.

None of us swore to uphold anyone's wellbeing. The correct phrase is "...support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign AND domestic...". Does it bother me that these guys are offing themselves? Partly yes, but wonder what prompts them to do this? Why did my generation's returning servicemen NOT do this? For better or worse, I tend to look at the current generation of kiddies as pussies. Have a little problem and they fall apart. Seems young people are unable to deal with the shit life dishes out!

Society also holds me liable for my actions. What do you think will happen if I plow my car into somebody if I were drunk? I have liability insurance for my vehicles, and my boats just like everybody else. No difference here with inappropriate discharge of a firearm: your ass will get reamed!

I'm gratified that your path chose you to be a healer. And I'd hold you up as a fine example of that profession. I chose a different path, and one not without empathy, either. Even after 40 years, I still weep for the Hmong, or the Montagnards, brave and wonderful people I fought alongside, and I grieve that I couldn't do more. I learned, in that hot, wet jungle, what it means to be absolutely ruthless; to show no quarter whatsoever in an effort to bring as many of them back to their families as was humanly possible. I know-intimately-what it's like to make friends in a little hamlet while on patrol, only to come back through the place to find every living thing exterminated by a government gone rogue-the North Vietnamese. Given that backdrop, I'll put forth my proposals for ending this. And yes, it does bother me, but not as much as hearing how I need to turn in my weapons (reference the above village scene-four separate times).

First, gang-bangers can kill each other anytime they want, with no punishment. If they fuck up and take out a decent person, the entire gang's impaled (see Vlad Tepes, or Vlad the Impaler for reference here). Second, eliminate gun-free zones. They only advertise where it's safe to go whack people. Third, prosecute fully all falsification on the dealer-record-of-sale form, which is why the NRA is against "universal background checks"; no government entity gives a shit about enforcing that little "lie and you go to jail" sentence on the form Why bother? Put the fuckers in prison, period. Fourth, for any crime of violence-not just firearms violence-NO PLEA BARGAIN. No dealing, no trading info for a lesser crime, no nothing. Once the perp's found guilty, string the fucker up. Have a three-judge panel review the proceedings, and if they support the verdict, march him out and stretch him, and send the family the bill. Everybody KNEW this little shit who killed the elementary school kids was scary-nuts. They KNEW, and they stuck their thumbs up their collective ass. Better yet, prosecute them as well, as accessories.

People whine about this being too harsh. Will it work? Probably, One thing's for sure, trying to "understand" killers sure as shit isn't. Remember the village I mentioned? They had no weapons other than some farming implements. Little girls who I'd given chocolate bars to a few days before, who now had no face. Their government felt they had no right to own weapons, and another government murdered them. People want my guns, they'd better be prepared to die to get them, cause that's exactly what will happen. They'll find taking on a former SEAL is a little different from shooting a child.

Shit. I wish I hadn't opened up that can of nasty. It's going to take a few cognacs to put it back on the shelf...

I completely disagree with your claim that this begins at the feet of the gunowners. Give me a break! It should be laid squarely at the feet of the MURDERERS.
 
#73 ·
Point of interest, the Constitution confirms God given rights, not government given rights. I really heard that for the first time the other day, the second amendment just clarifies it.
You just heard that for the first time the other day? Where were you when that was taught in 6th grade history? Maybe one of the reasons the progressives have such a problem with God given rights vs. government allowed privileges, is rather than accepting God (the Holy Bible was written by a bunch of male chauvinist pigs a couple thousand years ago,,,,,right) they prefer to cling to the Darwin theory that their ancestors washed up on the beach as a blob of snot. :rolleyes: Well,,,,maybe theirs did. But mine certainly did not!
 
#75 ·
Boot, I guess what I'm trying to say is this whole gun control issue has been whipped up by the media and the politicians. It sells a lot of advertising and is good for campaigning. Meanwhile there are other issues that are completely ignored by everyone. Issues just as costly in lives and dollars. Nobody is giving these issues any coverage, they just don't have the same "sex appeal" as the gun issue. I see our nation losing it's mind every day. Most folks are happy watching TV or playing with their smart phones (one wonders what the hell is so smart about them). They're all living in La-La Land as far as I'm concerned and probably won't wake up until the shit really hit's the fan. By then it will be too late for most folks.

I for one will not give up my right to own any gun I want. Nor will I give up my right to use one as I see fit to protect myself and my family. As long as you're not kicking in my front door in or car-jacking me, I'm no threat to anyone.

Via con Dios, Amigo...
 
#76 ·
I can't add to what Roper, Alex, Ribka, et al have said. MY guns have cost no one else anything; in fact, they have saved myself & others from harm. Fact is, you can't legislate or implement via purchase (read "tax") ethics or morality. Until such time people realize that perpetrators of heinous crimes, no matter what mechanism of destruction they choose to employ and do not conform to ANY laws including God's laws, such atrocities will continue. The root cause is NOT firearms owned & used by honest, responsible, law-abiding citizens. Thus, regulating/punishing honest gun owners does NOTHING to those who would perpetrate acts of violence. Such actions would, however make it much less-risky for said vermin to prey more-widely on their chosen victims. Boot, I sincerely commend you for your passion to heal/improve the health of others. I will also continue to defend my Second Amendment rights. Peace and light . . .
 
#78 ·
Fact is, you can't legislate or implement via purchase (read "tax") ethics or morality. Until such time people realize that perpetrators of heinous crimes, no matter what mechanism of destruction they choose to employ and do not conform to ANY laws including God's laws, such atrocities will continue. The root cause is NOT firearms owned & used by honest, responsible, law-abiding citizens. Thus, regulating/punishing honest gun owners does NOTHING to those who would perpetrate acts of violence. Such actions would, however make it much less-risky for said vermin to prey more-widely on their chosen victims. Boot, I sincerely commend you for your passion to heal/improve the health of others. I will also continue to defend my Second Amendment rights. Peace and light . . .
Jim- I'm not proposing morality or ethics legislation, I know that goes nowhere. I'm proposing equitable cost sharing. Yeah I get that no one on this board is about to go out and commit a crime. Your kid, your grandkid, your parent, your spouse MAY see that gun as the fastest way out. Why do I say that? 19,000 suicides by gun, 2008. 20,000 in 2010. A little over two out of three gun deaths nationwide are from suicide. You got a gun? you got family around that gun? you got family with depression? You got family who lost their faith? You got a son who just broke up with his girl? You got a black sheep in your family? You got someone with impulse control issues? you got someone with anger issues? With a drinking problem? A family member who makes poor decisions the more demented they get? You got that under your roof, then you got risk. (Show me a family without those issues- I don't pretend to have one)
 
#77 ·
Based on Boot's responses, it seems pretty clear to me that he is not a ardent supporter of the second amendment. Not surprising though is his support for his first amendment right. I don't recall what the final body count, number of serious injuries, and rapes "March on Wall Street" (and many major cities) ended up with, but that certainly cost all of us some significant $$...not to mention costs of picking up all the trash, fecal matter and damage to personal property. Yeah, I was proud to say looky here everyone...this is America (w/o a frigging peep from Barry). Words and speech can have negative consequences and result in cost.

You know, I think it may be high time to begin re-writing and reigning in on all of our constitutional rights... and, we'll have a serious look at the 2nd amendment right after we get done with the 1st amendment... might as well work them in numerical order... that OK with you Boot?
 
#79 ·
Then we need to legislate locking up booze, knives, baseball bats, cigarettes...

It is personal responsibility for parents/family/friends to insure those folks they love who are not mentally intact or are blacksheep or whatever, don't have access to the firearms and to notify the LE about their circumstances. This was NOT done with the individual who killed four people in a coffee shop, a lady downtown Seattle, and then himself. The family knew he was nuts, knew he had firearms and didn't notify the cops. They didn't want him to get into trouble.

And let's talk about the Sandy Hook killer, what parent in their right mind takes their mentally ill/personality disordered, brain injured kid to a shooting range to teach him how to use an assault rifle and handguns? And when the kid grows to a man (20 years old) and is getting unmanageable, why was he still allowed access to these firearms? Absolutely stupid. You cannot legislate against stupidity.
 
#80 ·
FreestoneAngler- You bring up an interesting point, which amendment is more important to you, and you got me pegged right, I'd choose first over second amendment any day. Chances are we wouldn't be having a discussion about this without the first amendment. How about you?

I'd be a liar if I didn't chuckle a little when the Occupy Wall Streeters were cleared out of their camps. I'd also be a liar if I didn't think their bitching had some grains of truth to it.

I also cheered for the Patriot Gang Motorcycle riders showing up to disrupt the most obnoxious 1st amendmenters- The Westboro Baptist Church- that ever was.

Upton you sure can legislate against stupidity, it's done all the time. Cigarette taxes do that. Kids attend schools because of legislations against stupidity.

And yeah you got no argument with me re the Sandy Hook shooter, or families stepping up and taking responsibility, I'm in complete agreement with you.
 
#81 ·
You got a gun? you got family around that gun?
Yup. I also "got" the combo to the vault(s).

Last point: Throw the Second Amendment under the bus. I wonder which one goes under next? First? Third? Does it really matter as the USA crumbles into a socialist state "headed" (note that I refrained from using "led") by "royalty" (who will ever be protected by folks with "guns." Lord, but I detest double-standards.).

We'll agree to disagree. As always Boot . . . I wish you well. Pax . . . et veritas.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top