America's Love Affair With Guns Breeds Bloody Results

[FrayAdjacent911]

True to an extent... but no one is saying that people who worship cars are contributing to or hindering efforts to reduce deaths on the roads.

When someone pulls the "you worship guns" BS on me, I know they have no power of reasoning, and have the maturity of a 12 year old.

[Moneyguy1]

fray....In part I base my "worship" of firearms by some people on remarks by folks like Charlton Heston about prying his guns from his cold dead hands. Simply saying that anyone who thinks like me has the maturity of a 12 year old, undermines any points you may have made in the debate since it is far easier to smear and belittle than it is to come up with a cogent rebuttal!!

When was the last time someone was killed in a drive by with an ice pick or a hammer?

BTW....Knives, like other tools mentiones here CAN be used to kill...they can also be used to prepare food, whittle wood, and so on. A firearm is poorly equipped for dicing vegetables. As for whittling......

A firearm is like a car...a lump of metal made for a specific purpose. Neither is alive and neither has mystical properties, no matter how much attention or $$$ you lavish upon them.

Speaking of rifles as a long distance weapon. I will posit that, if I have a handgun pointed at you with intent and you are 15 feet away, I can drop you faster than you can reach me. How many gun deaths are within a few feet? Attacking with a club or knofe is more chancy...The intended victim may actually fight back and put the attacker at risk. Who wants that?

Comeon, fellas...you prove the point that to some gun ownership is an obsession and folks who question this obsession are automatically against gun ownership. Prove that there are people who do not consider gun ownership (in multiples) some kind of sacred duty without simply dismissing my comment out of hand. Anything that arouses such a degree of emotion must be an obsession. And, the ones here who show the most emotion are............

Like I said, I am not against gun ownership...intelligent ownership for the reasons stated in the constitution. I really try to look at things rationally.

[pwd72s]

This T shirt kind of says it for me...

[Moneyguy1]

I think the shirt says it well also.

Flawed, circular logic, hopefully meant to be read with a sense of humor.

[Hawktel]

The freedom isn't there because people want it. Its there to provide the people with a check on the goverment. While I don't think I need it right now to keep a check on the Goverment, I'm not going to deny our decendents the rights they should have.

[Racerbvd]

Originally posted by Moneyguy1
fray....In part I base my "worship" of firearms by some people on remarks by folks like Charlton Heston about prying his guns from his cold dead hands. Simply saying that anyone who thinks like me has the maturity of a 12 year old, undermines any points you may have made in the debate since it is far easier to smear and belittle than it is to come up with a cogent rebuttal!!

When was the last time someone was killed in a drive by with an ice pick or a hammer?

BTW....Knives, like other tools mentiones here CAN be used to kill...they can also be used to prepare food, whittle wood, and so on. A firearm is poorly equipped for dicing vegetables. As for whittling......

A firearm is like a car...a lump of metal made for a specific purpose. Neither is alive and neither has mystical properties, no matter how much attention or $$$ you lavish upon them.

Speaking of rifles as a long distance weapon. I will posit that, if I have a handgun pointed at you with intent and you are 15 feet away, I can drop you faster than you can reach me. How many gun deaths are within a few feet? Attacking with a club or knofe is more chancy...The intended victim may actually fight back and put the attacker at risk. Who wants that?

Comeon, fellas...you prove the point that to some gun ownership is an obsession and folks who question this obsession are automatically against gun ownership. Prove that there are people who do not consider gun ownership (in multiples) some kind of sacred duty without simply dismissing my comment out of hand. Anything that arouses such a degree of emotion must be an obsession. And, the ones here who show the most emotion are............

Like I said, I am not against gun ownership...intelligent ownership for the reasons stated in the constitution. I really try to look at things rationally.

OK, by your thinking, a Penis is meant to be used in a vagina, not in a mans ass. Do you know how many gun laws are on the books?? We don't need more, just the current ones inforsed. Do you also think there should be a law against me owning 13 Porsches?? I also own multiple bicycles, guns knive and even a few boats. Does that make me a bad person to have multiple of things I enjoy & like??

[Joeaksa]

Originally posted by Racerbvd
Does that make me a bad person to have multiple of things I enjoy & like??

Yes, and to atone for your sins, give us your black book and bevy of lady friends for a few weeks!

[Racerbvd]

Originally posted by Joeaksa
Yes, and to atone for your sins, give us your black book and bevy of lady friends for a few weeks!

I don't think the liberals who like to stick their peckers up male corn holes will be interested.

[rdk409]

Originally posted by Racerbvd
The main purpose of a knife is to cut & kill, do you want to ban them too???

No, and I don't think we should ban guns either. I believe you misunderstood my point. I'm fighting for the rights to bare arms. Hell, I think we should all be able to carry a concealed weapon. If a criminal thinks their target might be backing a gun, they will probably think twice about doing harm to that person.

[Moneyguy1]

This has been an interesting discussion.

I have no problem with gun ownership, gun collection, or guns in general. What I object to is the fervor with which some advocates defend their right. Arguments have been made that other items can also cause death. That is absoultely correct. The point is that, with a firearm, death is the primary purpose. If it were not, then why the desire on the part of law enforcement to employ "non-lethal" forms of weaponry? Defending anything with extreme fervor adds emotion to the equation and an emotional individual with a firearm is someone I do not wish to meet.

I am not a believer in the "More Guns Less Crime" philosophy of John R. Lott Jr. I am of the belief that, under certain circumstances, not knowing if another individual is "packing" might lead to more measured behavior for some people, But, the overall result of everyone carrying, IMHO, would be something based on fear. Do I want a society behaving itself because of fear? Would that not be a huge step away from what we want for our society?


BTW....the main purpose of a knife IS to cut, not necessarily to kill. Unless dicing a tomato is a form of murder.......

[pwd72s]

Bob, Polticians use fear as their main stock in trade. The media goes along with this. One reason I now seldom watch TV news is because of this. First they scare the hell out of us with one fear or another. If there is no problem, by gawd they'll create one! Then, of course, only Government has the ability to "solve" the problem. That serves to create more taxes, less individual liberty, and an increase in the size of the bureaucracy.

It's mostly krap man...we've been more than regulated enough in this country. The realist in me knows the best we can hope for is to slow this "nanny government" trend down. It's fantasy to dream of any meaningful reduction.

Tell me our society isn't already behaving itself under fear...

[FrayAdjacent911]

Moneyguy,

I'm sure people can become weirdly obsessed with objects, be they guns, barbie dolls, magazines, or cars.

However, an obsession with something like firearms is not neccessarily a cause or proximate cause of violence. You can be obsessed with Porsches, and own dozens, but that doesn't make you drive dangerously, now does it?

Also the relationship of firearms ownership to a belief in the American flavor of freedom is often associated with this so called obsession or love affair with guns.

I own over a dozen firearms. I believe in freedom, I believe I have the freedom to own arms with which I can defend myself, my home, my family, my property, and if need be, my state and my nation. I would defend that right, and I would go against anyone who wants to deprive me of that right.

That doesn't make me obsessed with firearms.

Heck, I haven't bought one in over a year now. I haven't fired one since October, and before then, probably over a year. The pistol in my night stand is probably covered with a thin layer of dust.

Obsessed? Not hardly. There's no mental affliction associated with owning firearms and believing in the freedom I've described above.

It's just easier for feebleminded blissninnies to associate something they don't like or agree with as some sort of mental defect.

Anyway...

[Moneyguy1]

pwd:

I am with you. Federal/state regulation of anything can go too far. A certain amount of regulation is necessary in many cases, such as making it a crime to drive on the wrong side of the road (one of my fasvorite examples!!) which interferes with an individual's freedoms. Those who advocate more regulation are probably, in part, afraid of the NRA because of the avid (and sometimes perceived as rabid) defense, rather than a measured, logical program of public education. Sane and rational gun owners who are responsible should not be afraid of control that is logically aimed at those who are irresponsible. The NRA should work with law enforcement to reduce the number of individuals that should not have firearms (gang bangers, etc). If this requires better control at largely unregulated gun shows, it would appear to be a small price to pay for the public relations benefits to the organization.

Yes....you are correct about fear.....Our entire administration's modus opporendi seems to be based on fear...almost a form of xenophobia, mixed in with a mistrust of each other at home. As a country, we seem to be heading down a very slippery slope which can lead to a terrible change in the form of government we currently enjoy.

It is interesting how the words of Walt Kelly through his Pogo character still ring true:

"We have met the enemy and he is us."

Thank you for the cogent and measured response. Greatly appreciated.

[pwd72s]

Originally posted by Moneyguy1
pwd:

I am with you. Federal/state regulation of anything can go too far. A certain amount of regulation is necessary in many cases, such as making it a crime to drive on the wrong side of the road (one of my fasvorite examples!!) which interferes with an individual's freedoms. Those who advocate more regulation are probably, in part, afraid of the NRA because of the avid (and sometimes perceived as rabid) defense, rather than a measured, logical program of public education. Sane and rational gun owners who are responsible should not be afraid of control that is logically aimed at those who are irresponsible. The NRA should work with law enforcement to reduce the number of individuals that should not have firearms (gang bangers, etc). If this requires better control at largely unregulated gun shows, it would appear to be a small price to pay for the public relations benefits to the organization.

Yes....you are correct about fear.....Our entire administration's modus opporendi seems to be based on fear...almost a form of xenophobia, mixed in with a mistrust of each other at home. As a country, we seem to be heading down a very slippery slope which can lead to a terrible change in the form of government we currently enjoy.

It is interesting how the words of Walt Kelly through his Pogo character still ring true:

"We have met the enemy and he is us."

Thank you for the cogent and measured response. Greatly appreciated.

You're obviously NOT an NRA member. They have lobbied for years for society to get tough on those who use firearms in crime.
We don't need more laws, we need less knee-jerk liberal judges.

The current administration is the only one to have ever used fear? C'mon now...

[legion]

Originally posted by Moneyguy1
Those who advocate more regulation are probably, in part, afraid of the NRA because of the avid (and sometimes perceived as rabid) defense, rather than a measured, logical program of public education.

The NRA tried that for a long time, and the politicians used fear of guns to push through more and more laws.

The thing is, I can't name a single gun law that criminals don't just plain ignore. Registration, waiting periods, bans, no-carry zones--criminals don't follow any of them. But law-abiding citizens do. Gun laws punish the law-abiding and have zero effect on criminals.

[FrayAdjacent911]

Legion is right. Many of the existing laws out there simply do not affect criminals. They affect lawful citizens.

What we need are more 'tough on crime' measures that seriously punish the use of firearms in crimes. Felons caught with weapons should automatically go (back) to prison and serve LONG terms.

Making me, a law abiding citizen, jump through nonsensical hoops to posess and purchase and lawfully use firearms, doesn't stop criminals. Period.

[Jeff Higgins]

The NRA has done more to train both citizens and law enforcement in the use of firearms, and in firearm safety, that anyone else in the country. Their Eddie Eagle gun safety program for school children has been touted for its quality and effectiveness. Their LEO training programs are the best there are.

The NRA has lobbied for as long as I can remember for tougher punishment for those who would use a gun to commit a crime. They have lobbied (successfully in some states) for mandatory minimum add-on sentences for anyone convicted of using a gun in a crime. They are working as hard as anyone in the U.S. to rid our streets of gun violence.

Bob, you will simply never hear about these efforts through most media outlets. They prefer to paint the NRA as "unreasonable" because they will not give in to the feel-good, proven inneffective, Brady-esque approach to "gun control". To the Bradys of the world, "gun control" = gun confiscation, with the ultimate goal of no private ownership.

Similarly, you will not hear much about Eddie Eagle. It is free to anyone who askes for it. Many schools have refused to show the film, or introduce the material into their classrooms. Why? Because it comes from that "evil" NRA that cannot be "reasonable" about gun control.

What is "reasonable"? We have the innalienable right to keep and bear arms. Groups like the Brady Campaign are trying to reduce, impinge upon, or eliminate that right. The NRA says "no". The Bradys respond with "let's compromise". "Compromise" in what way? Compromise is a give and take - the Bradys and their ilk offer nothing; they only want to take.

I think a good analogy is a burglar in your home. He wants to clean you out, and you say "no". His response is "o.k., let's compromise. I'll only take your T.V. and stereo." Your obvious response is still "no". Now he thinks you are being unreasonable by not compromising with him. That is precisely the relationship between the NRA and the gun control lobby. The NRA's position is one of defending an innalienable right. The gun control lobby's position is to "compromise" by only taking a little of it away.

I find it interesting that most of the gun control lobby has done nothing to support tougher sentencing for those that use guns in crime. As a matter of fact, some have fought stridently against minimum sentencing for gun crime. They still blame the gun, rather than the criminal. They see the NRA's position on fighting gun crime by punishing criminals as "unreasonable".

They see everything about the NRA as "unreasonable" and their knee-jerk reaction is that if the NRA supports it, they must oppose it. This line of thinking seems to have pervaded the modern media as well. I will almost gaurantee you will never hear of any of the good the NRA does outside of the NRA. The media will continue to paint them as unreasonable zealots, because they are standing guard over what we have, and will not allow it to be slowly eroded in the name of "compromise".

[Rick Lee]

Moneyguy, while you may dislike the fervor with which gunowners defend their rights, I dislike the complacency with which some people defend their rights - like consenting to an otherwise unjustified police search, incriminating one's self by talking too much, etc. Aside from the first two amendments in the Bill of Rights, the rest are somewhat abstract. In 35 yrs. I have not yet had the chance to deny the police a search of my car or home. I haven't needed a trial by jury and I haven't had to plead the 5th. I haven't had to worry about British troops taking over my house. But I read newspapers and books and touch guns every single day. I enjoy it a lot. And I must be the luckiest guy in the world since I own so many bog bad guns and so much hollowpoint ammo, yet have never ever even come close to getting hurt by a gun. How is that possible? In fact, I can't remember the last time I shot something other than clay pidgeons, paper targets, beer cans and wood blocks. I shoot thousands of rounds per year and somehow not one of them kills anything. How is that?

[pwd72s]

Originally posted by Jeff Higgins
The NRA has done more to train both citizens and law enforcement in the use of firearms, and in firearm safety, that anyone else in the country. Their Eddie Eagle gun safety program for school children has been touted for its quality and effectiveness. Their LEO training programs are the best there are.

The NRA has lobbied for as long as I can remember for tougher punishment for those who would use a gun to commit a crime. They have lobbied (successfully in some states) for mandatory minimum add-on sentences for anyone convicted of using a gun in a crime. They are working as hard as anyone in the U.S. to rid our streets of gun violence.

Bob, you will simply never hear about these efforts through most media outlets. They prefer to paint the NRA as "unreasonable" because they will not give in to the feel-good, proven inneffective, Brady-esque approach to "gun control". To the Bradys of the world, "gun control" = gun confiscation, with the ultimate goal of no private ownership.

Similarly, you will not hear much about Eddie Eagle. It is free to anyone who askes for it. Many schools have refused to show the film, or introduce the material into their classrooms. Why? Because it comes from that "evil" NRA that cannot be "reasonable" about gun control.

What is "reasonable"? We have the innalienable right to keep and bear arms. Groups like the Brady Campaign are trying to reduce, impinge upon, or eliminate that right. The NRA says "no". The Bradys respond with "let's compromise". "Compromise" in what way? Compromise is a give and take - the Bradys and their ilk offer nothing; they only want to take.

I think a good analogy is a burglar in your home. He wants to clean you out, and you say "no". His response is "o.k., let's compromise. I'll only take your T.V. and stereo." Your obvious response is still "no". Now he thinks you are being unreasonable by not compromising with him. That is precisely the relationship between the NRA and the gun control lobby. The NRA's position is one of defending an innalienable right. The gun control lobby's position is to "compromise" by only taking a little of it away.

I find it interesting that most of the gun control lobby has done nothing to support tougher sentencing for those that use guns in crime. As a matter of fact, some have fought stridently against minimum sentencing for gun crime. They still blame the gun, rather than the criminal. They see the NRA's position on fighting gun crime by punishing criminals as "unreasonable".

They see everything about the NRA as "unreasonable" and their knee-jerk reaction is that if the NRA supports it, they must oppose it. This line of thinking seems to have pervaded the modern media as well. I will almost gaurantee you will never hear of any of the good the NRA does outside of the NRA. The media will continue to paint them as unreasonable zealots, because they are standing guard over what we have, and will not allow it to be slowly eroded in the name of "compromise".

Bravo Jeff...well said, 100% accurate, and to the mark. BULLSEYE!

[Moneyguy1]

Rick:

You list some other constraints to individual freedom. Have you noticed that much of this loss of individual freedom has occurred in the name of maintaining our freedoms?

I am getting confused.

Someone said about me that I was apparently not a member of the NRA. True. Years ago, a friend of mine who is still a member invited me to attend a few events with him. I met some really nice folks, interested in the fact that I had marksman certification while in the service. However, there were also some who were the "Either you are with us or you are against us" school of thought, trying to convince me that I had a God given duty to own multiple firearms in order to assure my second amendment rights or the government would take those rights away from me. These individuals came over as being just a zealous as any group, whether that group be in favor of a certain belief or specific "civil right" .

I am a relatively mellow individual, interested in just about everything but not fanatic about anything. Perhaps that is what happens with age. I like civil discourse, and logical reasoning. The world fascinates me with its unlimited diversity.

If people wish to belong to a specific organization and enjoy membership in same, that is great as long as these individuals do not try to convince me that my non-membership is tantamount to treason or, in the case of religion, heresy.

But that's just me.......