Did you know this : Kids & Criminals can get Guns

Why don't we stop making them so easy to get to

Published on December 9, 2007 By Dan Greene In Current Events

Catchy first sentence: In researching this topic, I didn't accumulate a whole ton of statistics, though they certainly are available, supporting each angle of a debate, on gun control.

The central theme I keep coming back too, is that with all the laws we have on the books, enforced or not, with all the people who are supposedly criminal and bad, that we have locked up, we still have, an alarming amount of national crime, and tragic losses of gun control where kids or criminals are able to obtain and use guns to commit crimes.

It's a heartbreaking thing to even bring this up, because everybody has a fascination with the debate, some have been injured, or lost loved ones to guns, others hunt, and don't want to lose their guns, some think I'm just plain an idiot for suggesting we make a change, a serious change in this country about how we get and maintain access to guns.

I know there are millions of usages of guns daily around the world, for hunting and sports purposes and legal usages, even self defense. There are also lots of illegal usages. One thing we can all agree on, is that guns, have one purpose, to shoot a projectile at speeds, which if aimed and impact another person can and in many cases do kill. That is their designed purpose. Some guns are designed to shoot targets and thats fine, but handguns are designed to kill, rifles are designed to kill.

Lets set aside all statistics on this for right now. I want to talk about a few recent and notable shootings that have happened. I will try to to provide as much detail and accuracy as I can, feel free to correct me where I am wrong.

#1
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1907826/posts

In Wisconsin, a young sheriff's deputy was insulted at a party, and it sort of appeared to be a lovers quarrel, this 20 year old male, shot and killed 2 of his best friends, a long time girl friend, this man had access to a gun, as a sheriff deputy and part time police officer in the small community of Crandon. This was at a party, a total of 6 were killed, and a 7th seriously injured. This type of shooting I would guess is the most rare, law enforcement, "snapping" and shooting civilians. Though very tragic, I would guess there is essentially nothing that could have been done. Details are sketchy because the report isn't finished but it isn't clear how the deputy died, but it would appear that
his death, was both self inflicted and by the swat, either self inflicted or suicide by cop.

In any event, without knowing some psychological details in real time, in advance of the situation I don't see how this could have been avoided. There simply isn't any way you can keep guns out of the hands of law enforcement officers, in order to ensure them basic safety, and allow them to neutralize a threat to public safety.

#2
Virginia Tech shooting
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Tech_massacre

We all know, something if not a lot about this shooting incident. I remember deciding when this happened to really start to re-evaluate my thoughts on guns, and re-evaluate societies
need to have them as accessible and readily obtainable as they are.

The VT shooting, could have been avoided, either by proper handling of this students emotional issues. I would make the case, that there will be improper handling of students with emotional issues in the future. In any event, today, guns are still as easily obtainable, and this exact same situation could occur. Beyond that, it will occur, because there is no way to stop it without making drastic changes. 33 people died in this one.

#3
Omaha mall shooting
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/02/13/national/main2466711.shtml (WRONG STORY) (ANOTHER EALIER SHOOTING INVOLVING A MALL)
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/12/06/national/main3586401.shtml?source=RSSattr=HOME_3586401

This is recent and again, nobody should have had to die. An angry 19 year old kid, walks scouts out a mall, and moves in and starts the rampage. Does it matter to you how many are dead?

I guess what I think we should do, is stop allowing people to have guns. We should allow them to own the, to buy them, to shoot them out at the range, to take them hunting for set periods of time, to sight them at the range, but every time we are done with them, we should have the responsibility to take them back to a central location, a warehouse, under heavy guard, and monitored 24 hours a day, every day of the week every day of the year.

Every time a criminal, ever a found guilty of any felony, never gets a gun ever again. Nobody ought to have the ability to carry a gun, to keep it at home, kids are taking them to school, and killing others.

People who have legal access are taking them and killing others. People get angry, they snap, but what they don't do, is go on a rampage with knives or screwdrivers, they use guns, with lots of bullets, and ammo, and they kill lots of people.

If we take guns out of the equation. People can't kill other people with guns.

I know that everybody is gonna be pissed about this idea, but I want to hear what you think is wrong with trying to do this.

Comments (Page 2)

ParaTed2k

on Dec 13, 2007

Leuki: Guns have as much to do with these shootings as penises have to do with rape!

Shall we remove yours, just to "gives government the power to act in advance"???

Leauki

on Dec 13, 2007

Para: if it was an add-on component and not part of the body and you find a known rape apologist with a depot of several hundred of them, what would you do?

I for one am _glad_ that the German government has the power to take guns away from Neonazis groups when they are found.

ParaTed2k

on Dec 13, 2007

Anyone who resents the rights of law abiding citizens doesn't deserve the rights they have.

No fair changing the question just because it doesn't fit your agenda. ;~D

Zoologist03

on Dec 13, 2007

If they did take guns away, could we still have bows and melee weapons? If that's the case, then no problem. People won't fuck with you if you have a sword strapped on your person.

~Zoo

ParaTed2k

on Dec 13, 2007

When they take away our swords strapped to our person, only criminals will have swords strapped to their person! :~D

Leauki

on Dec 13, 2007

Anyone who resents the rights of law abiding citizens doesn't deserve the rights they have.

That's a stupid principle and sounds like a learned reflex to replace an actual argument. For example, it assumes that "rights" are objective and that YOU know what people's rights are or must be.

Fact is that in Germany the armed militias DID threaten the government and eventually threatened it enough to replace it with one more open to the militias' wishes. If the argument against gun control is the necessity of a "well-regulated militia" that can oppose the government, then that argument defeats itself because it works both ways. The absense of a well-regulated militia is, apparently, also a guarantee of freedom.

And I have yet to see a counter example that is as strong as that of the militias' actions in the Weimar republic. The American revolution did NOT replace as evil a regime as the militias in the Weimar republic helped to come alive.

I do not "resent" the rights of the Neo-Nazis as much as I resent their ability to threaten me and the German government. And their right to be able to do so means nothing to me. I don't believe in that right. I do not resent it in the same way I do not resent an evil smurf. I don't believe in either.

You might say that guns in the hands of the people are a guarantee of freedom. I can tell you that my parents have lived at a time when that wasn't so. And I grew up in a time when the almost total absence of guns in the hands of the people was a guarantee of freedom.

If your opinion cannot deal with those facts, you should acknowledge that and not refor to knee-jerk principles.

Accusing me of resenting a right does absolutely NOTHING to convince me that a militia can indeed be a guarantee of freedom (or at least not harmful to freedom).

I do not actually support gun control, so feel free to convince me that it is wrong.

No fair changing the question just because it doesn't fit your agenda. ;~D

No fair using a broken analogy either. A tool is not a body part. That's the definition of what a tool is.

ParaTed2k

on Dec 13, 2007

That's a stupid principle and sounds like a learned reflex to replace an actual argument. For example, it assumes that "rights" are objective and that YOU know what people's rights are or must be.

I don't expect Germany (or any other nation) to respect the U.S. Constitution or the Bill of Rights. I do, however, expect the U.S. Government to.

If Germany decided the best was to handle the NeoNazis was to disarm everyone, as long as it is within the confines of Grundgesetz für die Bundesrepublik Deutschland, they are acting within their authority.

However, here in the United States of America, We the People have not given our Federal Government the authority to seize our property without a personal warrant, or without personal cause.

Leauki

on Dec 13, 2007

I don't expect Germany (or any other nation) to respect the U.S. Constitution or the Bill of Rights. I do, however, expect the U.S. Government to.

Nothing to do with the question of whether it would be a good idea to do so or not.

If Germany decided the best was to handle the NeoNazis was to disarm everyone, as long as it is within the confines of Grundgesetz für die Bundesrepublik Deutschland, they are acting within their authority.

Of course they are. But the question is, would Germany be more free if the supposed right to own guns was respected more?

Leauki

on Dec 13, 2007

However, here in the United States of America, We the People have not given our Federal Government the authority to seize our property without a personal warrant, or without personal cause.

Plus, I heard, you the people have not given your government the authority to allow you to go to a prostitute or put certain harmless drugs into your body when it pleases you.

Dan Greene

on Dec 13, 2007

"I'm talking about actually looking at the problem instead of making knee jerk reactive political decisions that do nothing against the problem whatsover. When I tell that to people nowadays, they just say, "well, it is a different time now". How is it different? The guns aren't any different, so how are they the problem?"

I'm sorry, that by choosing to frame a discussion about alternatives to the status quo, I'm the one having a knee jerk reaction. There are many people who have given me the response that the 2nd Amendment trumps all because our forefathers created it. I thought you were refreshing the same idea. Excuse me for misunderstanding.

I don't know what is different about the guns or people, seems like the media and internet give people different ideas than they had in your time. I don't think there is a difference in regard to guns. I just don't see a need for guns to be as prevalent in our society and used in the way they are used, freely, in order to solve problems.

"Yes, but what about the number of legal gun owners preventing crimes? How does it compare to nutting away?"

Interesting, but I don't know the answer to that. I don't think that type of statistic in raw form exists, you'd have to extrapolate that from other raw data.

In any event, is your definition of everyone who looses control, even temporarily, in anger a "nutter" now?

"Anyone who resents the rights of law abiding citizens doesn't deserve the rights they have. No fair changing the question just because it doesn't fit your agenda. ;~D"

Rights are given to you by the consensus of the community. I can't go camping on the capitol, or defecate on private property, because it is my inalienable right given to me by my creator. Guns are the same thing, in this case, obviously the community in general is at risk because of people having guns and being people. Would you give monkey's at the zoo access to firearms? No. But we allow children who are not legal adults access, and adults with instability access, and we allow people with no mental conditions, but easy access to a lethal weapon that can and is being used to murder others in rapid succession.

"If they did take guns away, could we still have bows and melee weapons? If that's the case, then no problem. People won't fuck with you if you have a sword strapped on your person."

Lol. I don't have an issue with people with swords and bows, you can't walk into a crowd and kill a bunch of people with a sword and bow, you'd be interdicted in by a mob of people, your odds of dying by gunshot are significantly higher than if you are stabbed. I think the issue is guns, their lethality, their ease of being accessed, their sole purpose is to kill.

"You might say that guns in the hands of the people are a guarantee of freedom."

I'd say they are a guarantee of danger, and unfortunately occasional senseless enraged tragedy.

"And I grew up in a time when the almost total absence of guns in the hands of the people was a guarantee of freedom."

Rightly so, you expose the flaw of logic in the first statement.

ParaTed2k

on Dec 13, 2007

Guns are the same thing, in this case, obviously the community in general is at risk because of people having guns and being people.

Cars, alcohol, household chemicals, poisons, drugs, medical professionals...

Guess what all of these have in common? Each of them pose a greater threat to people's lives in the U.S. than guns.

Like guns, each of them have a purpose but we could also do without them. Each of them have helped our society, but at a great cost.

Face it, guns aren't the problem, never have been the problem and never will be the problem. But we will never even start looking for the actual problem as long as we let guns be the debate.

Leauki

on Dec 13, 2007

There are many people who have given me the response that the 2nd Amendment trumps all because our forefathers created it.

We respect those who once doubted dogma by sticking to exactly what they said without change.

ParaTed2k

on Dec 13, 2007

Dan:

I just don't see a need for guns to be as prevalent in our society and used in the way they are used, freely, in order to solve problems.

They aren't used freely to solve problems, those who are convicted of using them in crimes are punished... nothing "freely" there.

But we allow children who are not legal adults access, and adults with instability access, and we allow people with no mental conditions, but easy access to a lethal weapon that can and is being used to murder others in rapid succession.

Not a true statement. We do have laws against those with mental conditions from even handling guns.

Leuki:

Plus, I heard, you the people have not given your government the authority to allow you to go to a prostitute or put certain harmless drugs into your body when it pleases you.

These are different issues, but since they are not addressed in the U.S. Constitution they are left to local communities and states to decide. Which is what is being done now... and is as it should be.

We respect those who once doubted dogma by sticking to exactly what they said without change.

This is patently untrue. Every article, paragraph and ammendment of the U.S. Constitution is subject to change... in fact, our Constitution even allows for a Constitutional Convention where the whole thing can be thrown out and redone. It isn't an easy thing to do, but it is an option.

Texas Wahine

on Dec 13, 2007

Where's drmiler? Anyone heard from him?

Dan Greene

on Dec 14, 2007

"Not a true statement. We do have laws against those with mental conditions from even handling guns."

Maybe not a correct statement, my point was, people who don't have a criminal record or any mental defect or issue, can still lose control of their emotions and anger, and when they do, if they have access to a lethal weapon, they can use it to kill, and it many cases they do.

When they do, and they come out of the rage, realize what they have done, they often times kill themselves. Taking guns out of that situation, forces people to deal with their problems differently, or if they do still lose control, at least takes away their ability to cause instant lethal injuries to others who are usually undefended.

The government doesn't allow you to posses nuclear weapons, or assault rifles, chemical or biological weapons, you can't own a tank, or a fighter jet. The possession of guns by people, who are non criminal until they lose control of their emotions, and use the guns is the danger. Not necessarily the guns themselves. My point is that, as long as you accept the status quo, do nothing to reduce the gun mantra, the gun mindset, the gun freedoms which are no longer really all that wise in a modern urban society, you won't be changing the outcome of a situations where people who aren't criminal until they do criminal acts, get pissed, have a gun on hand, and decide to kill a stranger or an acquaintance that annoys them.

I just think there are better and safer opportunities for everybody to use to settle a score.

I'm all in favor of people carrying non-lethal tasers for safety should it be necessary. I'm not even saying people need to give up their rights by force, I think it would be an excellent opportunity for people to make their homes and communities safer getting guns warehoused, getting them cleaned and repaired for free, getting paid by the DNR to go hunting, hunting all year round, just like fishing. I would much rather, the story in the newspaper be, kid turned in to police for threatening to kill another student, or beating another's ass but getting the conciliating necessary to overcome the issues behind the anger. No gun at home, to be brought into a school or mall, no gun in a friends home to be stolden, and guns massively over priced on the black market, for an ex con to afford to keep as a hobby.

Instead, it's murder of one or more people, sometimes known, sometimes random strangers, and then suicide either by gunshot to the head, or suicide by cop. The problem never gets solved, only a whole bunch more problems spring from that situation.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!