Guns Guns Everywhere…My Solution

My solution to the gun situation in America today is so simple that I am amazed that no one else has advanced a similar idea.  Could it be that the people so enamored with firearms (sport shooters, hunters, the NRA etc etc) are so sensitive to any sort of logical and reasonable regulatory idea that they oppose all solutions out of hand because they somehow feel feel threatened?  That’s probably the case though few will admit it.

OK Big Mouth.  What’s your marvelous solution that will end 98% of the gun related problems we face in 2014.

TREAT GUNS LIKE CARS.

What!?!??!

That’s right…treat guns like cars.  When you think about it there are many many similarities.  Allow me to explain.

People love their cars.  They clean and customize them.  They tune ’em up.  Cars make getting to work or.to their friend’s homes much easier. They enjoy long vacation drives to the ocean or the mountains. To many people cars symbolize FREEDOM.  Americans have had a long love affair with their cars.   Those affluent enough to do so collect them. So in general cars in the hands of reasonable, properly trained people, cars have a positive affect on the people who own them and their families.

People love their guns.  They clean and customize them.  They tune ’em up so to speak with fancy inscriptions and added accessories. They enjoy target shooting with their pals or a day out the woods hunting. Some people feel safer by having a legal gun in their home. To many people guns symbolize FREEDOM.  Americans have had a long love affair with guns. Those affluent enough to do so collect them. So in general guns in the hands of reasonable, properly trained people, guns have a positive affect on the people who own them and their families.

It is our right to own cars.  It is our right to own guns. But like most things in the world there is the DARK SIDE.

People turn their cars into deadly machines of mayhem.  They drink and drive.  They do drugs and drive. They drive when they are not rested.  They drive with an mean aggressive streak not caring for the safety of the people they share the road with. They drive too fast oblivious to what’s happening around them on the road.  They text and drive.  They talk on cell phones.  Some people have mental illness or physical limitations and shouldn’t be behind the wheel but there they are cruising down the highway. Many people have no insurance.  Many people have no license but they drive illegally anyway. Bad behaviour turns a potentially good thing…a car…into a most deadly device.

People turn their guns into deadly machines of mayhem.  They drink and shoot. They do drugs and carry concealed weapons. They use their guns to portray a mean and aggressive streak not caring for the safety of people around them. Some people have mental illness or physical limitations and shouldn’t be involved with guns but there they are at gun shows getting their hands on them. Many people have no license but they possess illegal guns anyway. Bad behaviour turns a potentially good thing…a gun…into a most deadly device.

So my solution is to TREAT GUNS LIKE CARS.

1-If you really want a gun,  you take a Firearm education course…like Driver’s Ed and learn about guns; their uses and their dangers…just like you do with a car.

2-You take a written test to demonstrate you have some reasonable understanding of what guns are all about and how to properly use them just like you do with cars.

3-Once you pass the written test, you would go to a shooting range and show an instructor/expert that you can actually handle a gun.

4- Then you register your gun.  The fees to register guns will go towards training and education the same as they do with cars.

5-Once registered, you buy an insurance plan the same as you would when you buy a car. Everyone should have a minimum 100-300 policy, so if and when the misuse of a gun occurs,  (either accidental or intentional) and that incident results in harm to property, life and limb, there is an actual price to pay.  This part is open to interpretation but you get the idea. If you are involved with a gun “incident” , you are put into a high risk pool and your rates go up.The monies that higher risk people pay will be divided up amongst the victims of gun violence,  which hopefully will be reduced by implementation of this simple plan. If you are involved in more then 2 “incidents” in a 10 year period of time,  your right to gun ownership in revoked permanently. If you are involved in a gun “incident” that results in someone’s death,  your right to possess a gun is revoked permanently.

5-Make logical “no gun zones” a part of society.  Hospitals, restaurants, stadiums, schools would all be off limits to guns.  You wouldn’t drive your car into a crowded public place on purpose so don’t bring your gun either!

6-If at anytime in your life you have been diagnosed with ANY MENTAL ILLNESS,  your right to posses a gun is revoked permanently.

6-If at anytime in your life you have been convicted of DOMESTIC VIOLENCE (or violence against children)  your right to possess a gun is revoked permanently.

7-If you have been convicted of ANY SERIOUS crime your right to possess a gun is revoked permanently.  If you are caught with a gun after your right has been revoked,  the first offense would be a mandatory 5 year jail sentence.  The second offense 25 years.  Any crime committed with a gun would receive an additional 25 years added to whatever sentence was handed down for the initial crime.

That’s my solution.  TREAT GUNS LIKE CARS.  I’d love to hear what YOU think.

 

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Guns guns guns, Happiness, Health, Politics, Pop culture and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

49 Responses to Guns Guns Everywhere…My Solution

  1. lwk2431 says:

    “6-If at anytime in your life you have been diagnosed with ANY MENTAL ILLNESS, your right to posses a gun is revoked permanently.”

    Should probably apply to blogs too. Would you pass?

    • joeref says:

      Are you saying I’m mentally ill? hahahahahaha Just trying to come up with a reasonable way to limit the gun violence that has swept the country in recent years. It’s insane! In England the incidence of gun related crime is so much lower than here. The police don’t even carry guns.

      • lwk2431 says:

        “… the gun violence that has swept the country in recent years.”

        Actually gun violence and homicides in the U.S. peaked in the early 1990s and we are now approaching levels not seen since the 1960s. The homicide rate today is about half what it was in the 1990s and crime has declined even more so. You can check that out with FBI statistics on their pages.

        “In England the incidence of gun related crime is so much lower than here. The police don’t even carry guns.”

        Actually British police today are more likely carry guns than in the past. Interesting story from 2009:

        The most violent country in Europe: Britain is also worse than South Africa and U.S.
        By JAMES SLACK
        UPDATED: 18:14 EST, 2 July 2009

        http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196941/The-violent-country-Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html

        The U.K. doesn’t have as many gun crimes as the U.S., but they have considerably more than they used to, and for violence that doesn’t not involve murder they are actually quite bad as the article above illustrates. Also there has been some evidence that the Brits are deliberately manipulating their stats to make them look better (e.g., classifying incidents “down” as less serious than they would have in the past).

        In the U.S. we have some notable public examples and the media coverage has created the idea that we are experiencing a wave of gun violence, but in fact if you look at all statistics just the opposite is true.

  2. paxnews says:

    I appreciate your efforts in trying to come up with a solution to the criminal behavior involving guns and gun usage.

    Some comments:

    The points you list (1-4) are already in effect for the most part – if not more exhaustively so in cities such as NYC – See here: http://newyorkcityguns.com/getting-a-nyc-handgun-permit/

    The application process involved here also covers your Point 6 and Point 7.

    More to (lower) Point 6, here is a great list concerning mental health requirements for gun ownership, and the states. http://www.ncsl.org/research/civil-and-criminal-justice/possession-of-a-firearm-by-the-mentally-ill.aspx

    In New York, “No person shall be issued a license to carry, possess or dispose of a firearm unless he or she:
    Who has stated whether he or she has ever suffered any mental illness;
    Who has not been involuntarily committed to a facility under the jurisdiction of an office of the department of mental hygiene pursuant to article nine or fifteen of the mental hygiene law, article seven hundred thirty or section 330.20 of the criminal procedure law, section four hundred two or five hundred eight of the correction law, section 322.2 or 353.4 of the family court act, or has not been civilly confined in a secure treatment facility pursuant to article ten of the mental hygiene law.”

    In order to (legally) obtain the right to keep and use a gun, you have to fill out an enormous application, prove that you have never been a criminal, AND fill out a “Letter of Necessity” (for carry permits) – you won’t get a carry permit without showing cause. In NYC there is actually an in person interview you have to go through, as well!

    AFTER the initial application process, you have to wait anywhere’s between 3 to 6 months for an “approval letter.” And then you have only a certain amount of time in which to purchase a gun.
    THEN, once purchased you have 72 hours (not calendar days, not business days, 72 hours – which might include weekends and holidays) to bring the firearm, locked, unloaded, down to 1 Police Plaza to have it inspected. In short, it is a monumental process to legally own a gun in New York.

    Point 5 (lower) is where we have differences.
    It is counter-intuitive, I realize. To say, “THIS IS A GUN FREE ZONE,” one would think that all issues concerning guns would patently disappear. No guns, no problems….logically, no?

    However, the total opposite is the case. Look at so many of our mass shootings….schools, movie theaters, colleges, even armed forces bases….THESE ARE ALL “GUN FREE” ZONES!!
    Criminals know intuitively that there will be less of a chance that equal force will against someone carrying a gun in these areas.
    If you maintain the illusion that “yes, there just maybe someone here who also has a gun,” I think you would see fewer brazen instances of mass shootings, for sure.

    Part 5 (upper) I can appreciate for its creative thinking. Logical, if a legal gun owner had insurance to pay for his or her gun, the thinking is that they would take greater care of their weapon.
    However, the insurance policy already in effect is our legal system. We saw it with Plaxico Burress, who received almost 2 years (!) for allowing his gun to accidentally discharge in a club.
    Accidents with guns are almost all chargeable offenses in NY. And some of these accidents carry mandatory minimum sentences.
    The few gun owners I know are extremely careful with their weapon, and are very conscious of its whereabouts and use at all times.

    • joeref says:

      I think I have come to realize that once the cat is our of the proverbial bag, it’s nearly impossible to stuff it back in! But I do think my solutions though not perfect…(is there such a thing?) could go a long way towards to creating a different type of environment where guns are concerned, particularly with the younger generations of people. I think that EDUCATION coupled with SEVERE PENALTIES will stem the tide of gun related crime though it might take many years to see the actual statistical proof. Maybe gun violence is the symptom of a generally violent societal condition in this new century. People are filled with rage over everything from the way they drive their cars to the the way they deal with political opponents to the way they do business. I heard it said that tough times make every issue a glaring painful crisis and I’d agree that there are tough times for the general populace. It’s as is the peaceful mantra of the 60’s has been turned on it’s ear and people affected by the mass media and entertainment industires have now embraced violence as an acceptable behaviour and gun are the logical manifestation.

  3. Joanne F says:

    Excellent! I love your solutions! And I love them only in the context of if we are to permit private ownership of guns, which you know from Part I of the blog that I do not believe we have a Constitutional right to do. But if we are to have gun ownership, yes to every single one of your suggestions. You have covered every base from training to revocation, with reasonable solutions for each step. Good for you! You would have been great in law school. 🙂

    Can I be my nerdy self and tell you what the legal term is for cars and guns? “Dangerous instrumentalities”. Both are dangerous instrumentalities, and both demand regulation in order to keep them safe. When used properly, they should not be unsafe (although guns, to me, are ALWAYS unsafe because, when used, they maim and kill, whereas cars, when used safely, do not do the same). And that is the support for everything you suggest.

    I like it! I like it all, well-reasoned, well-thought-out and comprehensive … IF we are to allow private ownership of guns. Well done!

    • joeref says:

      Problem is there really is little reason to prohibit private use of firearms in the hands of the law abiding public and rightfully so. They haven’t done anything to warant that. The key I believe is EDUCATION…and SEVERE PENALTIES for the criminal use of guns. Even then I wonder how effective these steps would be in limiting the mass shootings that seem so prevalent nowadays.

  4. Joanne F says:

    PS Australia did away with ALL gun violence in around 1996, after a series of mass shootings (like what we have weekly in the U.S.) by BANNING guns altogether. They passed the law, had everybody turn them in, and they have not had one mass shooting since 1996. I like their solution! (And I think the Second Amendment supports that approach.) 🙂

    • paxnews says:

      From a police office in Australia, concerning the 1996 “gun ban:” “It has now been some since gun owners in Australia were forced by a new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by our own government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars.

      The first year results are now in: Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent, Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent; Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent!). In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent. (Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not and criminals still possess their guns!)

      While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the past 12 months, since the criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed.

      There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the elderly. Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has decreased, after such monumental effort and expense was expended in “successfully ridding Australian society of guns.”

      You won’t see this data on the American evening news or hear your governor or members of the state Assembly disseminating this information.

      The Australian experience proves it. Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws affect only the law-abiding citizens.
      Read more at http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp#XZO8pIqvxGwYu8Ti.99

      • joeref says:

        How do the Australians deal with criminals that have been caught using guns? Steep penalties need to be implemented. Maybe after 10 or 15 years of severe penalties, the numbers might change?

      • Joanne F says:

        Paxnews, do you even read the stuff you cite to? I went to the snopes article and it says the “information” you quote verbatim is actually twisted to put a negative slant on the gun ban, and does not reflect reality. Please!

        Let me ask you a simple question: If nobody has a gun, who gets killed with a gun? Duh! Even the suicide rate goes down — considerably — because guns have been shown to be too effective for those in temporary depressive states.

        Please don’t post your negative slant thinking others wouldn’t follow up. What did you think, nobody would go over to the hyperlink and check to see if you quoted it accurately? Haha

    • joeref says:

      Well they did away with all guns that were turned in by the law abiding public. I’m sure the criminals didn’t comply. (See the response below) It’s a tough complicated issue for sure. Sometimes once Pandora’s Box has been opened, it’s impossible to put all of the evil back into it.

      • paxnews says:

        Joanne, I purposely left the link there, in the interests of balanced full disclosure…a concept I don’t think you’re too acquainted with. In any case, you’ll read that the person contesting the numbers there is really only disputing the “context” in which they are presented.

  5. Joanne F says:

    The point is, SOMETHING must be done to stem this horrible tide of gun violence in this country. What is totally appalling is that Congress REFUSES to act, even after hundreds of LITTLE CHILDREN have been murdered en masse. Who the hell can live with themself? #NotOneMore

    • lwk2431 says:

      “SOMETHING must be done to stem this horrible tide of gun violence in this country.”

      Repeating myself:

      “Actually gun violence and homicides in the U.S. peaked in the early 1990s and we are now approaching levels not seen since the 1960s. The homicide rate today is about half what it was in the 1990s and crime has declined even more so. You can check that out with FBI statistics on their pages.”

      Crimes with guns, homicides with guns, and accidents with guns are about as low today as they have every been in living memory. However the media does work very hard to create the opposite impression, and the media hardly ever, if never cover goods things people do with guns like stop criminals and save lives. That probably happens at least a couple hundred thousand times a year (Dr. Gary Kleck calculated over 2 million times back in the 1990s during the height of gun violence in America).

      regards,

      lwk

      • Joanne F says:

        lwk,

        What’s your point? That more than 414,000 gun violence incidents involving more than 467,000 victims in 2011 is acceptable? Because that’s less than the 1.2 million incidents and 1.5 million victims in 1993? (According to the National Institute of Justice here: http://www.nij.gov/topics/crime/gun-violence/Pages/welcome.aspx )

        Because my point is that ONE INCIDENT OF GUN VIOLENCE IS UNACCEPTABLE. You seem willing to turn your head on those little kids who were gunned down in Sandy Hook, or the hundreds and thousands of victims I read about ad nauseum every day in the news. If you are female, did you know that women have a higher chance of being victims of gun violence from their domestic partners than the military has of being killed in combat?

        Here’s some interesting information and statistics of the effects all that gun violence has on Americans, from a reputable source, the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence: http://www.bradycampaign.org/about-gun-violence

        The day we can ignore these facts and figures, and long-term effects on our fellow citizens — because the numbers of incidents and victims are lower — is the day we have lost our moral compass.

        Oh, wait, we’ve already lost our moral compass — because we refuse to do a damn thing about it. Those little children have died in vain. What a horror.

      • joeref says:

        and I’m not exactly sure of your point. So because there may be less gun violence recently, though if more sensational, we should say things are great and stop trying to find a reasonable solution? If there were less car accidents would be repeal car insurance? I’m not clear on what this has to do with the issue. Maybe you’re saying I’m making too much of it? Maybe but I don’t think so.

      • paxnews says:

        THANK YOU LWF for sanely, rationally explaining that gun crimes occur 33% of the time, as compared to 1993. Why are not the “progressives” celebrating this fact. It is because they are never happy.

      • lwk2431 says:

        Joanne F wrote:

        “ONE INCIDENT OF GUN VIOLENCE IS UNACCEPTABLE”

        The universe doesn’t care what you think is “acceptable.”

        “You seem willing to turn your head on those little kids who were gunned down in Sandy Hook…

        Nope. I have proposed rational solutions that start first with repealing the Gun Free School Zone Act which is nothing but an invitation to crazies.

        “a reputable source, the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence…”

        A good source of propaganda.

        “The day we can ignore these facts and figures, and long-term effects on our fellow citizens — because the numbers of incidents and victims are lower — is the day we have lost our moral compass.”

        It is not a question of ignoring. It is a question of rejecting bad solutions from people who’s primary agenda is disarming law abiding Americans.

        “we’ve already lost our moral compass — because we refuse to do a damn thing about it.”

        I would agree, but probably not in the way you expect. Yes, we have people with guns to protect money, banks and armored cars. We have people with guns to protect slimy politicians, but for some reason kids are not important enough to protect even when we know crazies will try to kill them if we don’t.

        It seems to me that some people hate guns more than they love children.

        lwk

  6. joeref says:

    I think any and all rational people celebrate the fact that violence is down, ( if I believe those stats) but the whole point of my post is to reduce gun violence to an after thought, a distant memory..Isn’t that the ultimate goal?

  7. paxnews says:

    Ways to reduce gun violence:
    1. Penalize illegal gun usage, possession, and trafficking (already done)
    2. Background checks on gun purchasers (already done)
    3. Thorough application process for gun purchasers (already done)
    4. Mental health check for gun purchasers (already done)
    5. End “Gun Free Zones” (new idea that has not been done)

  8. joeref says:

    penalties need to be more severe…background checks are spotty and in some cases (gun shows) non-existent. This is a MAJOR problem. Add mandatory insurance for gun owners.

    • lwk2431 says:

      “background checks are spotty and in some cases (gun shows) non-existent.”

      Bull. Last time I bought a Glock at a gun show it went through a regular FBI check. In my experience the vast majority of guns sales at gun shows go through FBI background checks because they _must_ if they go through an FFL dealer, no matter _where_ they sell the gun.

      There is no exemption for FFL dealers at a gun show. There have been studies of criminals in jail that found that buying a gun in a private sale at a gun show is a tiny proportion of guns used by criminals.

      However I do have a proposal for universal background checks here:

      Universal Background Checks
      http://free2beinamerica2.wordpress.com/2013/08/28/universal-background-checks/

      regards,

      lwk

  9. paxnews says:

    It’s funny Joe, cities like New Orleans, Chicago, Detroit, Los Angeles, Oakland, Newark, and Philadelphia have all demanded the same thing on penalties, and yet gun crimes continue to stay at the highest rates in the country.

  10. joeref says:

    Demanding and implementing are two different things. Maybe we should let all of the non-violent pot smoking offenders out of the country’s jails to make space for the gun toting criminals that really belong there.

  11. paxnews says:

    Well, if they have priors or were committing crimes while in the pursuit of pot, they may well be the ones looking to purchase guns illegally, when released.

  12. joeref says:

    I could be wrong but I doubt there are too many violent crimes being committed by the majority of pot offenders.

  13. Joanne F says:

    Joe, you’re right. The jails are flooded with non-violent pot offenders — most of them are black. Nice way to deal with minorities, lock ’em up.

    Pax and lwk, your reasoning is faulty. You want to justify the violence by claiming it’s not so bad compared with the past. Shame on you. Last night I attended the wake of the 27-year-old son of childhood friends. The grief in that funeral home last night was almost more than anyone could bear. While he did not die from gun violence, if he had it would have made it so much more worse — because it’s something that is easily preventable.

    Please don’t get into a name-calling about sourcing. As a former journalist, I am fully aware of what good sources are and what is propaganda. Interesting that snopes called the article you cited above a deliberate negative slant on certain facts, which were twisted to justify a position — the classic definition of propaganda.

    • lwk2431 says:

      “The jails are flooded with non-violent pot offenders — most of them are black. Nice way to deal with minorities, lock ‘em up.”

      What the Demoncrats have done to the black family in the inner city is even worse. A very large part of the problem in the U.S. are miserably failed social policies that have destroyed the inner city black family, for example, welfare programs that incent women not to marry or have a man in the house so as to continue receiving benefits.

      As far as pot and many other drugs, you would think if our public school system was worth a shit, which obviously it is not, people would study a little history and see all of the problems with violence and criminality that resulted from the Prohibition of alcohol in the past.

      ” You want to justify the violence by claiming it’s not so bad compared with the past.”

      That is total baloney. We don’t “justify” anything of the sort. However what we do sometimes do is call out uneducated people who claim that violence is increasing overall and attempt to panic people into stupid solutions.

      “Shame on you.”

      Shame on people who can’t argue with facts but try to intimidate with emotions.

      “[Gun violence is] something that is easily preventable.”

      And shame on people who think they have answers when they don’t. Violence of any kind goes back symbolically to Cain and Abel in the Bible, in reality, beyond known human history. Guns are not the problem. The human heart is the problem. Fools think they can solve a problem by banning a “thing,” instead of working on people, and especially repealing stupid laws and stupid policies that have been proven failures over and over again.

      But that is not how the Demoncrats work. Their standard policy is to enact something that doesn’t work and when it fails proclaiming that you need to do the same thing again, only bigger – the classic definition of insanity.

      lwk

  14. Joanne F says:

    PS My point about mentioning the wake is to give you an idea about what you are quick to justify. You’d just as soon tell the parents of the little kids who died (in vain, thus far) in the Sandy Hook mass shooting is that they should be grateful because gun violence is down. Or Richard Martinez, father of the young man who died recently in California. How can you bear the anguish of a grief-stricken parent? Have you no empathy? Again, shame on you. And as a Constitutional lawyer, I will tell you that you DON’T have a private right to gun ownership under the Second Amendment. What a twisted world we live in.

    • lwk2431 says:

      “You’d just as soon tell the parents of the little kids who died (in vain, thus far) in the Sandy Hook mass shooting is that they should be grateful because gun violence is down.”

      Like a lot of folks, you apparently are an expert in using the “straw man fallacy” where one misrepresents the other side and attacks a false image of the other person’s argument.

      What I object to are people falsely claiming as fact that overall we are experiencing an epidemic of violence, particularly gun violence. What we actually have, besides much lower crime and violence statistics overall, is a number of highly visible and indiscriminate attacks on people in public places that almost always are “gun free zones.”

      Then people like you say the solution is to do away with guns, or at least make them an order or two of magnitude more difficult for law abiding citizens to own. At the same time you are the kind that will argue that actually defending people with firearms is somehow stupid, or in your vernacular, “unacceptable.”

      As a matter of fact they had a similar problem in Israel a while back where terrorists attempted to commit mass murders in their schools. If you know many Israelis or have ever been to Israel you know a very large number of Israelis are “liberal” by our definition and are definitely not big fans of our 2nd Amendment.

      However in Israel they decided that they loved their children more than they hated guns, so they proceeded to arm many adults in those schools which after some terrorists died without accomplishing their goal, the problem receded.

      “Again, shame on you.”

      And shame on lawyers who have spent years studying on how to misrepresent facts. 🙂

      lwk

  15. lwk2431 says:

    “…as a Constitutional lawyer, I will tell you that you DON’T have a private right to gun ownership under the Second Amendment.”

    Yep, you are probably as good a “Constitutional lawyer” as Barack Obama. 🙂

    lwk

  16. joeref says:

    I don’t think we need to engage in personal attacks because we have differing opinions. That is exactly what is going wrong in this country today. Various polls have shown time and again that the American public is for stronger gun control legislation. The right wing in the house, frightened by Tea Party retaliation, once again stopped common sense gun control legislation that was favored by nearly 70% of the people polled. If your solution is to arm everyone and create a sort of wild wild west scenario I disagree. I don’t think you are “stupid” or that gun ownership is “stupid”, but ANYTHING that can be so dangerous to life, limb and property needs to be closely regulated. This idea that the second amendment allows for everyone to carry guns is absurd. The idea was for citizens to be able to form militias to protect themselves from oppressive governments, not to protect macho 20 somethings from walking into grocery stores packing semi-automatic weapons like the second coming of Wyatt Earp.

    • lwk2431 says:

      “If your solution is to arm everyone and create a sort of wild wild west scenario I disagree.”

      I argue specifically for two proposals.

      1. As I have already said several times, if we value children and we observe that crazies are now motivated by the fame they can get from the media in murdering those children, then we have a moral obligation to protect our children with force, not disarm law abiding citizens.

      2. I don’t believe I have mentioned this before, but I support the “shall issue” concealed carry movement which seeks to have a significant portion of those who are highly responsible in America to get a license to carry a concealed handgun and to do so.

      I have a concealed carry permit in Texas. Despite all the hysterics from the uninformed and the bigoted, people who get such a license are some of the safest and most law abiding people in the U.S.

      “This idea that the second amendment allows for everyone to carry guns is absurd.”

      But that is precisely what the 2nd Amendment means, except that “everyone” is an exaggeration that approaches being a “straw man” argument. The people who wrote the 2nd Amendment did not believe that _everyone_ had a right to keep and bear arms. What they actually believed was that law abiding citizens could exercise that right. Being non-lawabiding was understood by them to be a disbarment of that right, as also being dangerously crazy. If you go back and look carefully at the institution of the militia at that time not _everyone_ could participate, and that was so common sense that I am sure the writers of the Constitution felt no particular need to elaborate on it in writing the 2nd Amendment.

      “The idea was for citizens to be able to form militias to protect themselves from oppressive governments…”

      It was not the only idea. But it was clearly an important one for them. They also believed strongly in an individual’s right to self defense (and a moral and legal responsibility to participate in the mutual defense of the community). Those who get a concealed carry permit, and undergo some training to get the same, are in many ways acting out the intentions of the writers of the 2nd Amendment.

      Here is an interesting article you might find interesting:

      “A Nation of Cowards” by Jeffrey Snyder

      http://free2beinamerica2.wordpress.com/a-nation-of-cowards/

      regards,

      lwk

    • Joanne F says:

      Well said.

    • Joanne F says:

      My comment “well said”, which appears below lwk’s comment below, was NOT for lwk’s comment. It was intended for your comment above, Joe. I don’t know what happened on the blog. (I probably did something wrong.)

  17. joeref says:

    I am not completely opposed to law abiding people carrying guns. I am neither uninformed or a bigot but there most definitely seems to be a more positive attitude towards guns in places like Texas. Why do you think that is?

    • lwk2431 says:

      “I am neither uninformed or a bigot…”

      Actually I did not explicitly mean to imply that you were – was speaking more in a general sense. But of course how I worded it did not really make that clear. So to make it clear, I am not calling you personally either uninformed or a bigot.

      “there most definitely seems to be a more positive attitude towards guns in places like Texas. Why do you think that is?”

      I am not sure there is one simple answer. One factor might be exposure. If you grow up in a household where firearms are owned and used then you will almost certainly be less likely to be deathly afraid of them than someone raised, for example, in a place were civilians rarely own firearms and TV and movies reinforce how dangerous they are (and emphasize probably the criminal use of firearms).

      regards,

      lwk

  18. paxnews says:

    It it because there guns are used practically (hunting, target practice and so on) and are introduced at a young age.

    • lwk2431 says:

      I bought my first .22 rifle in a hardware store. Believe I was 15 or 16, but it has been a long time. No background check and no parental consent. Got permission from a farmer to hunt squirrels on his land. Spent many a morning watching the sun come up in the woods waiting for breakfast to wake up. 🙂

  19. joeref says:

    you grew up in an environment where guns were a simple part of the landscape. I grew up in a city where guns killed people and created all sorts of mayhem. Different experiences create different realities. I think we both agree that reasonable and logical regulation of guns and gun ownership is a necessary component of keeping the society safe.

  20. Joanne F says:

    Honestly, Joe, I don’t know why you are wasting your time trying to reason with those two. They are spewing the NRA talking points in classic GOP fashion: By deflection, projection, an admittedly deliberate misstatement of facts, disdain for education and intelligence, and an inability to engage in logical, deductive reasoning. Just the kind of people we DON’T want owning guns. (Not that the Second Amendment gives that right.)

    • paxnews says:

      Honestly, Joe, I don’t know why you are wasting your time trying to reason with this lady.
      She is spewing the ultra-progressive talking points in classic extreme left fashion: By deflection, projection, an admittedly deliberate misstatement of facts, disdain for education and intelligence, and an inability to engage in logical, deductive reasoning. Just the kind of people we DON’T want owning guns. (She calls herself a lawyer?)

      Yes, complete gun control has been tried before by several world leaders, who confiscated everyone’s guns.
      Those leaders names are Hitler, Stalin, and Mao.

    • lwk2431 says:

      Here is an interesting article:

      Guns Don’t Kill People, Democrats Kill People

      http://www.americanthinker.com/2014/01/guns_dont_kill_people_democrats_kill_people.html

      Quoting:

      “The mapping of firearm homicide to voting precinct provides strong evidence that the United States does not have a systemic ‘gun culture’ problem. The majority of firearm homicides in Louisiana, Virginia, and Minnesota occurred in the small fraction of precincts that contains concentrated Democrat voters.”

      Maybe we should ban Democrats from owning firearms?

      lwk

  21. Joanne F says:

    Keep proving my point, you’re doing a fine job.

  22. Joanne F says:

    lwk, you wouldn’t know a fact if it mowed you down with an AK-47.

    • paxnews says:

      Joanne – I’m very sorry, but there is no reason to be a sore loser. Maybe next time you’ll come a little more prepared? Thanks for playing!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s