Emotional ties toward gun control need to be reconsidered
If we're trying to limit the violence caused by millions of guns recklessly distributed throughout the country, perhaps it's time to try a new approach.
Instead of trying and failing to pass laws that many people believe deprive them of their own right to bear arms — a right embedded in the constitution — why not suggest something new! Let's ask people to think, really think, if they really believe just about EVERYONE has the right to bear arms.
People have been convinced by the gun lobby and their supporters that the right to own and carry guns protects them, their families, their homes and their autos from violence. But has the gun CONTROL lobby worked to convince Americans that some people should not be allowed to own and use a gun? Some people are not responsible, reliable, and mentally competent. Yet almost everyone is currently allowed to stock up on guns and ammunition; the result, death to innocent people, sometimes individually, sometimes, as in Aurora, in groups.
After a gun-caused catastrophe occurs and 12, 25 or 34 innocent people are killed and many more are seriously wounded, over 65 percent of Republicans and Independents continue to decline to support gun control legislation. Compare this with the reaction of Democrats: 35 percent of Democrats decline to support gun control legislation. Why the difference?
Perhaps we should be more psychological in talking to Americans about gun control. Are Independents and Republicans willing to tolerate group and individual murders more willingly than Democrats? Probably not. Do Independents and Republicans feel less personally threatened by death by guns, believing only poor people are the victims of gun-play? Do Independents and Republicans believe Democrats are easy on crime and violence, so they'd better stay with the Republicans on this one? Finally, is the gun lobby better at scaring some people (the "bad guy" will get you) and reassuring them too (get a gun; it'll keep you safe)?
Advertisements and miseducation do work. Just think of the many Americans who believed that President Obama's Death Panels were out to get them. In a similar way, the gun lobby advertisements and educators have convinced Americans that unlimited numbers and styles of guns should be available to just about everyone, everywhere. Remember, "Guns don't kill you; people do." Guns will keep you safe.
Maybe people should start deep-thinking about what it really means if almost everyone keeps a gun in every pocket.
Beverly Chethik
Ann Arbor
Comments
Bill Wilson
Tue, Aug 7, 2012 : 6:35 p.m.
Paul Taylor wrote: "Also, I do know why Americans have the right to bear arms. It is a right, which is why, at no point, have I argued for disarming citizens. We have the right to keep and bear arms for those times when a well-regulated militia is needed. Strict constructionists whoa re honest would tell you that this means muzzle-loaders, but rational people will tell you it does not. " The whole in your argument is that the milita consists of able bodied men and women: the general population. But no matter. Closer readings demonstrate that this argument was debunked, most recently in Washington DC. Quick FYI: all of the Bill of Rights deals with "individual" liberties, and are inherent; simply... the Goverment did not give us these rights, nor can they take them away, unless convicted of a crime.
Bill Wilson
Tue, Aug 7, 2012 : 6:36 p.m.
Excuse me: "hole".
Ricebrnr
Tue, Aug 7, 2012 : 3:02 p.m.
so yes let's ban guns from civilians and only allow the military and police to have them. What could happen?? If only there was a real world example of the consequences...oh wait. http://www.insightcrime.org/insight-latest-news/item/2999-unfit-police-concentrated-in-10-mexican-states
Joe_Citizen
Mon, Aug 6, 2012 : 9:20 a.m.
Guns, cars, knives, axes, bats, blunt objects, and the like don't kill people, or mine must be defective! It is the people who own them, and some how we let go and let the psychopaths on the streets to do whatever it is they want to do and get locked up afterwards. Whether or not they are kids, they used to get put in the loony hospital until they were somewhat sane enough to know right from wrong. We stopped because of money issues. Now our jails and prisons are filled with these people and they are not getting the help they need. Nice Try Bud, but it will be a cold day in satins world before you or anyone else tries take away our protection.
cornelius McDougenschniefferburgenstein jr. 3 esq.
Mon, Aug 6, 2012 : 5:15 a.m.
the reason there were so many casualties in araua was the sign that read NO GUNS ALLOWED!
Ricebrnr
Tue, Aug 7, 2012 : 3:24 p.m.
Perhaps, this analogy would be better? You and a bunch of other people are in a building. The building is on fire. Your choices are: 1) wait for help 2) burn 3) do something to save your life (lives) If 3, in your escape attempts you might weaken the structure and bring it down. Possibly injuring or killing those trapped inside with the fire. Do nothing and you burn. Do SOMETHING and you risk WHAT over the other choices?
hail2thevict0r
Mon, Aug 6, 2012 : 6:20 p.m.
Kat, Do you think 59 people would have been shot if just a few people in the theater had firearms on them? I sure don't. Even if the defender accidentally shoots someone that's still better than the shooter pumping out 100 rounds into the theater IMO.
katmando
Mon, Aug 6, 2012 : 3:43 p.m.
Do you think 200 armed people shooting in the dark could of stopped this nut? That just is plan stupid! A trained well armed police officer hits less than 10% of the time when in a gun battle IN DAY LIGHT!
BenWoodruff
Mon, Aug 6, 2012 : 3:01 a.m.
Look, I own a shotgun, and all my family members are gun owners, but, for God's sake, I am damn tired of mass shootings and carnage and hearing the political class on both sides offer "thoughts and prayers". There has GOT to be some place where we can agree and some way to stop this violence. Is it our culture? One mile across the Detroit river sits a city that rarely suffers gun violence, why? Many of you posted before the killings at the Sikh temple today. Does that not give you any pause to reflect? I always hear after one of these killings, "now is not the time to address gun laws, etc, ad nauseum". Well, tell me when is the time?
Ricebrnr
Mon, Aug 6, 2012 : 11:51 a.m.
That city across the river already has much stricter gun controls, in fact the whole country does and yet they also still have similar events. Why can't we agree that gun laws are not working and agree on controlling the crazies and not the guns or the law abiding?
CPLtownie
Mon, Aug 6, 2012 : 3:32 a.m.
Our culture and what we have made of it, spawns these action. Americans excuse bad behaviour. Tolerance at any and all costs. Selfishness. The ME attitude. The pushing aside of the perceived weak. Look at our TV & movies. Look at our music. Look at the "games" we play on Xbox. We are a culture that thrives on bullying. We are a culture of no culture. Stress in America is at an all time high. Wasn't like that when I was growing up (not that the 60's and 79's were a utopian time by far, but the hate and anger wasn't nearly as pervasive as it seems now)
snapshot
Mon, Aug 6, 2012 : 1:59 a.m.
This is a typical bureacrat thinking up creative ways to promote restrictions and trying to criminalize a constitutional freedom. Distracted driving kills and injures far more people than guns so lets criminalize auto accidents and outlaw cell phones in vehicles. We'll save more people every year but that's not the goal for Beverly.
SEC Fan
Mon, Aug 6, 2012 : 1:55 a.m.
This has to be the most naive article I have ever read. Shows a complete non-understanding of the opposing arguments or that of human behavior/thinking. May the author should re-write the entire article, this time substitute "guns" with "abortion". They could use the exact same naive argument against the left.
tdw
Mon, Aug 6, 2012 : 12:06 p.m.
SEC.....sorry ,I accidently TD'd you
EyeHeartA2
Mon, Aug 6, 2012 : 1:50 a.m.
As long as you decided to make it a partisan rant, here is a statistic for you: Ted Kennedy killed more people with his car than I did with all my guns combined.
katmando
Mon, Aug 6, 2012 : 1:45 a.m.
Owning a gun does not make you or your family safer. The fact is that you are more likely to be killed or injuries by a friend or family member than to be injured by a stranger.
hail2thevict0r
Mon, Aug 6, 2012 : 6:28 p.m.
It still doesn't take into account responsible vs. irresponsible gun owners. I'm the only one who has the code for my gun safe in my household. You act as though my chance of getting shot is the same as someone who keeps a loaded gun under their pillow. This is just not true. The only thing my gun will be used for is home protection or target practice and I know this for certain.
katmando
Mon, Aug 6, 2012 : 3:46 p.m.
I took out suicides.
hail2thevict0r
Mon, Aug 6, 2012 : 12:52 p.m.
That's a pretty skewed statistic considering they always count suicides into that. And sure, if you're an irresponsible gun owner than you might shoot yourself. But all of my guns are locked up in a safe as well as the ammo. They only come out to be cleaned, go to the range or if someone came into my house. It's not like they're going to jump out on their own and shoot me.
CPLtownie
Mon, Aug 6, 2012 : 1:20 a.m.
There's other weapons besides gun magazines. Colorado guy would have blown the movie goers had he not had a gun. Deranged people will find ways to kill. I'm not into large capacity (20-30 rounds) magazines, but my gun holds 12. Really. That would be considered "high capacity" Do you really think -2 rounds will make a difference? Supressors are now legal. High capacity guns can go through the same stringent licensing as a suppressor, if that will make people feel better. Simple. But then look at my hometown of Chicago. No guns are allowed. And how exactly, has THAT been working out for the law abiding citizens? Worse shooting record yet this summer. Guess those pesky criminals need to get their knuckles smacked for not following the LAWS. You cannot walk around Michigan Ave without being concerned about getting caught in the gang crossfire. Those little punks would think twice if they thought an average Joe might be packing, and may put a damper on their thuggery. Like I said, take care of the root problem, the mental health system, and all the paycheck collecting shrinks that drop the ball on the marginal people. Colorado guy dropped out of college, so the shrink and the school just wiped their foreheads and said "not our problem.". Not unlike Penn State's allowing their deranged coach loose on kids and turning their collective heads. Root problem is never an inanimate object. But ever so easy to blame and point fingers. It's time the public looks in a mirror, and points to itself.
kraiford12
Sun, Aug 5, 2012 : 11:46 p.m.
@ MARK Why should I have to reload my magazines every 5-10 shots at the range because of a few random non-law-abiding people decide to commit crimes with a firearm? You know the ranges charge by the hour right? The amount of firearms that have not been used to killed people far outnumber the amount that have.
MARK
Mon, Aug 6, 2012 : 11:26 p.m.
I want you to keep your guns. What possible reason do you need a 30,50 or 100 round magazine for it? The only reason is if you think you will need it for armed rebellion or fighting off hoards of law enforcement. You do not need it for target practice,hunting or home defense. I agree that it is cool to be able to blow off 100 rounds at once but not cool enough to risk some derange fool blowing away 100 people at once
MARK
Sun, Aug 5, 2012 : 10:21 p.m.
No reason you cannot limit magazine capacity to 5-10 rounds and still have guns. At least make it more inconvenient to kill 30 people if you have to reload. If you cannot hit a deer, bear or rabbit with the first 5 shots then you need to go practice first
hail2thevict0r
Mon, Aug 6, 2012 : 12:50 p.m.
What people don't realize is that the 2nd amendment has nothing to do with hunting.....You can hunt with a bow and arrow or even trapping is often more effective. But as the others said - reducing the capacity of magazines really does nothing. All that it does is make it illegal to manufacture high cap mags for civilian purchase. Since there are hundreds of thousands of mags already in the market that get grandfathered in what ends up happening is that a 30 round mag goes from $15 to $115. So you still have access to them and they're still fairly cheap. And for most hunting you're not allowed to even hunt with more than like 4 rounds in the gun anyway.
Ricebrnr
Mon, Aug 6, 2012 : 2:47 a.m.
Also there is a reason not to do it. If you buy into the argument that more than 10 is too much, then there is no reason 5 can't be too much. If 5 is too much then 1 is plenty right? Follow that rabbit hole and soon even muzzleloaders start to be assault weapons. If you think gun grabbers won't target your hunting guns you are sorely mistaken. After all what is the difference between your shotgun or rifle and an Ar 15? Your shotgun will be a street sweeper and rifle a sniper gun
jcj
Mon, Aug 6, 2012 : 12:26 a.m.
Mark The assumption you make is pro gun advocates all want them for hunting. Completely wrong assumption. Shell Capacity for Shotguns and Centerfire Rifles It is unlawful to hunt with a semi-automatic shotgun or semi-automatic rifle that can hold more than six shells in the barrel and magazine combined unless it is a .22 caliber rimfire. Fully automatic firearms are illegal. All shotguns used for migratory game birds (including woodcock) must be plugged so the total capacity of the shotgun does not exceed three shells. From the Michigan DNR site.
Ricebrnr
Mon, Aug 6, 2012 : 12:12 a.m.
Been there done that. Zero affect on criminals. We should do it again why?
CPLtownie
Sun, Aug 5, 2012 : 10:13 p.m.
Mr Taylor, yes, the government's hacking of funds for mental health care did somewhat force institutions to close, however, if you read some of the history, the ACLU did play a major part in declaring that mentally ill people's rights were infringed by being committed. I covered the Laurie Dann shootings in the chicago suburbs - you can google it. And herein lies the problems with the mental health system and what is now happening with the increasing violence committed by the unstable people walking among us. "The Dann shootings also fueled the debate about criteria for committing mentally ill people to mental health facilities against their will. Some favored the involuntary commitment of a person who is determined to be mentally ill and incapable of making informed decisions about treatment; civil libertarians like Benjamin Wolf (staff counsel for the ACLU of Illinois.[4]) opposed the idea saying, "It would be a shame if we cut back on the civil liberties of literally millions of mentally ill people because of the occasional bizarre incident."" Except the "occasional bizarre incidence" isn't so occasional anymore.
Paul Taylor
Sun, Aug 5, 2012 : 10:31 p.m.
Two bad tastes that went worse together, I guess!
Paul Taylor
Sun, Aug 5, 2012 : 10:29 p.m.
I don't know enough about the ACLU/civil liberties aspect to comment on it, but I won't argue it--some damned silly things have been done by people who thought they were doing a favor to the mentally ill. I do know, though, that John Engler couldn't close facilities fast enough. That I know pretty well because my mother worked in that particular department. It was so sad to hear of all those people being turned out onto the streets. My mom was transferred to a facility nominally for the remaining mental health patients, but filled with juvenile offenders. I was so relieved when she retired. She wasn't working in a mental health care capacity any longer, but essentially as a prison guard.
Pickforddick
Sun, Aug 5, 2012 : 9:40 p.m.
Paul Taylor quote........"However, I do, in fact, believe that people are the problem, and not guns themselves." Good enough for me !!!!!
Paul Taylor
Sun, Aug 5, 2012 : 9:53 p.m.
I would accept an admission that there was gross misrepresentation of my position by yourself and mr dick, and do so with grace. But, I don't see that coming. You two have a nice evening "polishing your pistols"!
Paul Taylor
Sun, Aug 5, 2012 : 9:50 p.m.
No, I thought I would leave the stirring to you.
Pickforddick
Sun, Aug 5, 2012 : 9:49 p.m.
Good Night Paul......Enjoy your evening.
tdw
Sun, Aug 5, 2012 : 9:48 p.m.
Paul....at this point are you just trying to keep things stirred up ?
Paul Taylor
Sun, Aug 5, 2012 : 9:42 p.m.
I also said that guns "...help problematic people an awful lot." Or, did you not read that far?
Paul Taylor
Sun, Aug 5, 2012 : 9:41 p.m.
Why does this surprise you? I never claimed otherwise before.
CPLtownie
Sun, Aug 5, 2012 : 8:41 p.m.
The problem is the complete denial on the part of the American public to the fact that the mental health system in this country has been dismantled to the point of non existence. HIPA laws protect mental health records, crippling the very background checks that all must go through to properly secure a firearm. Marginal personalities do not fit the criteria for inpatient, and in some cases, outpatient, services. Denial of any type of mental illness is rampant in society to the point that aberrant behavoiur is shrugged off as a "stage", especially in wealthier people, (no one likes the stigma of mental illness) as they have the money to constantly throw at damage control caused by a family member. People in lesser socioeconomic circles, family members are JD's, oftentimes shuffled in and out of various detention situations. Either case, the mental health of a person is never truly addressed. It all started in the 70's when the institutions were closed, due to "infringement of the civil rights of patients," and thus shut down, churning out people onto the streets where substance abuse became their only medication. In marginal personality disorders, people can hold it together only so long, until they start to lose touch with reality, no professional interventions occur, and the end result is this. I have no doubt this person had a few more stops to make on the crazy train, with suicide being the stopping point after he was satisfied with his job. It is fortunate that there was a police presence at the movies that night. I've covered more than enough of these assignments as a (now ex) journalist, to see the sad results of inadequate mental health support in this country. It's much easier, cheaper, and politically correct, to blame guns. Fix the mental health system, and the current gun laws will be adequate. Is it a guarentee? No. Some 2 legged species are just prone to violence, by any means.
Paul Taylor
Sun, Aug 5, 2012 : 9:37 p.m.
And thank you for agreeing that I never made an anti-gun argument. Oh, wait, you didn't. Well, I will assume that you agree with my claim regarding your misrepresentation of everything I have said here, as you don't deny it.
Pickforddick
Sun, Aug 5, 2012 : 9:31 p.m.
Have a great day Paul Taylor...good luck on getting that CCW permit and we look forward to having you join us in explaining that guns aren't the problem, people are. Thanks Paul and have a great day.
Paul Taylor
Sun, Aug 5, 2012 : 9:24 p.m.
You don't agree with me. If I were to say that water was wet, you'd disagree, or ask for my sources. You just want to get a jab in, and so you manufacture a situation where I have been stomping my feet and proclaiming guns to be tantamount to the creation of black holes by CERN scientists. The fact is, I never argued against it being a people problem. You simply and selectively chose to view any and all comments I had as anti-gun commentary.
Pickforddick
Sun, Aug 5, 2012 : 9:24 p.m.
Paul.......You just said "However, I do, in fact, believe that people are the problem, and not guns themselves."........after all this going back and forth you have finally admitted what myself and others have been saying all along.....welcome to the sane side of the gun debate Paul Taylor.....Glad to have you aboard.
Paul Taylor
Sun, Aug 5, 2012 : 9:19 p.m.
I said nothing of the sort in my reply, which was solely my opinion on factors contributing to the turning out of mental health patients onto the streets. However, I do, in fact, believe that people are the problem, and not guns themselves. But they help the problematic people an awful lot. You speak as if I'd spent all my previous comments saying that guns were the problem. Where was that?
Pickforddick
Sun, Aug 5, 2012 : 9:11 p.m.
Thank You Paul Taylor for finally admitting that guns are not the problem but humans are. I agree with you.
Paul Taylor
Sun, Aug 5, 2012 : 8:52 p.m.
I agree. The only thing I would add is that facilities were closed because state government wanted to cut spending, and mental health services were an easy way to achieve that aim. What facilities were left open effectively became part of the prison system, housing juvenile delinquents, etc. rather than patients needing mental health services.
snark12
Sun, Aug 5, 2012 : 8:31 p.m.
Since Aurora there have been a few publicized instances of a home or shop owner using a gun to stop a crime. I don't doubt that people do successfully protect themselves and others with firearms, maybe every day. But about 30,000 people are killed annually in the US with guns. Remove the suicides (about half), and you're left without about 40 people murdered each day with a gun. Can anyone really expect us to believe the numbers SAVED by guns are anywhere near that amount?
snark12
Sun, Aug 5, 2012 : 9:14 p.m.
If only the NRA didn't fight against state and federal background checks...
CPLtownie
Sun, Aug 5, 2012 : 8:50 p.m.
And what about other violent crimes? Crimes against women? Should we outlaw men? Stabbings? Removes knives? Driver distractions? How about outlaw cars? Try the root of the problem, which is human behaviour. You have someone in Burns park who, despite being asked not to by the people he's aiming at, continually hitting baseballs, admittedly aiming at them. That's not a 'normal' behaviour. Yet an article excused this actions. Shall we outlaw all baseballs because of 1 person? No. You remove the person and his/her actions, or limit their ability to acquire the items to continue their actions, by having them accessed. Remove the HIPA laws regarding mental health and background checks, and you remove a mentally ill person from legally buying a gun.
tdw
Sun, Aug 5, 2012 : 8:40 p.m.
Not quite sure what your point is but I have a link above of a DOJ study take a look
Pickforddick
Sun, Aug 5, 2012 : 6:59 p.m.
Paul.....please comment on gun crime as requested by tdw....we are all waiting diligently.
Paul Taylor
Sun, Aug 5, 2012 : 9:13 p.m.
Admit it, you won't be happy until I say that no one should ever be allowed to own or use a gun, and that the government should immediately begin a program of confiscating all firearms. That is what you want me to say, isn't it? Well, guess what? I believe that everyone has a right to bear arms, and that existing laws should be fully enforced. Are you let down because I espouse a rational, even-handed view? If so, I am sorry. Actually, I am not sorry, but I say that to be polite.
Paul Taylor
Sun, Aug 5, 2012 : 8:16 p.m.
What answer do you want?
Pickforddick
Sun, Aug 5, 2012 : 8:06 p.m.
Sad
Paul Taylor
Sun, Aug 5, 2012 : 8:01 p.m.
Ok, I guess an honest answer doesn't cut it, for the voting readers. How is this: I lurves me some gun crime, and cannot get enough! This ought to get me approval votes into the stratosphere! LOL
Paul Taylor
Sun, Aug 5, 2012 : 7:41 p.m.
Your diligence seems to have failed...
Paul Taylor
Sun, Aug 5, 2012 : 7:23 p.m.
Gun crime is bad. Satisfied?
tdw
Sun, Aug 5, 2012 : 6:36 p.m.
This is off topic, but after 112 comments there's only one violation ? that's pretty good if you ask me.I guess the comments have been pretty civil
outdoor6709
Sun, Aug 5, 2012 : 5:02 p.m.
As a small government person, I think we shoud enforce immigration law. I would also like to have a discussion about why we should repeal Baseline Budgeting at the federal level.. It might be nice to understand how US Senate gets away without passing a budget for 3 years. Instead we have conversations around limiting 2nd admendment rights in this country.
Major
Sun, Aug 5, 2012 : 4:44 p.m.
Sticking with the authors point (I think)...a "new approach" that not everyone should have the right to bear arms. I agree...sort of. That is how the current law works, not everyone is allowed to own a gun. What doesn't currently work, is the revolving door policies of the court systems. This is what is meant by "enforce the current laws" that is heard so often about this subject, and why new "laws" won't and haven't worked. My idea...a license for any hi cap rifle...similar to a CPL. With all the requirements of cpl, range training, knowledge of law, etc. That might slow down a criminal like the Aurora shooter, still wont' stop the determined criminal though, they don't follow laws. I own an M4 A2, aka AR 15 variant, it is a fun and easy rifle to shoot, it is an accurate rifle, it is a lead spewing fire-breathing rifle of death and destruction. There is no way in heck the framers of the Constitution ever foresaw this type of "equalizer" in the hands of the common person. Basically my point is, like carrying concealed, there needs to be a higher standard set, to obtain, own and use a rifle like this. I don't hunt with it, I have many other rifles that are far more "deadly" and hunting laws have limited the numbers of rounds one can have in the pipe while afield. It is not my first line defensive weapon either, as it goes right through walls, cars, trees....people. That pretty much leaves shooting sports, or just having fun in a gravel pit as it's main attraction for me. Now that there is "back door" gun control going on with the cost of ammo, I can easily dump three to five hundee in an afternoon, so it's not like everyone is rushing out to get one! At the end of the day, the reality is, a gun has no more in relation to a crime, than a spoon does to obesity! A means to an end.
shutthefrtdoor
Mon, Aug 6, 2012 : 3:24 p.m.
@Major "There is no way in heck the framers of the Constitution ever foresaw this type of "equalizer" in the hands of the common person." An argument for keeping up with technology is that the framers would WANT the citizenry to be up to date. After all, the 2nd is NOT for hunting or plinking. If the common person didn't have access to "equalizers" we'd be pawns and subjects now wouldn't we? And even worse..."sprechen ze duetch"?
Major
Sun, Aug 5, 2012 : 11:14 p.m.
hail2thevict0r (love that "handle") I've read that these nut jobs buy these weapons within hours, days, weeks, or months before going off the rails. If one has to go through the process of getting a CPL or like license for hi cap rifles, that puts you face to face with law enforcement, and other officials, the process is long and and then there is the training. I would hope that, (as it is very evident by the lack of problems with CPL holders) that very thing would weed out the evil doers. Not sure how fast the process is these days, I went through it long ago, but it took well over three months to get my CPL.
Major
Sun, Aug 5, 2012 : 11:05 p.m.
tdw, that is of course possible, they were visionary people after all. I base that "no way in heck the framers of the Constitution ever foresaw" comment on how people in the mid 1800's viewed the new and incredible "revolver" that used cartridge's instead of percussion caps. Six shot's right now was the most incredible advancement in weaponry that anyone had imagined at the time.
hail2thevict0r
Sun, Aug 5, 2012 : 7:12 p.m.
I still don't think the regulations you speak of really do anything. Like you even said - it doesn't do anything to prevent the freaks like the kid in Co. Even with a ban like that - the problem is that there are so many rifles out there already that it really wouldn't do anything but bump the price up a bit for parts and guns. What's not also being discussed here is that very few crimes are committed with quote unquote "assault rifles". The real problem in the US are handgun crimes but in most states handguns are already pretty well regulated. And even 6 shot revolvers, while not "high capacity", probably result in more deaths per year than assault rifles do. You combine that with speed loaders and you have something that could do something very similar to what the Colorado shooter did. What I'd like to see is a set of universal laws regulating firearms. Right now most of the firearm laws are up to the states. It would be nice if buying a gun in Georgia was the same as buying a gun in Michigan. And it would also be nice if buying a handgun required the same process that buying an AR or a hunting rifle required. I'd also like to see the gun show loophole closed. It doesn't make sense that in most states I can go into a gun show and buy from a "private seller" and that seller isn't required to perform any of the standard background checks that a regular gun retailer would have to.
tdw
Sun, Aug 5, 2012 : 5:34 p.m.
I agree with you for the most part.But even in 1776 like it has always been, they were constantly trying to improve fire power.So I don't buy the " they never would have imagined " argument.
Paul Taylor
Sun, Aug 5, 2012 : 5:09 p.m.
Major, you make a rational point. I expect you to get flamed in three, two, one...
martini man
Sun, Aug 5, 2012 : 3:42 p.m.
The enforcement of our current gun laws is being handled about as well as our current immigration laws. . New laws are not needed since they would restrict guns for law abiding citizens even more. The terrorists, thugs, psychos, will always have weapons... but if the current laws were better enforced, it might cut down on the number of massacres and murders. Turning the law abiding citizens into passive lemmings will not make the criminals go away. Gun control is more of a left wing political agenda than a safety matter.They want guns out of the hands of all citizens, period. Thus the scathing attacks on the NRA .
Pickforddick
Sun, Aug 5, 2012 : 6:56 p.m.
You are forgiven....now are you ready to work on that CCW?
Paul Taylor
Sun, Aug 5, 2012 : 6:52 p.m.
Well, it wasn't meant as a compliment, was it? You don't see myself or others calling you conservatards or wingnuts, do you? No, because we hope to discuss on an adult level, rather than an emotionally stunted, superannuated adolescent level. And, pickford Dick, no, my feelings weren't hurt. However, I infer that you would have liked them to be. Is this the case? Pardon my delay in replying to your respectful input. I was busy stepping away from the computer and living a life. I suggest you try it.
Pickforddick
Sun, Aug 5, 2012 : 6:36 p.m.
Amazing how those lefty's get their feelings hurt so easily.....just amazing.
tdw
Sun, Aug 5, 2012 : 6:09 p.m.
Paul...sorry but you are the first and only person who I've ran into that the term " libbies " is a insult. BTW my comment was bad as I used "Liberal" and " libbies " in the same sentence.Again, no edit option
Paul Taylor
Sun, Aug 5, 2012 : 5:39 p.m.
They are cutting everything in Detroit. And again, with the name calling! You simply cannot seem to engage in a conversation without inflammatory rhetoric. It doesn't do any service to your positions.
tdw
Sun, Aug 5, 2012 : 5:27 p.m.
Ok Paul...Conservatives do not want to cut law enforcement.There is this city in Michigan that is controlled by liberals and Democrats and libbies that have slashed their police....can you guess the name of this city Please excuse my lack of response time.My computer is running slow and I have to use a hand held spell check
Paul Taylor
Sun, Aug 5, 2012 : 5:07 p.m.
Just as I expected! No reply! The game is mine! Huzzah! :P
Paul Taylor
Sun, Aug 5, 2012 : 5 p.m.
You know nothing about me, but insist on labeling me, and can't wait five minutes for a reply. Would you prefer I treated you in the same manner? I prefer to keep things relatively civil and rational, rather than attacking people personally and misrepresenting their opinions and statements.
Paul Taylor
Sun, Aug 5, 2012 : 4:57 p.m.
My explanation is that small government agitators and their sympathizers in Congress insist that government be "small enough to drown in a bathtub." By pursuing this agenda, funding for proper personnel levels is continually cut, thus undermining the enforcement of existing laws. Thus, calling for better enforcement of current laws is a call that should be run by the smal government crowd, so that the person making the argument can see where the problem with that argument is.
tdw
Sun, Aug 5, 2012 : 4:44 p.m.
Again...Typical liberal no answer just comments to dodge a question.What does this have to do with mind reading ? ( nothing ) so please if at all possible answer the question.Hell, give me one and I'll answer and I'll answer it...ok ?
Paul Taylor
Sun, Aug 5, 2012 : 4:39 p.m.
Please, continue to employ your mind-reading powers.
tdw
Sun, Aug 5, 2012 : 4:24 p.m.
Paul really ? can you explain that one please ? I know you can't but try to keep in context with this topic
Paul Taylor
Sun, Aug 5, 2012 : 3:55 p.m.
Tell the small government crowd that. They never met a law they wanted properly enforced.
bunnyabbot
Sun, Aug 5, 2012 : 3:27 p.m.
I wish I could remember where I read an article within the last week that said a movie theater employee saw a man walk into a theater with a holsterd gun on his belt. The police were called, when the cops entered the theater they asked if any one was carrying a firearm. Three men stood up. They all had the proper permits and were legally carrying. They were told to secure their firearms in their vehicles. I wonder if anyone in the theater had a firearm that didn't stand up because they didn't have permits? just sayin'
Skyjockey43
Sun, Aug 5, 2012 : 3:20 p.m.
The number of deaths caused by legally owned firearms in this country pales in comparison to the number of deaths caused by automobiles. So why aren't you writing op eds about how we should ban cars in this country? If they kill more people than guns, shouldn't that be your first priority? Meanwhile, do you REALLY think banning guns will prevent gun deaths? We've had a ban on illegal narcotics in this country for quite some time now. Ask any U of M kid how well that ban has worked. Newsflash: Criminals don't obey laws, and police can't be everywhere at all times. If you have a right to drive a car that kills, then don't preach to me about how I shouldn't have a right to my gun that protects me and my family.
Ricebrnr
Mon, Aug 6, 2012 : 12:58 a.m.
Look a citizen from a highly regulated country who gets it. Cars kill more. http://www.ottawasun.com/2012/08/03/distractions-are-a-killer
Skyjockey43
Sun, Aug 5, 2012 : 6:09 p.m.
German, that has to be the dumbest retort to your dumbest argument claim. Do you really think the guy killed by a car gives a rip that the object of his demise was engaged in it's "designed purpose"? He's just as dead as the guy killed by a gun. Regardless, if someone breaks into my home intending to do me or my family bodily harm, I want something designed to kill/injure. So your designed purpose argument is about as moot as moot can be. Thanks for playing though. We have some lovely parting gifts for you to enjoy!
Paul Taylor
Sun, Aug 5, 2012 : 4:52 p.m.
Start by reading back to where you posit an argument which implies I made a call for more gun laws. If you can't find that, then I cannot help you.
tdw
Sun, Aug 5, 2012 : 4:40 p.m.
Paul...no edit button sorry.Exactly what words have been put in your mouth ? Again I bet there will be no answer
Paul Taylor
Sun, Aug 5, 2012 : 4:29 p.m.
And, since you seem fond of linking to definitions, here is one for "rational" http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/rational
Paul Taylor
Sun, Aug 5, 2012 : 4:26 p.m.
I don't see any reason to opine on gun crime, because you and your fellow reactionaries here seem more than content to put words in my mouth on the subject. Fantastic mind readers, you folks.
Paul Taylor
Sun, Aug 5, 2012 : 4:24 p.m.
No, I do not have a gun crime.
Ricebrnr
Sun, Aug 5, 2012 : 4:24 p.m.
Ugh again with this argument. Which implement is more evil? You would think that measure would be by body count. If that was the case cars still win hands down.
tdw
Sun, Aug 5, 2012 : 4:20 p.m.
German...Actually guns are designed to fire a projectile ( s ) Paul...In typical liberal fashion anyone who does not agree with them is not rational.Actually you have not made a comment about what you think should be done about gun crime...do you actually have one by chance ?
Paul Taylor
Sun, Aug 5, 2012 : 3:46 p.m.
TheGerman, don't waste your energy... You can't have a rational discussion about guns with this crowd!
TheGerman
Sun, Aug 5, 2012 : 3:43 p.m.
This has to be the dumbest argument. Please explain the difference in the designed purpose between automobiles and guns. As far as I know, automobiles were designed for transportation, yet if misused (or in an accident) CAN kill people Guns were designed to kill/injure, yet if misused they kill/injure.
Paul Taylor
Sun, Aug 5, 2012 : 3:41 p.m.
Driving a car is a privilege, not a right.
hail2thevict0r
Sun, Aug 5, 2012 : 2:31 p.m.
I'm a little confused as to what point the author of this article is trying to make. I'd argue that no matter what policy you put in place, you're never going to stop some lunatic from following through on an unthinkable plan. If it's not guns, it will be something else. Just last week in China some guy went on a stabbing spree and killed 9 people with a knife before police caught him. Guns don't necessarily make you safe but I sure feel more protected in my house knowing that it's there. I don't carry it around - so to some degree I'm just as unprotected out in the open as everyone else. But there's one thing I know for sure - the police respond to crimes...they rarely prevent them. Even if someone comes into my house unarmed, I want the ability to make them think twice about their decision. And it's also not only about protection. Shooting guns is fun. It's a hobby of mine and I like to do it. So as long as I'm not harming you with my hobby why should anyone be able to say what I can and cannot do?
Ricebrnr
Sun, Aug 5, 2012 : 3:33 p.m.
Regarding the stabbng spree for comparison. In America several including on just this past week were halted by samaritans legally carrying a firearm.
hail2thevict0r
Sun, Aug 5, 2012 : 2:34 p.m.
And so we're clear, I don't think everyone should be able to carry a gun. A lot of people are already banned from owning firearms. Any felon, anyone that's ever been ruled mentally unfit and many other situations cause people from being able to own a firearm legally. Even though this kid in Colorado bought his guns legally - he technically lied on all forms saying that he's never been ruled mentally unstable. Which means, despite what the media says, that he was illegally purchasing a firearm. I'd like to look more into changing laws like that to prevent people like him from owning guns than blanketing every gun owner as someone who's been brainwashed by the NRA.
Davidian
Sun, Aug 5, 2012 : 1:55 p.m.
I have a couple points to make. First: Genocide was carried out in Rwanda with Machetes. Tim McVeigh cleaned our clocks with a bomb made of manure and diesel fuel. In Switzerland, every able bodied man is required to own a fully-automatic machine gun. Their crime rate is miniscule. I think this means that guns are not the common denominator. Crazy people are the common denominator. It's not just mass murderers. If this life has taught me anything, the world is full of two-legged predators. Second: Anti-gunners always frame their arguments for a society that is running on all cylinders. But... What would happen if the power went out for 30 days? What would happen if we sustained a nuclear, radiological, chemical, or biological attack? What if they economy completely collapsed? Do they really think people would hold hands and sing songs when the food and water runs out? These scenarios may never happen but are entirely possible. In the mean time, I will continue to own firearms for fun, as an investment, and for protection in today's society or for tomorrow's. I will never, ever allow anyone to take my guns from me.
Davidian
Sun, Aug 5, 2012 : 6:05 p.m.
Paul, Population of Switzerland is similar to Michigan's. I wouldn't call that tiny becuase we have plenty of fools that commit violence every year.
Ricebrnr
Sun, Aug 5, 2012 : 4:33 p.m.
Your point? So is Chicago, NYC and DC
Paul Taylor
Sun, Aug 5, 2012 : 3:57 p.m.
Switzerland is also a tiny, tiny place.
Ricebrnr
Sun, Aug 5, 2012 : 1:53 p.m.
Here is another letter to the editor with the other side of the story. http://theoaklandpress.com/articles/2012/08/04/opinion/doc501d2c4d73463659164601.txt?viewmode=fullstory
tdw
Sun, Aug 5, 2012 : 1:29 p.m.
Paul...here's some definitions http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ignorant not insulting.
xmo
Sun, Aug 5, 2012 : 1:24 p.m.
Guns Protect you from the Government not other people!
Ricebrnr
Sun, Aug 5, 2012 : 5:40 p.m.
Surely you dont need examples from me of those in any government that do other than what they advocate for others? I dont doubt some have aspiration to helping their fellow man but neither should you doubt many are in it to get as much for themselves as possible. Just look to Chicago and Detroit if you need names
Paul Taylor
Sun, Aug 5, 2012 : 5:11 p.m.
Care to support your statement that government is people who are more equal than others?
Ricebrnr
Sun, Aug 5, 2012 : 1:37 p.m.
Government is made of people that are more equal than others
Paul Taylor
Sun, Aug 5, 2012 : 1:33 p.m.
Government is people!
outdoor6709
Sun, Aug 5, 2012 : 1:09 p.m.
CBS News analysis of Fast & Furious. You decide. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31727_162-57461204-10391695/a-primer-on-the-fast-and-furious-scandal/
outdoor6709
Sun, Aug 5, 2012 : 12:38 p.m.
So are you also upset that the Obama administration sold guns to the Mexician drug cartels under operation fast & furious? About 2,000 high powered guns, including fifty .50 caliber sniper rifles were sold. Some of those purchases were in direct violation of US gun laws. Dealers were forced, under threat of loss of there liscense, to make sales that they knew were illeagal. O do you believe as my father- in-law, fast & furious was just a bad policy?
Paul Taylor
Sun, Aug 5, 2012 : 4:22 p.m.
You confuse lucidity with agreement.
Ricebrnr
Sun, Aug 5, 2012 : 1:26 p.m.
Allow me to assist. Take a nap - literal in the hopes of a more lucid argument Wake up - metaphorical in the hopes of a more informed argument
outdoor6709
Sun, Aug 5, 2012 : 1:19 p.m.
Mr Taylor is correct. The ATF or any US government agency did not sell any guns. They did however encourage gun dealers to sell guns to straw man buyers. That is illeagal.
tdw
Sun, Aug 5, 2012 : 1:17 p.m.
" wake up or take a nap " sorry Pickford as much as I hate to I gotta give Paul that one ( humor wise )
Paul Taylor
Sun, Aug 5, 2012 : 1:15 p.m.
My understanding comes directly from keeping up with the news. By the way, the news does not include the hyper-partisan rants seen on biased websites, or email rumors passed around like an STD at a swingers party.
Paul Taylor
Sun, Aug 5, 2012 : 1:13 p.m.
Wake up, nap... Sheesh, Pickforddick, make up your mind.
DJBudSonic
Sun, Aug 5, 2012 : 1:01 p.m.
Paul you need to keep up with the news, this DOJ operation was outside of the law. Firearms were sold to persons who otherwise would have had their application to purchase rejected.
Pickforddick
Sun, Aug 5, 2012 : 12:57 p.m.
Those guns were sold per the direction of the Obama puppets and then they lied about it so that people like you would join their cause on banning guns....wake up.
Paul Taylor
Sun, Aug 5, 2012 : 12:51 p.m.
The administration sold not one gun in Fast and Furious. What agents HAVE lamented was that, while they were tracking the (legal) sales of said guns, there was NOTHING they could do about those sales.
Mike
Sun, Aug 5, 2012 : 12:32 p.m.
They already have background checks to purchase any gun in this country. If you have no criminal record or any know issues you can buy a gun. This is as it should be. Depriving the 99.999999% of us from owning a gun under the pretense of protecting us is a farce. Guns will thenbe obtained by those who are willing to break the law. Look at the history of countries that don't allow their citizens to own guns.
CPLtownie
Mon, Aug 6, 2012 : 2:36 a.m.
May be first time mass murderers, but the history of bizzare behaviour that was constantly excused is more than likely there.
katmando
Mon, Aug 6, 2012 : 1:47 a.m.
Most mass murderer are first time offenders.
tdw
Sun, Aug 5, 2012 : 1:37 p.m.
Brad...I'll just say that if you buy from a FFL dealer ie..stores, it is 100% factual
Brad
Sun, Aug 5, 2012 : 1:09 p.m.
"They already have background checks to purchase any gun in this country" That is not even close to being factual. Spreading disinformation isn't helpful.
jcj
Sun, Aug 5, 2012 : 12:30 p.m.
"After a gun-caused catastrophe" That's where your argument goes awry! a gun did NOT cause this catastrophe. A deranged kid did. You can argue that a mentally incompetent person should not be allowed to buy a gun. But I believe that is already covered. But who and when decides someone is mentally incompetent? ( we have many lawmakers that fit that mold) It is relatively easy AFTER the fact to say "someone should have saw the warning signs". He could have caused just as much or more destruction with gasoline.
Ricebrnr
Mon, Aug 6, 2012 : 2:19 p.m.
katmando, perhaps you should Google examples of how people with gasoline killed many times this number. Try "Happy Land" & "Station" to start. 87 and 100 people dead respectively. Also in Aurora, this whackjob made his own bombs that took Techs DAYS to disarm. What if he had used those or if they sucessfully had gone off?
jcj
Mon, Aug 6, 2012 : 11:21 a.m.
This much destruction COULD have easily been done without a gun!
katmando
Mon, Aug 6, 2012 : 1:49 a.m.
Couldn't have done it without one.
Hot Sam
Sun, Aug 5, 2012 : 5:11 p.m.
"""But who and when decides someone is mentally incompetent?""" There is evidence that the psychiatrist had a few good hints...unfortunately, they are not subject to the same levels of disclosure as the folks who sell firearms...
Ricebrnr
Sun, Aug 5, 2012 : 12:24 p.m.
"Enforcing existing laws would require hiring the personnel, which runs directly counter to the "small government" desire of hard-right conservatives and libertarians." So you concede that current laws are futile, that criminals are breaking them at will and that any laws old or new only target law abiding citizens. Thank you
Paul Taylor
Sun, Aug 5, 2012 : 7:04 p.m.
We do not agree, unless the groups you identify are agitating for cutting finds to enforce existing laws, which would then equate them with extreme right partisans, who would have no law enforcement measure properly funded.
Ricebrnr
Sun, Aug 5, 2012 : 4:38 p.m.
Ah ha we agree, gun grabbers and criminals should get what's coming to them! Salad!
Paul Taylor
Sun, Aug 5, 2012 : 4:18 p.m.
Perhaps they should take their guns and shoot the people who insist on limiting the resources of law enforcement. That would be pure poetry.
Ricebrnr
Sun, Aug 5, 2012 : 1:24 p.m.
So when law enforcement can't or won't enforce the laws what are citizens to do? Perhaps we should look to Mexico for that answer? I think you will find it is not in the American spirit to roll over and wait to die let alone live under the yoke of criminals or despots.
Paul Taylor
Sun, Aug 5, 2012 : 1:21 p.m.
I do not concede that. I don't even know how you read that into my reply. What I said is that laws are being deprived of proper enforcement resources. What might be considered futile is any attempt to enforce the laws with vastly out-numbered officers, however.
Ricebrnr
Sun, Aug 5, 2012 : 11:50 a.m.
And let's nip this next argument right now. Yes less guns mean less gun crime and less gun murders. Japan, England, Australia, New York, Chicago and Washington DC show this. Deep thinkers will look more deeply into those examples and ask what about overall violent crime? Are the citizens of those places safer? More importantly is depriving them of one of the most effective means of self defense and their choice to use this tool a right other people can make for them? I submit not and people should review the Heller decision if they think so.
Pickforddick
Sun, Aug 5, 2012 : 11:42 a.m.
motorcycleminer......You are so right....these anti gun people sit behind their desk in a well secured building, get into their vehicles in a well secured parking lot, drive home to a well secured neighborhood and then have the audacity to try and take away our constitutional rights. I agree, let them walk around one of our fine cities, the bad hoods at night, and let's see if they have an attitude adjustment.
Paul Taylor
Sun, Aug 5, 2012 : 4:49 p.m.
Actually, the domestication of animals relies on separating-out the less-aggressive and breeding between them, thus creating a more submissive line of animals. It is demonstrated by the Belyaev experiment with foxes in the former Soviet Union/current Russia.
Ricebrnr
Sun, Aug 5, 2012 : 3 p.m.
Iris You have been lucky and live in a world where you think lucky is real. Sure YOU can chose to live as you advocate. You can't stop those who don't accept your vision. Or if they chose to view your stance as weakness or an invitation to take from you what they want. And a that point hopefully your wits and conscience will be enough. What will you do if it is not?
tdw
Sun, Aug 5, 2012 : 2:59 p.m.
Irislover...and how exactly do you think animals were domesticaed ( sorry about the spelling ) ? they killed the mommas with tools so they could get the young.My only point is there are no large game animals that can be killed by hand,therefore your " fair " comment has no merit
Irislover
Sun, Aug 5, 2012 : 2:09 p.m.
TDW--Humans have flourished in a variety of environments and have developed a variety of "tools" to adapt to what these environments require. Not all of these tools are weapons. Our current society developed the "tool" of domesticating animals. I've never needed a weapon to protect myself from the average modern day farm animal--just some common sense with the ones that are bigger than me. As for how the land was "gotten"-- there are those who conquer the land and those who share the land. It's a difference of philosophy and the application of "tools" based on personal values. You might shoot a predator whereas I might keep some good guard dogs around. It's your notion that humans are fragile that gives rise to the idea that people must arm themselves with destructive external weapons instead of relying on the built-in weapons we all have--the ability to think and reason. It is entirely possible to live in accordance with non-violent values if that is our choice.
Paul Taylor
Sun, Aug 5, 2012 : 1:04 p.m.
I don't at all think that people in bad areas should not be able to defend themselves. Never said it. Never will. However, I will ask, if people can't afford to get out of the bad areas, how in the world are they going to be able to afford guns and ammunition? Would you rather they spent money on metal than on food? This is why we need police (also, I never said 'all you need to do is call the police'). Also, I do know why Americans have the right to bear arms. It is a right, which is why, at no point, have I argued for disarming citizens. We have the right to keep and bear arms for those times when a well-regulated militia is needed. Strict constructionists whoa re honest would tell you that this means muzzle-loaders, but rational people will tell you it does not. Justice Scalia would say, and has said, that shoulder-mounted grenade launchers could be considered legal under the 2nd amendment, as they fall under the category of arms one is able to 'bear.'
tdw
Sun, Aug 5, 2012 : 12:49 p.m.
Paul...." thank you for answering my question " how about you answering my and Pickforddick's question about insulting comments ? didn't think so
Pickforddick
Sun, Aug 5, 2012 : 12:42 p.m.
You are confused Mr Taylor about why the American citizen has the right to bear arms, you are also confused in thinking that people who live in bad neighbor hoods do not have the right to defend themselves and you are also confused with thinking all you need to do is call the police.
SonnyDog09
Sun, Aug 5, 2012 : 12:41 p.m.
"Why would anyone want to walk around a poorly-policed area?" Nobody *wants* to. Some people *have* to. Welcome to the real world.
Paul Taylor
Sun, Aug 5, 2012 : 12:37 p.m.
Thank you for answering my question.
Paul Taylor
Sun, Aug 5, 2012 : 12:31 p.m.
Since you are obviously so much more level-headed and educated than I, could you perhaps elaborate on what I am confused about? Or are you content to simply call people confused, and insinuate their ignorance, then sit back in your chair and bask in the glow of your monitor? As if I needed to ask.
tdw
Sun, Aug 5, 2012 : 12:29 p.m.
Irislover....Trying to hunt with bare hands would not be a fair fight.Humans are pretty fragile. The only reasons humans have survived is our ability to make tools ( spears , stone arrowheads etc ) to kill game so that part of your comment has no merit.Even if you are a vegetarian how do you think the land was gotten ? by shooing the critters away ?
Paul Taylor
Sun, Aug 5, 2012 : 12:25 p.m.
Dick, you know me and others oh, so well. I sure as heck don't live in a good part of town, I'll tell you that! And, if I lived in a bad part of Detroit, I wouldn't walk around after dark anyhow. I would want more police on the streets. Of course, that requires hiring police officers, which is a no-no for the libertarian crowd.
Pickforddick
Sun, Aug 5, 2012 : 12:21 p.m.
Paul Taylor.............people walk around poorly policed areas because they can't afford to live in your part of town.....you need to get out more often and experience what the real world is all about.
Pickforddick
Sun, Aug 5, 2012 : 12:10 p.m.
Irislover......you are in a fantasy world it seems.....good luck with that.
Irislover
Sun, Aug 5, 2012 : 12:03 p.m.
Do you walk around the "bad hoods" at night? And if so, why on earth are you doing that unless you live there and that's your scene? I think it's more likely that someone with this attitude sits behind locked doors in a suburban house in a fantasy world where the "good guys" are safe because they have a firearm. By the way, plenty of people carrying guns in the "bad hoods" still get shot, as do lots of little kids and innocent people everywhere. In my fantasy world all the guns, and bombs, and other instruments of destruction go POOF and disappear. And if you want to kill animals, do it with your bare hands so it's at least a fair contest.
Paul Taylor
Sun, Aug 5, 2012 : 11:57 a.m.
Why would anyone want to walk around a poorly-policed area?
Ricebrnr
Sun, Aug 5, 2012 : 11:36 a.m.
Lost all credibility for any point you are trying to make with 'gun caused catastrophe'. Tell you what lets put a live feed 24/7 on my AR 15 or any gun. Then lets wait for it to cause a catastrophe. In the meantime 13 people were killed in a pick up truck that same day. Where is your opinion piece on that? Or on the rash of news stories since Aurora of 50-70 yer old men and women saving themselves from armed assailants? In the history of mankind there has never been an example of powerless people being made safe by denying them power.
motorcycleminer
Sun, Aug 5, 2012 : 11:21 a.m.
I respectfully suggest beverly and the " deep thinkers " and all the rest of the antigun crowd take a walk in the underbelly of Detroit , Flint , Pontiac or anyother major city I'd say about 9 pm. where the gangs and criminals ignore all laws, gun included and then suggest to me that I don't have the right or need to protect myself my property and my family....step outside this happy little bubble you live in and get a wiff of the real world...
1bit
Sun, Aug 5, 2012 : 11:11 p.m.
tdw: Criminals look for easy targets generally. Yes, I think they would rather leave you alone for an easier mark IF they know you have a gun. However, if everyone had a gun (and particularly if you are on their turf) then they will assume you have a gun and just kill you or severely injure you. Guns, like locks on doors, provide an illusion of safety. There's an old saying that you can't stop a brick thrown at a plate glass window. Determined criminals or crazy people will do things we don't want them to do, whether we are armed or not.
tdw
Sun, Aug 5, 2012 : 12:13 p.m.
1bit...let me try to explain.Regardless of what they say thugs are cowards and they don't believe in a fair fight the first thing they do if they face a armed person is scatter like cockroaches.On the news the other day was a video of 5 thugs ( one had a gun ) trying to rob a party store.When the woman ( in her 60's ) pulled her own gun they were literally jamed at door trying to get away
1bit
Sun, Aug 5, 2012 : 12:03 p.m.
Pick: you didn't read my first comment. Or you didn't understand it.
Pickforddick
Sun, Aug 5, 2012 : noon
1bit......try telling that to the victims in the Colorado shooting.
Pickforddick
Sun, Aug 5, 2012 : 11:59 a.m.
What is so disrespectful about ..motorcycleminer's comment Paul Taylor???
1bit
Sun, Aug 5, 2012 : 11:57 a.m.
tdw: Obviously we can't have a police state and I haven't made that argument. But a weapon doesn't necessarily make you more secure and it doesn't necessarily make anyone else around you more safe.
Paul Taylor
Sun, Aug 5, 2012 : 11:53 a.m.
Any time an online commenter starts their rant with "I respectfully..." you can bet that they intend no respect at all. Your closing sentence showed as much.
1bit
Sun, Aug 5, 2012 : 11:53 a.m.
Pick: You are missing my point. It is not that you shouldn't be able to defend your property or family, it's more common sense. If you put yourself in a dangerous situation then you should expect consequences. In the example used above, see how far your gun will help you against a gang in Detroit at night on their turf. Armed individuals are not an antidote for lack of police or law enforcement.
tdw
Sun, Aug 5, 2012 : 11:50 a.m.
1bit....So are you saying if there were more police they could be everywhere at all times ? or that they could give everyone a personal escort everywhere they go ? or that I should rely on the police to exercise my right of free travel ? please explain how more police would help other than being turned into a police state
Pickforddick
Sun, Aug 5, 2012 : 11:44 a.m.
1bit....a well armed legal citizen can be there much faster than police, especially in places like Detroit or a movie theater in Colorado.
1bit
Sun, Aug 5, 2012 : 11:38 a.m.
The argument you are making is for more police.
1bit
Sun, Aug 5, 2012 : 11:21 a.m.
"Maybe people should start deep-thinking about what it really means if almost everyone keeps a gun in every pocket." I do think about this and although I don't want the Wild West out there, I can't help but think that if a crazy person is planning something that they may think twice if they knew their intended victims may be armed. The problem is, even in that scenario, that a crazy person will still do something crazy. So I'm all for keeping weapons out of the hands of crazy people. How do we do it without restricting the rights of the majority who are not crazy?
Billy
Sun, Aug 5, 2012 : 11:12 a.m.
Our murder rate for NON-FIREARM murders is higher in the US....than the TOTAL murder rate (guns included) in Canada. There are enough guns in this country to arm 4 out of 5 people...statistically. Yet we had less than 10k gun murders per year the past several years. We're not a gun happy nation....we're a murder happy nation. But blaming an inanimate tool is a lot easier than accepting responsibility...
Bcar
Mon, Aug 6, 2012 : 11:27 a.m.
How DARE you Billy for bringing logic and reason into this, LOL! good post!
tdw
Sun, Aug 5, 2012 : 11:21 a.m.
Billy...well said.I predict that there will be many people chiming in that know 0 about guns,gun owners or shooting ( target , hunting etc.)
tdw
Sun, Aug 5, 2012 : 11:10 a.m.
I really don't even know what point you are trying to make.But people who claim that people like myself ( and the NRA ) think that everyone should be able to own or carry a gun is lie pure and simple.How's this for a idea how about enforcing the 100's of gun laws on the books now ? Also ( too early for me to do even simple math ) lets say there are 200 million guns in the US ( low figure ) and there are 80 thousand gun related murders in the U.S ( high figure ) and lets say a gun is used only one time for each murder what percentage is that ? Cars kill more people than guns so what about them ? And before any libbie's say guns are only made for killing that is simply ignorant ( why do I have a feeling I'm gonna be doing a lot typing today ? )
Paul Taylor
Sun, Aug 5, 2012 : 1:40 p.m.
I certainly agree that this essay is poorly-written, and not really something a professional outlet should let past the copywriter.
Paul Taylor
Sun, Aug 5, 2012 : 1:10 p.m.
To answer your request in a lower thread, TDW, it is disrespectful to call people you do not know 'ignorant.' Also, your term, "libbies" is obviously meant as a derogatory term, and does not help foster a rational discussion.
Paul Taylor
Sun, Aug 5, 2012 : 12:46 p.m.
You might note, upon reading my comments, that I never called for more laws. I simply stated the reality that existing laws (in this case, gun control laws) are passed and then resources to properly enforce them are limited to such a degree that the laws themselves are effectively negated.
dconkey
Sun, Aug 5, 2012 : 12:46 p.m.
Spot on TDW, I was thinking that very thing during the Art Fairs, what would happen if some nut job rammed a car/van/truck through the flimsy barriers and ran over and killed scores of people on the streets. Would there be calls to ban or outlaw cars? I highly doubt it. As a side note, I have often wondered why at certain key areas at the Art Fairs portable cement barriers are not put in place to prevent just such a situation.
tdw
Sun, Aug 5, 2012 : 12:33 p.m.
Paul...then how would more laws do anything ?
Ricebrnr
Sun, Aug 5, 2012 : 12:20 p.m.
Incorrect all trainers and gunnies say shoot to stop the threat and once the threat. This goes for the police and their trainers also. No one is saying the assailant may not die but that is certainly not the goal and there is a very important distinction.
Paul Taylor
Sun, Aug 5, 2012 : 12:20 p.m.
Enforcing existing laws would require hiring the personnel, which runs directly counter to the "small government" desire of hard-right conservatives and libertarians.
tdw
Sun, Aug 5, 2012 : 11:58 a.m.
Paul...targets paper , pop cans , clay pigeons don't die.What name calling ? " libbies " ?
Paul Taylor
Sun, Aug 5, 2012 : 11:50 a.m.
Well, they aren't made for gardening, and people don't use 'em as flag poles. Their proponents don't advise people to "shoot to injure." The phrase most often used is "shoot to kill." Hunters don't shoot to injure their prey, do they? I always thought they needed their prey dead, otherwise it might resist being strapped to the car roof. You could have made your point just as effectively without the name-calling, by the way. No one insulted you, after all.
tdw
Sun, Aug 5, 2012 : 11:31 a.m.
Here's a link about a DOJ survey http://protectillinois.org/facts