Gun Control III

This thread is a continuation of our ongoing discussions regarding gun violence, gun control pro and con, and gun use and abuse incidents that seem all too common in our society today.

The prior two threads were:
Gun Control

Gun Control Again

Please start fresh and do not carry any old feuds or arguments over from prior gun control topics. ~Admin Phat
***************************************************************
Speaking personally, I observe that we live in a violent society, one that is often on edge. Witness road rage incidents, mentally disturbed mass shooters, and the growing number of victims. Although a global problem, the NRA and the gun lobby make the United States a unique case. Were I a hunter, perhaps I would feel differently about owning guns. I am not a pacifist, but I DO think that gun violence is getting out of hand in America.

Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

Edited by Phat, : added

This in todays news from NPR: Senators Introduce Bipartisan Deal To Tighten Reporting For Gun Purchases

The bill is supported by a total of four Democrats and four Republicans.

quote:

---

The bill is meant to "ensure federal and state authorities comply with existing law and accurately report relevant criminal history records" to databases used in gun-purchase background checks. It "penalizes federal agencies who fail to properly report relevant records and incentivizes states to improve their overall reporting" while providing more funding to track domestic violence.

---

I'm all for common sense gun control legislation. Our longtime and now inactive member Crashfrog once commented:

Frog writes: In the US, though, even if you banned guns tomorrow there'd still be 80 guns per every 100 people, or more than 2.5 million firearms. If you want to reduce the number of guns, you're talking about a program to confiscate guns, primarily from people who have not ever used them to any harmful purpose. Even in a country with no Second Amendment, we'd still have the Fourth Amendment, so how could such a program be legal?

I'm wondering what would happen with these existing guns....would the law of supply and demand make them more expensive?

As an example, a murder in Chicago may never get reported by the news media. A similar murder in Lawrence, Kansas likely would make the main pages and local TV.

My question is whether shootings become so common that the media largely ignores them. It already happens on a global basis. a hundred people can die in another country and most of us won't hear about it.

In a way, it is all a form of domestic terrorism---perpetrated by mental illness---and made tragically worse through the availability of guns and automatic weapons.

Tangle has brought up the case before that foreign ideological terrorism is caused largely by religion, but if one compares the numbers of these foreign terror attacks with the numbers(of casualties) of our US domestic school shootings, we have more of a problem right here at home. We have met the enemy and it is us.

These incidents are motivated by a mental aberration. Time will tell the dark psychology behind the shooter in Florida, but this one was captured alive to study.

The students even predicted that *if* a shooting happened at their school, Mr. Cruz(the suspect) would be the one to do it.
Likely in the Islamic cultures, the ones crazy enough to unleash terror attacks have a level of mental instability and are known within the communities as well. The culture of Islam does not talk about such people because the authorities vilify all of Islam rather than the few individuals crazy enough to actually carry out a terror attack.

As further proof of my theory linking domestic terror with foreign terror, many of the US suspects aspire to join the military, as this one did. Ideology is not limited to religion, and religion is not the villain. Mental illness and an inability to fit into society are the common denominators, and the availability of guns provides the means and the opportunity.

Edited by Phat, : sub title

What if the administrator does not want to have "ability to engage in shootout to protect lives" in their job description? Seems well above my pay grade, anyway.

So making the gun free zone would do nothing but legally hamper police from responding. How would such a zone be enforced?

Tangle writes: And Christians with guns is even weirder. If that's possible. WWJD?

Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Guns

quote:

---

From the wit and wisdom of New Testament scholar, David Lincicum:
Blessed are the gunmakers, for they shall be called children of God.
Glory to God in the highest, and on earth, guns among those on whom his favor rests...
Guns I leave you; my guns I give to you. I do not give to you as the world gives. Do not let your hearts be troubled, and do not let them be afraid.
...but glory and honor and guns for everyone who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek.
To set the mind on the flesh is death, but to set the mind on the Spirit is life and guns...
For the kingdom of God is not food and drink but righteousness and guns and joy in the Holy Spirit.
As shoes for your feet put on whatever will make you ready to proclaim the gospel of guns.
Let them turn away from evil and do good; let them seek guns and pursue them.

---

I have a friend who is in law enforcement. This was his response to the idea of arming teachers:

quote:

---

I am coming from a practical law enforcement perspective. Tactical training, communication devices and strategic plan working in conjunction with law enforcement (the experts) would be the thought through approach to this than the idea of it "sounding cool" having untrained teachers trying to the jobs of police who are actually equipped and trained to handle domestic terrorists.

I would not entrust my kids to untrained armed teachers trying to "protect" them and engage a domestic terrorist without body armor and a pistol. Who's paying for the firearms? What if the domestic terrorist has grenades or improvised explosives? How are untrained armed teachers prepared to handle that along with going against high powered weapons? What about the liability issues if they accidentally hit a student? I'm thinking bigger than the surface. When police respond, who is communicating with them so the teachers are not mistaken for the domestic terrorists?

Any plan worth implementing must be thought through.

---

What if the domestic terrorist has grenades or improvised explosives? How are untrained armed teachers prepared to handle that along with going against high powered weapons?

It also seems to me that arming teachers would merely become a challenge for a disturbed mind...sorta like "next level" opponents in an RPG. I predict that the violence in schools would only escalate. Having a "them vs us" mentality would encourage more shootings, in my opinion. Instead of death by cop, we would have death by teacher...unless the disturbed individual was an ROTC marksman and happened to win the confrontation.

I'm so sorry to hear this personal anecdote from you. I applaud your courage at bringing it up, however. Because whenever guns kill or hurt people, the debate becomes personal. When tragedy after tragedy unfolds, there are victims. And families of victims. And for each and every family member affected by these events, the debate becomes very personal. Yes, we could theoretically (though I doubt actually) eliminate guns and we would still have knives. And hammers. And box cutters. And articles on how to make fertilizer bombs.

Killing oneself or others would still be possible.

Perhaps, however, it wouldn't happen so fast nor so often.

And this is the heart of the pro-gun control issue.

And you brought up one key issue. Indifference to concerns.

The pro-gun control side wants the other side to consider being empathetic. Assuming that we all are one human family, it is our collective responsibility to protect ourselves from potential harm.

This supersedes our freedom to own weapons that could cause harm.

Edited by Phat, : added point

Edited by Phat, : further explanation

How Often Do People Use Guns In Self-Defense?

quote:

---

The latest data show that people use guns for self-defense only rarely. According to a Harvard University analysis of figures from the National Crime Victimization Survey, people defended themselves with a gun in nearly 0.9 percent of crimes from 2007 to 2011.

"The average person ... has basically no chance in their lifetime ever to use a gun in self-defense," he tells Here & Now's Robin Young. "But ... every day, they have a chance to use the gun inappropriately. They have a chance, they get angry. They get scared."

---

Guns just don't add up...unless one believes the argument that an unarmed populace can be controlled by an armed oppressive government.

Even then, simply owning a gun is no guarantee that the average person knows how to use it.

The latest incident, Naked Gunman at Waffle House
again has images of the shooter emblazoned across the media, which in my mind would be all that many deranged minds would seek-notoriety!
Comments?

So you carry two handguns fully loaded? What do you expect to encounter?

Freud would have a field day with the phallic symbolism.