Widgetized Section
Go to Admin » Appearance » Widgets » and move Gabfire Widget: Social into that MastheadOverlay zone
After Tucson The Time Has Come For Common Sense Gun Laws
It seems that the shooting spree in Arizona did little to convince Americans that our country is too steeped in a culture of guns, and it is disturbing because there is a segment of the population that believes violence toward the government is justified. There has always been uproar against gun control by conservatives who cite the 2nd Amendment, but since the election of Barack Obama, it has been ramped up by the NRA and its members; including Sarah Palin.
The Second Amendment states: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” The amendment from December 15, 1791, was passed so states and the federal government had the ability to field a well-regulated militia for defense of the country because there was no standing army. Today each state has a National Guard and the country has an army so the necessity of a militia is non-existent. Furthermore, the great majority of gun owners do not belong to a militia of any kind much less a well-regulated one. The militias in America are fringe groups that are race oriented or anti-government paramilitary assemblies standing ready to fight the tyranny of the Obama Administration.
The NRA lobby is one of the biggest in the nation, and their membership of 4 million runs the gamut from sport hunters, collectors, and police, to radical militias planning assaults on the government or law enforcement officials. Although the NRA claims they support and promote gun ownership in accordance with the 2nd Amendment, they have fought to defeat any type of regulation claiming that restricting possession of any weapon is the beginning of an outright ban on gun ownership. It is reasonable to assume that economics plays a major role in the NRA’s opposition to gun control of any type. Gun manufacturers are a big business in America and their financial interest is bolstered by the Right who uses the gun culture to consolidate influence over the hearts and minds of many Americans; especially conservatives.
Gun control advocates have made headway in the past 40 years every time there is a slaughter like the shootings in Columbine and the massacre at Virginia Tech, but Americans have short attention spans and within months of a tragic shooting spree, interest in gun control wanes. Regardless the amount of carnage wreaked by semi-automatic weapons or assault-style guns, the NRA and conservatives vehemently fight any type of gun control measure citing protection of the 2nd Amendment. There is no useful purpose for assault weapons or semi-automatic guns except to kill large numbers of human beings. One must wonder that if the Arizona shooter didn’t have a clip that held 30 rounds; would the victim count have been so high? A standard clip for the handgun Jared Loughner used to kill 6 people and injure 13 holds 10 rounds.
The rise of the tea party and their belief that the Obama Administration is tyrannical and suppressing the liberties of Americans has engendered a renewed interest in citizens arming themselves in case they have to rise up to defend their freedom. Their mindset that they will have to defend their liberty comes from Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin among others at Fox News, and is based on fabrications that Obama will take their guns. During the 2008 presidential election, Palin repeated the mantra that Obama would take their guns and her lies were bolstered by nonstop rhetoric and campaigning from the NRA at gun shows and shooting ranges around the country. The gun ban rhetoric has continued unabated by the NRA, and at its convention in 2010, Palin warned, “Don’t doubt for a minute that, if they thought they could get away with it, they would ban guns and ban ammunition and gut the Second Amendment. It’s the job of all of us at the NRA and its allies to stop them in their tracks.”
Glenn Beck tells his audience that he only trusts “God, guns, and gold,” and in 2009 his program gamed a 2014 civil war scenario that involves citizen militias in the South and West taking up arms against the U.S. government. Beck interviewed NRA spokesperson Chuck Norris and during the conversation Beck said, “If this country starts to spiral out of control, Americans won’t stand for it. There will be parts of the country that will rise up…where’s that going to come from? Texas, it’s going to come from Texas.” There is an excellent document that lays out an insurrection time line of violent incidents and near misses that involve individuals bent on overthrowing the government or killing legally elected representatives. Read it here.
With violent rhetoric from Beck, Palin warning her supporters that President Obama will take their guns, and the NRA protecting 2nd Amendment rights, it is no wonder that 18 – 25% of Americans feel it is justified in using violence against the government. It also explains why many gun rights activists oppose a ban on military assault rifles and semi-automatic weapons because they feel they are preparing for civil war or a new revolution. It is obvious their interests are not in sport hunting or target shooting competitions. Semi-automatic pistols that hold 30 rounds and assault rifles are not firearms used to hunt or for target practice; they are weapons of war to kill human beings.
America has more gun-related deaths than any country in the world, and although the 2nd Amendment guarantees the right to own firearms, there must be a middle ground. The NRA and conservatives need to keep the gun control issue in the voters’ minds to maintain a semblance of control and distraction. America can have sensible gun control without an outright ban on firearms, but for that to happen, the NRA and conservatives will have to consider the welfare of the American people. It is unlikely though because the NRA and conservatives are only interested in money and control; our welfare is not in their plans.
Image: KeepSchoolsSafe.org
Related Posts :
Today as President Obama and his family toured Yellowstone National Park, gun control advocates criticized t ...
Republicans have spent the past four years fearmongering that Obama is coming for their guns, but at the ...
The slayings of twenty children and seven adults in Newton, Connecticut proves something is wrong with g ...
During her speech in front of the NRA, Sarah Palin threw a little red meat to the crowd by claiming that ...
Like many of you, I've been the recipient of angry gun nuts' talking points. Yesterday a real gun nut to ...
45 Responses to After Tucson The Time Has Come For Common Sense Gun Laws
Public Service Advertisements
Shiva (Moderator)
Jan. 12th, 2011 at 10:38 am
I also question the need for the American public to be setting on semi automatic weapons. Especially of the assault variety. Absolutely unnecessary.
When the Constitution was written a man was expected to be ready to join his local militia at a moments notice which meant that he had to have a gun. The need, and I am saying the actual need, for that ended well before World War I.
I am not against gun ownership. I am against unfettered unregulated gun ownership.
But let’s look at the militias that are mentioned. We have people running around being antigovernment which is their right. However the fact is that they do nothing. They show up at political rallies with their assault rifles strapped to their backs, showing that the most part they are big brave bad people. However they know full well if they ever undertook an action against the United States government they would last all of 30 seconds. So they go on talking big about how they need the weapons and the right to weapons, they go out in the woods and run around acting like revolutionaries and calling themselves patriots but that is as far as that goes. And fortunately some of them end up in prison
Europeans allow gun ownership however they are careful who they give them to. The United States needs to be more careful. however I hear lots of discussion about how the guy was not qualified for the Army, kicked out of college yet could buy a gun. At what point does knowing a person’s record in determining whether or not they can own a gun turn into over spying on the people? that is the quandary that is faced
Henry
Jan. 12th, 2011 at 12:03 pm
“America has more gun-related deaths than any country in the world”
WRONG! You need to actually do some research before you write an article.
First of all, an Assault Rifle is defined as a machine gun or a “select fire” firearm. Those “assault rifles” available to the public are just hunting rifles that resemble military rifles cosmetically. (ie they can only single fire.)
Second, Assault rifles are rarely used in violent crimes. ( too big, too hard to conceal)
a) Los Angeles: In 1998, of 538 documented gun incidents, only one (0.2%)
involved an “assault weapon.”
b) San Francisco: In 1998, only 2.2% of confiscated weapons were “assault
weapons.”
c) San Diego: Between 1988 and 1990, only 0.3% of confiscated weapons were
“assault weapons.”
d) Nation Wide, under 2% of criminals that commit violent
crimes used “assault weapons”
e) Since police started keeping statistics, we now know that ‘assault weapons’
are/were used in an underwhelming 0.026 of 1% of crimes in New Jersey.
The most popular weapons used for crime involve pistols that fire .22 caliber rounds. (small and concealable)
Since the Gun ban in the U.K. street robberies soared 28% in 2001. Violent crime was up 11%, murders up 4%, and rapes are up 14%. (British Home Office, reported by BBC news, July 12, 2002) This trend continues in 2004 with a 10% increase in street crime, 8% increase in muggings, and a 22% increase in robberies. Firearm use in crimes has also doubled. (The Times, August 24, 2007)
You can spout all you want about “Sensible” Gun regulation. But it won’t stop those without sense.
Shiva (Moderator)
Jan. 12th, 2011 at 4:32 pm
Well? Who has the most killings with guns?
Henry
Jan. 12th, 2011 at 6:10 pm
As of 2001 Australia had the highest gun contact victimization rate at 4.1 percent, compared to America’s 1.9 percent. England and whales came in second with 3.9 percent. (2001 Dutch Ministry of Justice)
Also, we CANNOT compare gun crime numbers between America and Britain. In America, a gun crime is recorded as a gun crime. In Britain, a crime is only recorded when there is a conviction. So basically in Britain, unsolved gun crimes in are not reported.
In 2005 there were 31,000 gun deaths in America. 55 percent of them were suicides.
Henry
Jan. 12th, 2011 at 6:20 pm
I.E. the numbers in Britain are underestimated
Henry
Jan. 12th, 2011 at 6:18 pm
Just wanted to add one more thing:
The top 10 countries for homicide do not include the U.S. (This is calculated in a “per 100,000″ method. As one would expect countries with larger population count would have a more homicides. ) Columbia’s number one at 62 homicides per 100k. Followed by Jamaica at 32 per 100k. Kyrgyzstan was tenth at 8 homicides per 100k. (United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, Centre for International Crime Prevention, Seventh United Nations Survey of Crime Trends and Operations of Criminal Justice Systems)
Shiva (Moderator)
Jan. 12th, 2011 at 6:44 pm
The US is 4th in raw murders, without doing the percentage routine.
Henry
Jan. 12th, 2011 at 6:46 pm
Well, there’s 300 million Americans. You would expect us to have more murders than a country with 30000 wouldn’t you?
Henry
Jan. 12th, 2011 at 6:49 pm
Honestly though, are you ignoring all the other statistics I’ve been posting?
Shiva (Moderator)
Jan. 12th, 2011 at 9:07 pm
No I did not ignore them. Per capita we dont look that bad. In total we are 4th.
We have almost 10,000 with guns, the next country up in third has around 20,000. SO yes we do not fair “that” badly.
Per capita is meaningless to me. The raw numbers serve much better
Henry
Jan. 12th, 2011 at 9:30 pm
But then you’re ignoring the fact that a bigger country with more people is going to have more homicides (car accidents, babies, homeless, registered voters, etc) than a smaller country. I mean, we probably have more automotive fatalities than Bulgaria, but that doesn’t necessarily mean our roads are less safe. The purpose of calculating per capita is to normalize the data.
So what I don’t understand is how raw numbers are better?
Henry
Jan. 12th, 2011 at 9:41 pm
Shiva: at least admit to me, that based on the statistics, gun regulations in Britain and Australia didn’t have the desire effects on criminal activity.
To be sure, correlation does not equal causation. I’m NOT saying the gun regulations caused the spike in crime, But rather the regulations were ineffective.
Ignia
Jan. 12th, 2011 at 2:20 pm
Gun control is the biggest part where I differ with the Democratic Party.
“The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.”
– Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story of the John Marshall Court
The right to bear arms is one of our most important rights in the US, established in the Bill of Rights. They (the guns) are meant not only as self protection, but as a deterrent.
Unfortunately, in this age of urbanization and supermarkets where the willfully ignorant have no true concept of where our food comes from; of the actuality of killing animals in mass quantity to eat meat, and doing so in as humane a way as possible and still be able to keep the meat safe for consumption. Our society is, quite frankly, not responsible enough to truly comprehend life and death consequences of a moment of carelessness. Oh, certainly, car accidents can be horrifying. Playing with matches can cause death and destruction.
But a gun?
The concept of “Death,” or more specifically “Violent Death” is as foreign a concept to many Americans as Space Flight is to 3rd world countries. They are aware that it happens, and it’s sad, and that someone who dies never comes back. But they have never seen it happen; never understood in their guts how dangerous a gun is. Never seen the result of violent death in a living creature they know and care about.
Unfortunately, there is no way to teach this without first hand or secondhand experience. Seeing it happen. Seeing the aftermath. Seeing the pain up close and personal. Not just pictures on a screen, but your neighbor, you classmate, your child or parent or relative… dead, cold… or writhing on the ground, unable to breathe, and you can do nothing at all to help them but hold their hand and pray for help to get there soon…
All we can do is try to educate, to warn. But we can’t save everybody, anymore than we can make it so nobody drinks and drives. As they say… “You can’t fix stupid.” (or poor judgment)
And thus- while we can try to take away access to machines made purely for mass murdering out of the hands of our citizenry, and keep them contained to the military, we MUST keep our population armed. It is essential that our population itself provides a deterrent for invaders, for robbers, for terrorists. If we don’t have guns legally, you can bet that the “bad guys” will have guns illegally.
If even 6 people in a crowd had been armed and proficient with even two- or three-shot weapons, they could take down a lunatic (or a drug lord) with a machine gun much faster and safer (well, not so safe for the aggressor, but at that point they pretty well deserve what they get imo) than if they simply tried to tackle him and disarm him. Not to mention the natural deterrent of, “Wait… do I really want to do this? How many other people have guns here? I don’t think I’ll be able to survive.” Or in the case of suicide missions, “Will I survive long enough for me to carry the mission out?”
Guns are essential to our Republic. I’m not averse to (a bit of) regulation- but I am averse to complete control.
Shiva (Moderator)
Jan. 12th, 2011 at 4:38 pm
I tend to disagree that the right to own a gun is one of our most important rights. I think it’s probably one of the least important. There was a time in which you would be absolutely right that gun ownership would be a deterrent against the government. The government would make very short work of you if you tried to make an uprising. Which may be fortunate or unfortunate.
As for having guns against invaders or terrorists, I doubt that whatever come true. We have supposedly the largest military in the world that would handle most invasions. Of course you could be right given the fact that not very many of them are here where they should be.
But there is no one who is trying to take your guns away. Do you remember the nuts on the Washington Park at a rally who had to walk around with their guns strapped on? The president signed the bill that allowed them to do that two weeks earlier. I just don’t know who it is that people are afraid it’s going to take their guns away from them.
I am 100% in favor of control who we sell weapons to. I think there are people who should never be in possession of a weapon at least one that’s legally obtained. Some other countries are considerably smarter than we are on who they sell weapons to
Henry
Jan. 12th, 2011 at 6:28 pm
Didn’t the Arizona shooter clear an FBI background check? There’s really no way anyone could have known. Many gun regulations are just knee jerk reactions to the actions of the very few kooks. Just like the TSA was a reaction to the terrorist attacks. Neither make us safer.
Shiva (Moderator)
Jan. 12th, 2011 at 9:11 pm
Background checks
“The FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System, established by the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993, works if the individual states submit all of the data into the system. Otherwise, people considered too dangerous to own handguns can buy them with few problems.
In the aftermath of the April 16, 2007 massacre at Virginia Tech, the deadliest shooting spree in U.S. History, it was discovered that Cho Seung-Hui had been determined to be mentally ill and a danger to himself and others. In spite of that court ruling and an order to undergo a psychological evaluation, Cho was able to purchase the handguns he used to shoot 32 people and himself from a licensed gun dealer.”
It only works as well as the data that the states feed into the system. No data on the guy, he is free to buy a weapon. So “FBI Background Check” is misleading
Henry
Jan. 12th, 2011 at 9:33 pm
My point is that Jared Lee Loughne would have been able to get a gun despite any firearms regulation. He had a clean record, no reason to prevent his firearms purchase.
Shiva (Moderator)
Feb. 14th, 2011 at 12:45 pm
Hilarious. I am a gun owner, many of my friends are, and you as expected have nothing but common talking points re liberals this liberals that.
SapientHetero
Feb. 14th, 2011 at 1:10 pm
Really? What do you own, how long have you owned it and what do you use it for?
Shiva (Moderator)
Feb. 14th, 2011 at 1:21 pm
I have owned it since 1968. A model 94 Buffalo Bill 30-30 Carbine.
A Remington 20 gauge handed down to me when I turned 12 from my dad. That was in 1962.
I no longer hunt but am still an owner and have no problems with people owning guns.
My only law would be to make sure no one gets a gun that shouldnt have one.
hence your “liberals this and that” talking points are again senseless.
english saddle
Jan. 12th, 2011 at 2:51 pm
It takes courage to come out and say what you’ve stated. I couldn’t agree more.
Henry
Jan. 12th, 2011 at 7:01 pm
We need to put aside emotional responses and look at this objectively and factually. Fact: 1) Crazy is always going to be crazy. 2) Breaking laws is part of the definition of a Criminal.
How is any legislation going to stop the actions of these types of people? It’s already illegal for felons to purchase firearms. ( rightfully so)
As Thomas Jefferson Stated,
“Laws that forbid the carrying of arms…disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed one.”
We can’t live in fear based on the actions of the few extremely rare individuals.
Rmuse
Jan. 12th, 2011 at 10:03 pm
America does have more gun-related crimes than any industrialized country in the world. Any assault rifle can be made fully automatic by any gun shop. I have fired them more than once. Regardless of contrived statistics, there is no need for the level of guns that are country allows. I reject Henry’s arguments, statistics and reasoning. It is no different that Palin or Beck.
Rmuse
Jan. 12th, 2011 at 10:05 pm
Correction: There is no need for the level of gun ownership that our country allows.
Henry
Jan. 12th, 2011 at 11:16 pm
Statistics are Statistics. They are objective and hard data. Saying you flat out reject them is just claiming ignorance. How is this better than Beck or Palin? Isn’t that hypocritical? (BTW I’m moderate and no I don’t watch fox news, I prefer the BBC)
Sweden has very lax gun regulations yet some of the lowest crime. How do you explain that? (don’t worry I touch on it below)
THE POINT IS: You’re looking for answers in the wrong place. All those statistics I posted earlier? You know what they show? They show that Firearm regulations have no effect. You can see this at a state to state level too. The number of homicides involving firearms from state to state vary independently from gun regulations. Guns aren’t causing the homicides. They aren’t the problem. It’s bigger than that; cultural, historical, economical factors are at play here.
AND FINALLY: I don’t see how you could believe that tacking on another piece of legislation will solve anything. It didn’t work for Australia or Britain, what exactly makes you think it’ll work for us? Honestly I want to hear your reasoning.
oh and just a sidebar in case some people were wondering: No gun shop will do an automatic conversion, it’s illegal. With a federal firearms dealer license you can buy automatic assault rifles that were made only before 1986. No new fully automatic rifles have been made for purchase since then. Did you read what I wrote about “assault” rifles earlier? Or how .22 pistols are involved in much more crimes?
TL;DR: huh?!
Reynardine
Feb. 14th, 2011 at 8:28 am
Oh, I know. Guns don’t kill people; people do. But they seldom do it with macaroni.
Ignia
Feb. 14th, 2011 at 1:38 pm
“Statistics are Statistics.”
Honestly, I prefer Mark Twain’s response. “There’s Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics.”
But, point taken!
Shiva (Moderator)
Feb. 14th, 2011 at 6:58 am
You make many ridiculous assumptions.
You also cant win an argument saying that the modification of a semi auto weapon to automatic weapon is illegal. The whole point is that can be and is done
Sarah Jones
Feb. 14th, 2011 at 10:54 am
“I’m sure that if Obama thought he could get away with it he’d seize our guns in a heartbeat.” Yes, this isn’t biased or illogical, seeing as Obama extended your gun rights. Yes, that is a fact. Maybe you should try reading some of those liberal facts you find so offensive or risk making a larger fool of yourself.
Hint: national parks. Google it.
Sarah Jones
Feb. 14th, 2011 at 11:52 am
Yes, the Murdoch propaganda paper, of course. Good suggestion for where to get “facts”. You’re hysterical. Nice dodge re the gun issue.
Sarah Jones
Feb. 14th, 2011 at 12:49 pm
Says the person who is still dodging the facts re the gun issue. You just get more silly with each comment. Ad hominem? What? Are you saying you are Rupert Murdoch now? You’re very confused. Good luck in your search for “intellectuals”. I suggest you try Fox Nation, where all of the deep thinkers of our day reside.
Reynardine
Feb. 14th, 2011 at 11:18 am
Anthropogenic global warming is a fact. Your constant hot air alone is melting ice caps. So quit it, Sap, before a bunch of angry Floridians catch up with you and shackle you to the Flagler Beach Pier for the rising sea level to get.
Tomg
Feb. 14th, 2011 at 12:42 pm
Re: Gun rights
The Second Amendment was written by people who had just finished overthrowing the government, with guns, who wanted us to always have the same option. Period. It’s the “Reboot” button for the Constitution and it is necessary in order to help preserve our freedoms.
In that light, since the government’s military now has such advanced weaponry, individuals’ weapons rights need to be significantly expanded, at least to the point where we can easily imagine a majority of the citizenry being able to defeat the military in a modern revolutionary war.
Very respectfully,
Tomg
SapientHetero
Feb. 14th, 2011 at 1:09 pm
Hi, Tom. It’s probably worth pointing out that our “most advanced military in the world” has never done very well against guerrilla tactics. I doubt anyone would be foolish enough to engage in head-to-head combat with our military.
SapientHetero
Feb. 14th, 2011 at 1:12 pm
I see the liberal moderator is deleting my posts, ala Orwell’s 1984. Now I know why most of the comments posted here are nonsense; they’ve been run through a political correctness filter.
Shiva (Moderator)
Feb. 14th, 2011 at 1:19 pm
Only becuase you were silly enough to attack one of the authors. had it not been for that your posts would still be here.
Shiva (Moderator)
Feb. 14th, 2011 at 1:22 pm
Also, do not think you are important enough to be considered as part of Orwell’s 1984. Considering that all you have is common talking points that are heard every day I don’t think that a loss of your posts is really going to be noticed by that many people
FloridaResident
Feb. 14th, 2011 at 3:12 pm
Filtering for political correctness is destructive. I downloaded an ebook for my son and it was modified (censored). I decided that I better start collecting all the old classics before they are all destroyed.
That said, we don’t need more gun control laws. We just need to enforce the laws we already have.
Shiva (Moderator)
Feb. 14th, 2011 at 3:45 pm
He was not censored for political correctness. He was censored for personal attacks. Big difference
SapientHetero
Feb. 14th, 2011 at 4:23 pm
I suppose that “You’re hysterical”, “You just get more silly with each comment”, “You’re very confused” and “risk making a larger fool of yourself”, all of which are still present, are not personal attacks? In any event, most of my posts were not directed toward any individual; they were indictments of liberal political doctrine in general.
If you weren’t bent on censoring my posts, you could have edited out anything you considered to be a personal attack and left the very substantial arguments I presented intact. But you didn’t. This, plus the fact that you failed to remove the obvious personal attacks noted above make it clear that your goal was censorship.
Shiva (Moderator)
Feb. 14th, 2011 at 4:28 pm
Your attack that cost you your posts was directed directly at the author, Sarah. Until that point none of your posts had been touched.
An axiom you might want to live by when posting here is this, stolen froma bravce wise person.
1. Have a take.
2. Dont suck.
If you cannot display intelligence and not attack the authors you wont post here. If you can present your arguments like a grown up, even though they may be contrary to others opinions, your opinions are not only welcome but will stay.
SapientHetero
Mar. 8th, 2011 at 12:21 pm
Australian Gun Law Update
Here’s a thought to warm some of your hearts….
From: Ed Chenel, A police officer in Australia
Hi Yanks, I thought you all would like to see the real
figures from Down Under.
It has now been 12 months 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 6.2 percent, Australia-wide, assaults are up 9.6 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, while the resident is at home.
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 on the American evening news or hear your governor or members of the State Assembly disseminating this information.
The Australian experience speaks for itself. Guns in the
hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws affect only the law-abiding citizens.
Gunning Leftist
Mar. 13th, 2011 at 8:38 am
I’m a leftist and I’ll give up my guns when society as a whole, with everyone being included, is ready to give up their guns, violence, hatred, and crime 100%. Until then, I’ll keep my guns. I won’t shoot unless its in defense of property, life, or country, but I’ll be ready for such a fight. Here are my common sense gun laws:
Don’t sell to terrorists
Don’t sell to authoritarians
Don’t sell to hate groups
Don’t sell to the insane
Don’t sell to the violent felons
Grenade launchers, artillery peices, RPG’s, rockets, Heavy Macine Guns, and Medium Machine Guns to be illegal. Everything else is fair game.
I used to be strongly for gun control until I did the research. Then, I came to realize that an armed and honest citizenry is the best defense against crime short of ending motivation for crime.
Shiva (Moderator)
Mar. 13th, 2011 at 10:40 am
Your research must have also told you criminals are a small part of murders by weapons and that at least 75% of said murdsers are committed by family members, friends or other acquaintances? Your common sense laws are exactly what gun control is or should be aimed at,
SapientHetero
Mar. 16th, 2011 at 1:41 am
GL, I suspect you came to realize that everyone is never going to give up their guns (knives, clubs, etc), violence, hatred and crime 100%. Data from countries with strict gun control laws support your conviction that an armed and honest citizenry is the best defense. For instance (from NRA-ILA website):
In Japan, rifles and handguns are prohibited; shotguns are very strictly regulated. Japan`s Olympic shooters have had to practice out of the country because of their country`s gun laws. Yet, crime has been rising for about the last 15 years and the number of shooting crimes more than doubled between 1997-1998. Organized crime is on the rise and 12 people were killed and 5,500 injured in a nerve gas attack in a Japanese subway system in 1995. (Kristof, “Family and Peer Pressure Help Keep Crime Levels down in Japan,” New York Times, 5/14/95.) Mostly without firearms, Japan`s suicide rate is at a record high, about 90 per day. (Stephanie Strom, “In Japan, Mired in Recession, Suicides Soar,” New York Times, p. 1, 7/15/99.)
Other sources suggest that crimes previously committed with guns in Japan are now committed with knives. I read that they’ve outlawed most hunting knives and when this too failed to reduce crime they actually considered banning sharp kitchen knives too. When your only tool is a hammer…
Regarding your “no-sell” list, I agree that terrorists, the insane and violent felons belong there, though evidence suggests that in the real world enforcing even this is problematic. I don’t care for authoritarians or hate groups either, but as a moderate I suspect we might differ on who qualifies for membership :-) and suggest that sticking to objective criteria is the best course.
Glad to hear that not all leftists are in favor of disarming the law-abiding public.