Guns

[OzarkWoman]

The ban on "asault" rifles is not about deaths. It is about control, no different than the anti-smoking people are not about health, but about control. In the first place, most people have no idea what a real assault rifle is and it is not most of the ones they think they are. But then, most anti-gun nuts are woefully uneducated about guns and the constitution.

[phkrause]

Of course not, only certain people are educated! Obviously!

[OzarkWoman]

Just because someone may be well educated when it comes to the Bible or say, accounting, does not make them educated about other things. How about this? Many people are quite ignorant about what a real assault rifle is and many are quite ignorant about the constitution. Does that make you feel better?

[bonnie]

Just because someone may be well educated when it comes to the Bible or say, accounting, does not make them educated about other things. How about this? Many people are quite ignorant about what a real assault rifle is and many are quite ignorant about the constitution. Does that make you feel better?

[Tom Wetmore]

This bit of misleading nonsense has gone viral, but it is simply not correct.

Article says hammers are deadlier than rifles, leaves out other guns

The intrepid bloggers at Breitbart have a super-clickable headline today, one that announces more people are killed annually by hammers than by rifles. According to the FBI's annual crime statistics, that's a true statement, believe it or not (we didn't at first). But they're not including the biggest number on the bureau's carefully itemized homicide chart. In 2011, although there were 323 counts of death-by-rifle — and 496 people killed by hammers and other blunt objects — there were 8,583 firearm-related homicides. Gun killings made up 68 percent of the homicides in 2011. Sorry, Awr Hawkins, but your remark that "We face far greater danger from individuals armed with carpenters' tools" isn't entirely accurate.

http://now.msn.com/breitbart-headline-says-hammers-are-more-deadly-than-rifles

See also - http://www.inquisitr.com/467102/hammers-deadlier-than-rifles-fbi-releases-crime-stats-for-2011/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheInquisitrNews+%28The+Inquisitr+»+News%29

[phkrause]

Does that make you feel better?

Feel better about what? That others are more educated! More educated than who?

[OzarkWoman]

Originally Posted By: OzarkWoman

Does that make you feel better?

Feel better about what? That others are more educated! More educated than who?

Sigh!!!!

[cricket]

The ban on "asault" rifles is not about deaths. It is about control, no different than the anti-smoking people are not about health, but about control. In the first place, most people have no idea what a real assault rifle is and it is not most of the ones they think they are. But then, most anti-gun nuts are woefully uneducated about guns and the constitution.

I know my comments aren't even on topic, but I just want to say that I'm against smoking solely for health reasons, not for control reasons. Sure wish my parents didn't smoke all the years I was a youngster.

Anyway, back to the regularly scheduled topic. Didn't mean to intrude.

[phkrause]

Exactly my point!

[Neil D]

It is of interest to me, that the most popular "answer" to the killing of 20 first graders in Connecticut is more guns....

There is something just wrong with that....When I am building a house, and I have 31 hammers, but nothing to cut boards with...then how the heck does getting 15 more hammers going to help build the house when I don't have saws, paint brushes, and other tools and materials to build the house?

If I build a working society, it takes more than just ONE kind of tool to fix a broken society.....So, why do I need more guns? Can't I have more clergy? Can't I have more policemen to catch the criminals? Can't I have rules to make it more difficult for crazy/nutso people to have guns let alone zip up thier fly? Yeah, I know that criminals will have guns...but I also know that regulating those guns make it difficult for mass murders to occure...

Just a thought....

[CoAspen]

A previous statement talking about uneducated people...........>>>The ban on "asault" rifles is not about deaths. It is about control, no different than the anti-smoking people are not about health, but about control.<<<.........now that is a perfect example!!!

Nothing more needs to be said.

[lazarus]

Chicago has some very strict guns laws,yet a very high homicide rate.Odd that the law isn't being obeyed.What new law would someone suggest?

I think all inner city schools should have a pistol education, gun handling and cleaning class.

[Ted Oplinger]

When it comes to murder, people will simply use whatever is closest at hand.

Cain used a big rock.

Knives, baseball bats, and hammers are far more handy in a domestic setting than firearms.

When I compare the stats of what is prevented by the responsible use of firearms, versus the politically/emotionally charged stats for gun control, giving the common man to defend his life and property from evil (as is his God-given right) wins every time.

When I see the stats of what happens every time a nation adopts a complete, or near-complete, firearms ban...giving the common man the ability of defense against evil, as a God-given right, wins every time.

The truth be told, the the gun control debate has already been won; not only has the second amendment been upheld as an individual right, not only have the real stats of responsible firearm usage upheld what is observed in the so-called backwards "red-neck" states' Castle and Conceal Carry laws, but the American people are voting with the money.

Firearms for self-defense are being bought in record numbers.

In step with this, applications for concealed carry are also in record numbers. Going through this process only impresses deeper on the participants of the legal ramifications of firearms usage...to be the last resort defense.

Also in step with this, shooting and self-defense training is markedly up.

This paints a picture of a significant and responsible part of the American population quietly arming and training to do what the government fails to do...protect society and the people...despite its mandated function and plentiful pleas to do so with "just one more law".

Ever notice that most of these massacres take place where gun control arguments prevail with the local politicians/businesses, Creating gun-free zones? Ever notice that these laws have absolutely no effect in preventing these tragedies?

The theater massacre in Colorado would have been prevented had the patrons been allowed there right of self-defense. How do I know? Because the shooter is reported to have confessed to originally have chosen another theater to commit the crime, but left when he realized the place allowed concealed carry on site.

Tells me he wanted to shoot as many defenseless people as possible.

As for the Sandy Hook Elementary...allowing teachers with concealed carry permits to defend themselves and there children would have stopped this shooter in his tracks, limiting the bloodshed greatly...if he would have walked in at all.

I don't buy the emotional argument that we are somehow to civilized a nation. The veneer of civilization is all together too thin, easily pulled away when things go south. Take away our modern conveniences and infrastructure, and the so-called "civilized" society reverts to...what again? Then there are riots and other structured anarchy events that reveal how noble we really are. (Rodney King riots, anyone? What was it those noble ones on the political left resorted to when their homes and shops were invaded? The police certainly weren't there...)

I don't buy the so-called pious argument that true Christians should never think about physical violence upon another. God enshrined our free will and the value of our being in His Word; we are further not only given permission to defend these, but have the duty to do so, for ourselves and others, so far as it is in our power.

Gun control is not about controlling guns; it is about controlling the general population of the law-abiding citizenry. Strict laws are not the determining factor in these massacres and rampant violent crime statistics - it is opportunity.

Governments won't ban hammers, clubs, and bats, because the government/criminal bullet far outreaches the swing of the arm - law-abiding or not. No fear there. But give the common man the same reach - and governments/criminals have every reason to fear the honest and law-abiding people they would prey upon.

Guns were invented for the same reason as the sword, the club, the spear, and the bow/arrow - to take human life more efficiently than someone can take your own. In America, the people have the right to use them (as well as the others listed) in their defense of home, property, and liberty. It is a shame it must be this way on this side of the resurrection, but it is very necessary.

Blessings...

[CoAspen]

So...We are going back to Old West attitude in this country! Wow, what progress!!

An armed theater, where the lights are down low, people firing guns....sounds verrrrry safe. I bet just about everyone owns a hammer, has that stopped hammer killing? Same for knives,et, etc, etc.

Quote:

As for the Sandy Hook Elementary...allowing teachers with concealed carry permits to defend themselves and there children would have stopped this shooter in his tracks, limiting the bloodshed greatly...if he would have walked in at all.

Where is the proof of that? Oh..you want to start arming and then find out if it works! Wow! Love that thought process!

Quote:

This paints a picture of a significant and responsible part of the American population quietly arming and training to do what the government fails to do...protect society and the people...despite its mandated function and plentiful pleas to do so with "just one more law".

And how was the gov suppoosed to protect against these two mass killings? What is your solution for the government? Arm everybody again?

You and others continue to ignore the facts of nations such as GB which have had far stricter gun laws than the US and it works. Don't insult my intelligence by saying they are not 'really free'!

(Like I said, going to church on Saturday and I've got my AK, don't try and stop me!)

[bonnie]

I think all inner city schools should have a pistol education, gun handling and cleaning class.

Anyone that legally purchases a gun should have this,However,you are deliberately ignoring the core cause of some that use illegal weapons to commit crimes including homicides.

If availability is the core cause of this explain why in previous decades guns were almost a staple in most farm and rural homes. I can't recall a teenage boy in my high school classes that didn't have at least one and more often two or three.Not locked away safely but up against a corner.

You could go into almost any country home and find this.Doors were not locked and there was not a rash of burglaries to steal weapons to commit crimes.

My brother lives in a still very rugged and conservative part of Wy. All have guns,in their pickups and or homes.

The availability doesn't seem to be a attraction for the nut jobs,Why.

A town in Ga has a requirement that homeowners have guns. Very low homicide and crime rate. Chicago and other cities have very strict gun laws,easy availability certainly doesn't seem to be the contributing factor in Chicago.Why is that?

[Ted Oplinger]

A typical response.

The "Old West" you decry as so primitive and barbaric saw far less crime per capita than we have today. The flashing guns and gunfights you think are the staple of that day were the exception rather than the rule. You would equate responsible citizenry with a glamorized Hollywood version of history. That always wins an intelligent point with me...

The "proof" to your first quote is found in the clarifying statements you did not quote: that the shooter walked away from a different theater precisely because that theater allowed patrons so licensed to carry on premises.

I didn't make the advocation you think I did...I merely related what happened with laws already on the books. The criminal opted for the "self-defense free" zone, to be able to shoot at leisure, rather than walk into a site where he could possibly become the target once he began shooting. At the "lack of light" didn't prevent any casualties, did it? Obviously, if there was enough light for the shooter, there would be enough light to defend against it.

Funny how logic works both ways...

As for your next quote...herein you belie your fundamental thought: you think the government should be the end-all and be-all of your peace, security, and livelihood, instead of those responsibilities resting upon yourself.

Sorry - I know of no government on earth that tasks itself with maintaining the defense of anyone's individual life and security. The government cannot...indeed, will not...protect against these kinds of mass murders, not even in the US. Court rulings have been handed down decades ago declaring the police have no absolute responsibility for crime prevention.

Everywhere it has been tried in the US, the expansion of the role of the law-abiding citizen to deter crime - through concealed carry, open carry, and castle laws - have time and again dropped violent crime in ways far more productive than Britain's gun control ever could. I still find it very coincidental that these massacres happen where firearms are already greatly restricted or outlawed - where the population has been convinced it is more noble to be a victim than to stop a criminal in their tracks.

You cite the UK policies versus the US in total...how about comparing UK's policies with the US and subtract out those crimes in areas where gun control is the strictest (aka, our "blue states and cities"). Let's compare honestly.

One city in the US passed and maintains a mandatory gun ownership policy...rather than a "Wild West" scenario occurring (as the anti-gun people so vociferously warned would happen), crime as a whole - and specifically violent crime - remains lowered by more the 80%. No wild shooting sprees are occurring - in spite of what we were promised would happen by these "noble elites" who absolutely knew better than the common man.

When concealed carry in cars was allowed in Texas some 20 years ago, we were sternly warned by the same control advocates our highways would run red with "Wild West" bloodshed. Funny thing....we're still waiting for such a scenario to occur, even with all the road rage that is so prevalent on American highways.

The cliche does hold true: a responsible and armed society is indeed a polite society. The responsible use of firearms in the hands of the law-abiding citizen is a bigger promoter of public safety than restrictive gun laws.

Chicago and Washington, D.C. - the two areas with gun laws most like the UK's policy - have a much more "Wild West" environment than do the states of Arizona (which has open carry), Utah (concealed carry), or Texas (Castle law). The stats detailing crime using firearms seem staggering, until one puts up the actual population and legal gun ownership figures and finds the these crimes are committed by an extremely small percentage of guns, and those in used in a crime are more likely than not to be illegally obtained to begin with.

Now then...you think the UK policy is great? That country where the citizen necessarily lives in fear of the criminal? Where the knife is now the primary "legal" weapon? Yet...anyone found defending themselves against a criminal is arrested and tried for criminal behavior! They MUST retreat from the presence of a criminal and allow the criminal to perpetrate his/her evil...how is that more "noble"? Evil rules the day, while the law-abiding must console themselves with thinking they have somehow maintained the moral high ground? How is that "truly free", compared to the founding American thoughts on the subject?

If questioning the net effect of UK's gun and crime policy is insulting to your intelligence...then you may consider yourself...politely insulted, as such a system UK has is quite the insult to (and a poor reflection upon) the very people who drew up the Magna Carta (limiting the power of the "nobility and aristocracy" and enshrining the rights of the common man) long before our Declaration of Independence enshrined those same rights here in America.

Blessings,

[OzarkWoman]

When it comes to murder, people will simply use whatever is closest at hand.

Cain used a big rock.

Knives, baseball bats, and hammers are far more handy in a domestic setting than firearms.

When I compare the stats of what is prevented by the responsible use of firearms, versus the politically/emotionally charged stats for gun control, giving the common man to defend his life and property from evil (as is his God-given right) wins every time.

When I see the stats of what happens every time a nation adopts a complete, or near-complete, firearms ban...giving the common man the ability of defense against evil, as a God-given right, wins every time.

The truth be told, the the gun control debate has already been won; not only has the second amendment been upheld as an individual right, not only have the real stats of responsible firearm usage upheld what is observed in the so-called backwards "red-neck" states' Castle and Conceal Carry laws, but the American people are voting with the money.

Firearms for self-defense are being bought in record numbers.

In step with this, applications for concealed carry are also in record numbers. Going through this process only impresses deeper on the participants of the legal ramifications of firearms usage...to be the last resort defense.

Also in step with this, shooting and self-defense training is markedly up.

This paints a picture of a significant and responsible part of the American population quietly arming and training to do what the government fails to do...protect society and the people...despite its mandated function and plentiful pleas to do so with "just one more law".

Ever notice that most of these massacres take place where gun control arguments prevail with the local politicians/businesses, Creating gun-free zones? Ever notice that these laws have absolutely no effect in preventing these tragedies?

The theater massacre in Colorado would have been prevented had the patrons been allowed there right of self-defense. How do I know? Because the shooter is reported to have confessed to originally have chosen another theater to commit the crime, but left when he realized the place allowed concealed carry on site.

Tells me he wanted to shoot as many defenseless people as possible.

As for the Sandy Hook Elementary...allowing teachers with concealed carry permits to defend themselves and there children would have stopped this shooter in his tracks, limiting the bloodshed greatly...if he would have walked in at all.

I don't buy the emotional argument that we are somehow to civilized a nation. The veneer of civilization is all together too thin, easily pulled away when things go south. Take away our modern conveniences and infrastructure, and the so-called "civilized" society reverts to...what again? Then there are riots and other structured anarchy events that reveal how noble we really are. (Rodney King riots, anyone? What was it those noble ones on the political left resorted to when their homes and shops were invaded? The police certainly weren't there...)

I don't buy the so-called pious argument that true Christians should never think about physical violence upon another. God enshrined our free will and the value of our being in His Word; we are further not only given permission to defend these, but have the duty to do so, for ourselves and others, so far as it is in our power.

Gun control is not about controlling guns; it is about controlling the general population of the law-abiding citizenry. Strict laws are not the determining factor in these massacres and rampant violent crime statistics - it is opportunity.

Governments won't ban hammers, clubs, and bats, because the government/criminal bullet far outreaches the swing of the arm - law-abiding or not. No fear there. But give the common man the same reach - and governments/criminals have every reason to fear the honest and law-abiding people they would prey upon.

Guns were invented for the same reason as the sword, the club, the spear, and the bow/arrow - to take human life more efficiently than someone can take your own. In America, the people have the right to use them (as well as the others listed) in their defense of home, property, and liberty. It is a shame it must be this way on this side of the resurrection, but it is very necessary.

Blessings...

[OzarkWoman]

[Guest]

The cliche does hold true: a responsible and armed society is indeed a polite society. The responsible use of firearms in the hands of the law-abiding citizen is a bigger promoter of public safety than restrictive gun laws.

That's exactly right!

[Guest]

[Neil D]

When I compare the stats of what is prevented by the responsible use of firearms, versus the politically/emotionally charged stats for gun control, giving the common man to defend his life and property from evil (as is his God-given right) wins every time.

[lazarus]

Originally Posted By: Ted Oplinger

The cliche does hold true: a responsible and armed society is indeed a polite society. The responsible use of firearms in the hands of the law-abiding citizen is a bigger promoter of public safety than restrictive gun laws.

That's exactly right!

If this true then why does the USA lead the world in criminality and have to lock up so many of its citizens.

[Gerr]

By the same logic, then we should sell nuclear technology to every country or group that wants it!

[Ted Oplinger]

Neil,

Those of us raised around guns, taught what they are and what they are for, are far more responsible with our guns when we are NOT ourselves - yet we don't go pulling guns out to commit crimes wanton during that emotional stress.. Declaring you want a 100% a person would never have a moment of "irresponsibility" before gun ownership is a fool's argument. It is neither noble or smart.

Try sincerely going through a conceal carry license course, and you will find just how accountable one becomes to continue practicing and maintain knowledge of laws, and awareness of background and surrounding, a conceal-carry person must be. Being responsible in moments of irresponsibility is part of the territory we law-abiding gun owners roam.

That is something the emotional gun grabber types will never be able to fathom.

AS for the gangs in the ghettos...their guns are mostly illegal, and if I go to such a place, they'd want to shoot me on sight anyway....but should they, a few would go down with me, as I would be definitely carrying in that environment.

To your second response quote...every time the honest, law-abiding citizen is denied the ability to defend themselves, the playing field is automatically shifted in favor of the predators of society. That is the nature of this world, Neil - force rules. Put tools and ability in the hands of the good and righteous, and force tilts in favor of the good and against the wicked and predatory. Take them out of the hands of the good and righteous, and force tilts in favor of the wicked and against good.

That is just this way the world operates, Neil, like it or not. It does so regardless of what you or I want or think is right.

Cannot help that the Australian people fell prey to that kind of propaganda campaign after the Port Arthur incident. Now with those restrictions in place, crime has risen significantly, because the criminal - who doesn't care what the law is he/she is breaking, has a significant advantage over the law-abiding citizen now. You illustrated my point perfectly, Neil. Thanks!

As for your conclusion - you conflate the issues of weapon availability with opportunity to perform such an act. According to your logic, Neil, China ought to be a paradise of peace! Yet what mass murder took place over there recently, and what did the criminal use?

As for this....

Quote:

"Gun control debate has already been won"...Tell that to the parents of the 20 first graders whose lives were snuffed out last month....Tell that to the Amendment that says that blacks are a free people within the borders of the US....Now THAT was a struggle, in that we actually fought a civil war and over 500,000 people lost thier lives over that in 4 short years...and nameless others over decades during our young republic....but we got the job done...

Tell that same thing to the parents of 22 Chinese children, snuffed out with a knife, Neil. The truth is, had any of those teachers been armed at that time - in either country, the murderer would have been taken down long before the crime reached massacre proportions.

Then, you had to bring the race thing into it. You do realize is was progressive gun control that meant to keep guns out of the hands of the "undesirables", don't you, Neil? AS a means to force them back into de facto slavery, Neil? But that Civil War was not fought by the political left against the political right to free the slaves. Hate to break it to you, but that war was the outflow of the principle penned directly into Declaration of Independence - that all men are created equal. It was the political right of the day who were abolitionists, not the political left. It was the political right which maintained the integrity of the black throughout Reconstruction, because the political right does not use terror as a weapon. Only political left movements historically have done that, Neil. And which party was it who form the KKK? Which party passed the poll tax in the South (deemed unConstitutional)? Which party passed those gun control laws, Neil? Which party blocked Civil Rights until the political right finally passed it over the objections of the political left? Which party then decided to sucker-punch the Civil Rights victory by passing the "Great Society" program, whose party's sitting president said would keep blacks voting DEMOCRAT for the next 200 years?

You on the political left did accomplish anything but bloodshed in the Civil War, Neil.

Next, you're on the "legally obtained" point. Be sure to define the "legally obtained" point clearly. One of your favorite talking points - the Sandy Hook Elementary slayings - is already well-debunked as far as that definition goes.

Lumping all mental conditions into one "crazies" categories doesn't work, either, as many with clinical depression diagnoses are completely responsible with firearms - even in their "irresponsible" moment.

Yes, there are a very small percentage of concealed gun license holders who do commit crimes - but they are in the 0.x% range. Which means you'd rather deprive the 99%+ of their God-given rights to effectively defend themselves? That is quite an unreasonable stand, Neil.

AS for your videos...these have already been thoroughly debunked by many reputable sources.

To use a conceal carry license for conceal carry carries with it the responsibility to maintain training. Continuing training..what a concept! Why should conceal-carry be any different from what goes on in most major professions to maintain one's edge in the field? And most of us treat it so, Neil. Hence, it is not my stance promoting concealed carry that is the straw man argument, but your videos...cherry picking a specific set of circumstances, then using that to answer my argument, is the essence of straw man fallacy, Neil.

The clothing used by the illustrating person (a sweatshirt to conceal) is about the last choice any of us would pick. Shall I go on?

She admits to not maintaining her training...she draws where she is isolated and easily seen drawing...the "criminal" is actively expecting someone to draw, then pinpointing her as she makes herself an easy target. None of these apply to the real life conceal carry. Propaganda is the word people use to describe this kind of stuff when they know what the facts are.

Did you hear about the young man who prevented a massacre in an Oregon mall recently by drawing - out of sight - then presenting against a man who decided to begin shooting? Bet you didn't, as it was carried by exactly...0 of the big networks you would get your news from (FOX did mention it...but you don't get your news from FOX.) The man only had to present his weapon and tell the shooter to freeze. The shooter dropped his weapon...pronto. Seems he didn't want to get shot...only do the shooting. No more shots were fired. Lives were saved. The concealed carry worked precisely as designed.

There are literally hundreds of these kinds of stories all across America every month, every one of which debunks you little video. They are cataloged of certain Second Amendment sites...yet something tells me you wouldn't care to read them, as they don't fit the meme of your world perspective.

Now, let's finish up here...

Quote:

Ok, so let me get this straight...It is the gun that kills, it's designed to kill, it's purpose is to kill...it is the cause of the deaths of these kids, and you want to bring MORE guns into this situation????? YOU WANT MORE GUNS??? And it's guns that we are arguing about...and you want more guns???? That's not a oppertunity...that a problem...

Well...how many logical fallacies can you fit into such a short quote? I see a genetic fallacy, a straw man fallacy, the false appeal to emotion, and a fallacist's fallacy...all in that one point, Neil...and they said you weren't efficient...

Yes, it is the person using the gun that kills. That can be a bad thing, if in the hands of the criminal/scoff-law, or can be a good thing, if in the hands of the good and law-abiding directed at the criminal. The gun is a tool - a very powerful tool - which can determine the fate of either the good or the evil - depending on whose hands have it.

It is an evil thing, to tie the hands of the righteous, and allow evil to roam free and unopposed. In my books, to think it is noble to allow evil to reign unchecked is a cowardice that denies the sovereignty of God over this world. Taking away the tools of self-defense from the law-abiding and leaving criminals free to prey is just that - cowardice.

Blessings...I guess...

[Ted Oplinger]

Originally Posted By: Ted Oplinger

The cliche does hold true: a responsible and armed society is indeed a polite society. The responsible use of firearms in the hands of the law-abiding citizen is a bigger promoter of public safety than restrictive gun laws.

If this true then why does the USA lead the world in criminality and have to lock up so many of its citizens.

Laz...check my quote again. Responsible and law-abiding are the caveats.

As for our prison and crime situations...you conflate the ownership of firearms (and their responsible usage) with crime. Are you calling firearm owners evil and criminal?

Our prisons are overflowing with white-collar criminals and non-violent drug possession offenders..these fit into your argument...how?

Of the minority of convicted crimes where guns are actually used...how many of those guns were legally obtained and possessed? Very few comparatively. The significant portion are illegally obtained - meaning either through theft or illegal trafficking.

Both of these amounts are a mere fraction of the millions of legally owned and responsibly used firearms in America. The millions are not involved in crimes, and indeed, prevent more crime (or stop crime in progress) more times than guns are involved in committing crimes.

If guns are bad for you...don't use them. If you are going to tie guns with crime, though...do us both a big favor: use a balanced approach. If you want to quote the stats of gun crime, fine. Be fair, though, and dig up the stats on how often guns are used by citizens to prevent crime, or stop crimes in progress. You will be surprised the huge impact the private citizen has.

Here's a hint: of all the wounding/fatality by gunshot on a criminal in the act of crime, the majority is by citizens in defense of life/loved ones. Police/government agent take most of the rest.

Take away that impact, and we'll be building a great many more prisons, and society spiral down that much faster.

Blessings