For those of you who fear guns.......

LOL government is their savior. Good call

 

How many people are killed by gun shot each day?
How many people are killed by traffic accident each day?

I t

However, to ensure the mental health of the gun owners is vital important!

It's not a good idea for PEOPLE of the states to give up the authority of holding gun

 

I have just re-stumbled upon this thread. Apparently I have been here before, since the e-mail came to me. I see that accusations of being diseased are flying around. I believe that someone is diseased here. I am guessing that one major symptom of that disease involves shallow reasoning. That symptom is manifested in concluding that a significant reduction in guns or access to guns would result in a significant reduction in children killed, or in anyone killed.

In truth, we could reduce the number of crazy people walking the streets by reducing the privacy constraints on their psych caregivers and then have some impact on the safety of children, but removing one of the "tools" used by crazy people will simply cause them to use other "tools" (see Elliot Rodger). Do I recall someone extolling the murders of six in Santa Barbara? Were the three of them killed with a knife included in the sorrow? Anyone remember the Murrah Federal Building in OK City? If wholesale mayhem is needed by the crazies to accomplish their 15 minutes of fame, what can top that? Of course, if the feed store refuses to sell you enough Ammonium Nitrate for your bomb, then you can just drive your car through a school crossing and wipe out a dozen or so kids.

Would you feel better if those media were used to kill children instead of guns? (See Iraq and Afghanistan) Would you be chirping on the tree limb, happy that you had saved them from being shot? If not, then you had better spend you time formulating a plan for dealing with the real problem---mental health.

And as for Orlando Chuck, I support your right to concealed carry, however, I do not feel safer knowing that you are carrying your pistol to the soccer game. As a former police officer and prosecutor, I could have had a concealed carry permit years ago, but never wanted one. I have a little concern about 1) people who feel paranoid enough to think that they need to have a pistol handy all of the time; and 2) people who think that having one with them is all they need to be equipped to handle emergencies.

 

If there were a segment of the public crazily trying to ban cars, car owners would be suspicious of requirements of registration, even predicate to use on public roads. And vehicle use on private property can harm the public. Else why would drunken driving on private property be illegal?

- - - Updated - - -

To insure the mental health of everyone who is free in a society is vitally important!

 

Geau74--You are a former police officer and prosecutor and you look askance at the reasoning (shallow) of those of us who believe that less children would die if the there was a reduction in the number of available guns. Not every 'crazy' diabolically plans his crime (Murrah Federal Building). Some of them act out of rage, forget to take their meds, are drunk or drug crazed and seize whatever weapon is available to them and, if that weapon is a gun, death can be administered in the immediacy of the moment, from a distance or close up and someone dies, not always a child, perhaps a woman who became pregnant by a man who is now 'drunk and pissed off' and enraged...and a gun is within reach, or as in my State of Washington, a man's son has been released from a mental institution (against the wishes of his parents, one of whom he has threatened)....and there is a gun within reach...given time, this woman may have been able to get away (while the enraged or drunk nut is searching for a weapon) but no, a gun is within reach...maybe on his person...Have you ever heard of a child allowed access to a gun by an adult...the adult didn't want the child to play with gun but the child was curious...and the child shoots his sister...or himself...someone is distraught (perhaps momentarily) and a gun is within reach...I'm assuming that you watch the news, read the papers, have access to the Internet (obviously) and you know that each case of death involving guns is different...the dynamics are not always the same...but there is a common denominator .....as a former police officer and prosecutor you know what it is...the circumstances of each death by gun change...but the common denominator remains the same.....'When guns are outlawed...only outlaws will have guns'...simplistic ...what about the authorities....? You, of course, will have an answer for this post....and while you're composing that answer another child will die because someone loves a gun more than he or she loves children...reduce the number of guns and you lessen the number of people who die needlessly...common sense...reasonable...

 

another silly post. emotionalism will surely overcome thinking things through. hahahahahahahahah
what about pools, ladders, monkey bars in parks, Did you know that kids are at the highest risk factor of getting mauled by the family pet than even get close to a gun.
Man, you really have screwed up priorities
More kids are beaten to death by drugged up "step" parents than threatened by a gun???????????What the hell is wrong with you?

 

I skimmed the wall of text, and came to your overly simplistic closing sentence.

You have not taken into account the over all REDUCTION of violent crime that has taken place over the last 10 years as the number of CHL holders has exploded. Yes, we have more guns than ever, and violent crime is trending sharply downward.

The anti-gun narrative I hear over and over focuses on 'gun' crimes, and ignores all other violent crime. You cannot fairly and accurately gauge the effect of gun owners on our society without taking the OVERALL violent crime rate into account.

The undeniable truth is, our overall violent crime rate (including gun crimes) has plummeted in the last 10 years, while at the same time CHL holders and gun ownership have skyrocketed. While the drop in violent crime can probably not be solely attributed to the rise in gun ownership, the correlation cannot be ignored. At the very least it proves that 'more guns' do not mean 'more violence'.

So, is overall violent crime important to you, or only gun crimes? Because if 'gun crimes' are all you care about, then your agenda becomes clear and further rational discussion becomes impossible. If reducing the number of people who die needlessly (via ANY violent method) is important, than reducing the number of guns seems to be counter productive to that cause.

 

What is wrong with me is not your concern! I'm fine! I have lived on this earth for many years and have never had a need for a gun.

Think about this! Try hard....We can't put a 'protector' into every home where there is a stepparent. Please, just think about it...we can't do that. But we can reduce the number of guns (an issue you refuse to address) available to children. Except, I admit to this because I have thought about it....unless we reduce the number of guns (which we can do ..remember the previous lesson, do your homework...) we can't stop people of your ilk...people who love guns more than they love children. And, yes there is emotionalism in my post....because I care......this is a short paragraph...try hard to perceive the reasoning......and get some help!

 

Good point, you don't need one until you need one.

 

I get it. People with stepchildren don't have 2A rights. You assume that everyone is a ticking time bomb and you want to defuse everybody, even if it means taking away their rights. Andrea Yates didn't need a gun to kill her 5 kids. By the time her 8 year old, Noah, figured out what was happening, it was too late. She tackled him and forced him into the tub and drowned him like his brothers and sisters. Is it time to ration water?

I love my children more than life itself. At a young age, you have to babyproof everything. As they get older, you can take the plugs out of the electrical outlets. Later you can allow them access to the swimming pool. At some point, you have to let them be adults. It happens in stages and guns are a part of this as much as anything in their lives. They shoot them as well as I do and they respect the damage a gun can do. They have no curiosity. My (and their) pistols and rifles stay locked up under my control. My 18 year old can get to my shotgun in emergencies. My 12 year old only gets to shoot while supervised and my 20 year old is now in the military. (left last week) Do me a favor. Take every precaution you want to in your own home and I'll do the same, but stay away from my right to keep and bear arms. I don't want or need a nanny.

 

What emotional drivel backed up by zero fact!

Here let me be emotional back.
Think about this! Try hard....We can't put a 'protector' into every home where there is an attack by a criminal with evil intent. Please, just think about it...we can't do that. But we can increase the number of guns (an issue you refuse to address) available to law abiding citizens who could use them to do what the government cannot.....actually protect their families and themselves. Except, I admit to this because I have thought about it....unless we increase the number of guns (which we can do this ..remember history has proven this, do your homework...) We can't stop people of your ilk...people who hate guns enough to allow children and family members to die because you are so uninformed that you would abate the ability of the law abiding to posses them and increase their possession by those with evil intent. And, yes there is emotionalism in my post....because I care......this is a short paragraph...try hard to perceive the reasoning......and get some help! Let responsible law abiding citizens protect themselves. We shouldn't have to watch our children and families be raped or die because you are so short sighted.

 

Reduction in guns will not stop mass murder but in Australia we enacted strict gun laws after a particularly horrific mass shooting at Port Arthur in Tasmania. Before those gun laws we had 13 mass shootings in 16 years - almost one per year - since then, using the FBI criteria none.

 

And who is going to protect those families from the monster in their midst?

http://www.vpc.org/fact_sht/hgbanfs.htm

 

Why responsible gun owners who use firearm to prevent the deaths of their families from the monsters in their midst.


http://gunowners.org/vpc10122011.htm

LOL and that is just a partial listing....VPN just as good as good old MOJO eh hehehehehe what emotional drivel.

 

"pajamas media".???? You are taking the word of someone who cannot even spell as "analysis" of a site? In case you did not notice the article from VPC was referenced throughout whereas the other is simply opinion and poor opinion at that

 

there is a great deal of abuse of the English language in here and out there...from misspelling to improper grammar......
Some is due to lack of education, much like the gun issue. Our government has dumbed down America to such a point that children today, and even their parents cannot read or write. Such as it is with guns and education. Dumb them down enough, then you can push any agenda.
Instead of pushing the envelope of education, what we have now is a nation of weepies who don't know why they're weepy, they just are.
The answer is not to take guns away from lawful owners, but teach common sense and aid those to overcome fear and terror through education.
Our children will get their gun education through Halo or Call of Duty rather than through proper schooling. Those of us that have been raised around guns (the "older" crowd) had our curiosity satisfied by mom and dad's side. Once you remove the mystique, you remove much of the violence that is associated with any weapon.
Teach safety, not terror..............

 

Congratulations! Has that anything to do with us?

 

Please explain to us how government has "dumbed down America"? I am not sure that I noticed that.

 

no disrespect, but how old are you? knowing that would give me a basis to respond. Age is particularly important.

 

A test for Geau74---go through your post on education focusing on the words 'dumbed' and 'weepies' and then expound some more on the uneducated.

Your evaluation of Americans without the blessing of higher education assumes that those without it are idiots. Do a little research....a longshoreman named Eric Hoffer wrote books on philosophy....Ezra Meeker, once the richest man in the State of Washington and the author of several books, had less than five years of formal education. Some of the wealthiest people throughout history and into the present day...had little education.

And then, if you really want to see the error of your argument, research some of the idiots who had the good fortune to obtain higher education and, with the blessing of that education, still found the path to a jail cell. Belittling the unwashed masses when you are in need of a bath yourself, seems unwise...

 

I'm sorry, but I fail to see an answer to my question, unless it is one of those things that everyone who recognizes the intelligence of the speaker must, unfailingly, recognize.

- - - Updated - - -

Please repost when you come down.

 

don't be so offended. The reason I asked, it makes a difference.
When I was in high school, we were required to have 4 semesters of US history and government. One of those classes was in Constitution, hitched up with a course in the Founding Fathers and their views.
Today, that is merely an elective being replaced with feel good classes, such as multi-cultural affirmative actions. They are required, now, instead of studying US heritage.
Today's students are taught that emotionalism is more important that actual reasoning processes.
And I'm sure you'll only prove me right when you post your reply.

 

It has nothing to do with being offended, it has to do with not getting an answer. Now this post actually contains an answer, to which I respond as follows:

The things that you believe that you know are rather astonishing. The schools that my grandchildren attend have no curriculum such as that which you describe. I don't know where you have found that curriculum, but they cannot pass the standardized achievement tests without those courses, either when I went to school or today. And yes, I took the history courses and the government courses and taught American Government in high school forty years ago and took constitutional law in law school.

And even armed with that knowledge, I do not think that it is at all self-evident that government has dumbed down curricula or our children. I think that what has dumbed our children, or a segment of them anyway, is lack of parenting. Knowledge is available to them; some are simply not interested and lack parental motivation to take advantage of the instruction that is available. Some of us are allowing our children to be educated by their peers, by propagandists on the internet (I do not mean to suggest that pure, valuable information cannot be had via the internet, only that children hear or understand what they are conditioned to hear and there are those who would take advantage of that), or simply to remain uneducated. Others buy into the idea that they are incapable of learning and still others the self-defeating attitude that, even should they become educated, society will prevent them from succeeding.

There is much more to be said.

 

shall we start with "No Child Left Behind".....................The over-achievers tend to be "punished" for their hard work, because they no longer need to strive to hit the high point. They only need to hit the low point.

 

How many people use a firearm each day, and how many people use a vehicle each day?
Clearly, the more an object is used, the greater the statistical chance of misuse.